"No, I argue that a disbelief in god(s) - opinion a. - rests upon a lack of assumed physical proof of god(s). And that this lack of proof (assuming there would be physical evidence of a metaphysical entity) leads to the conclusion c.
That is how I logically show that "non-belief in god(s)" ultimately leads to the belief that "god(s) don't exist."
The only way c. is avoided is if b. is taken out of the picture. And this is done when one acknowledges the possibility of god existing apart from physical proof. If this is acknowledged, a. does not lead to c. but only because the individual is now an Agnostic Atheist.
b. would also be rendered untrue if and only if somehow physical evidence of a metaphysical god(s) existed and was discovered, documented, tested, and proven. If this was done, then evidence for God would be shown.
However, I argue that is impossible because any physical evidence of God would eliminate the possibility of that being's divinity. It would just be an alien at that point, born in our universe or another.
The only other type of physical proof for God that could exist was if our universe was perfect (whatever that means), and it is not, therefore physical proof is non-existent.
Ergo, Atheists should either stick with a. --> b. --> c.
Or acknowledge the Theist argument that "physical proof" is pointless in determining Theism. And that physical proof does nothing to prove or disprove the existence of god(s).
If this is done, then one becomes an Agnostic Atheist. AKA retaining the disbelief in god(s), while admitting the possibility that god(s) could exist apart from any physical proof AND because it is impossible to ever know (based on proof) that god(s) do not exist."
Lets take another look at that.
It would seem that sometimes theists might not be as religious as you think they are. This particular "theist" seems to be hangin' on to his "theism" by a thread.
He doesn't even call his god "God", he calls it "god(s)", he calls it a "being", he calls it a "metaphysical entity". I doubt he prays to a god(s). It doesn't seem likely that he prays to a being or a metaphysical entity.
I think he has something a little more specific in mind. Why does he have such a difficult time telling us what religion he is?
Question for debate;
Why do Christians argue for the existence of all possible gods, past, present, future, and otherwise? Why not just the for the virgin birth, healing touch, walk on water, wine from water, genocidal, kill first born sons... etc. etc. etc. Christianity?
