“@ThisIsJoshSmith: @Lori7897 By default, one is born an atheist until essentially the very first moment one becomes aware of the concept of a deity.”
“@ThisIsJoshSmith: @Lori7897 As soon as they become aware of the concept of a deity for the first time, they immediately become agnosticist.”
Well. That’s not accurate.
Not if the claims about the deity presented to us don’t reflect reality.
You can refute claims about god(s) with the evidence to hand.
The only (and I mean only) evidence you’d have trouble with is the idea of special revelation, now you can refute this easily with neurobiochemistry and psychology but the victims in question have an unfounded faith in courtroom types of evidence rather than the much more rigorous standards of scientific evidence.
But I digress.
You can take any claim about gods and test the evidence. Every time you do, the claim does not withstand the test or scrutiny.
Now in the example at the top we may be being asked to consider, not claims about a deity, but just the concept of a deity. On the face of it this is something noumenal, untestable, unfalsifiable, and possibly internally logically consistent.
But you are not answering any fundamental questions about our universe by positing a deity, a beginner, a being outside spacetime.. You are just unnecessarily adding an unfounded extra step to the universe. Everything you could say about this hypothesised deity in its vaguest form can be stated about the universe. So it makes no sense to invoke the idea of a deity
because it isn’t founded in any type of reason.