are you creationist or evolutionist?

[OldTrees]

PS: If a uncreated God created something, why would it matter what such a being did before?

BUT there is no proof that God doesn't exist, so how can you validate that there is an uncreated Creator?

...or as Woody Allen said, "You cannot prove the nonexistence of God; you just have to take it on faith.” Is being an atheist as unscientific a stance as believing in God? Isn’t it more intellectually honest to be agnostic?

1) Being caused is not a necessary condition of existence.
2) There exist things that were caused.
3) There exist causes for things that were caused.
4) For each of these caused things, there was at least one uncaused cause.
5) Caused things might share uncaused causes.

Therefore any first cause of a creation is necessarily a uncreated creator. The nature (A god, A loop, Natural laws) of this/these creator(s) are unknown.

As an Agnostic, I must point out that Agnosticism does not prevent Atheism nor Theism.

[BluePriest]

@BP: Are you saying that's what you believe, or that's what you're taking from Artois's post?

Its what im getting from Artois's post.

Instead of the usual God does not need to exist because of how science can break down the world and see a path it could have taken, it seems the exact opposite is being presented that not only God, but a creator of God had to have existed. Almost like an evolution of God for lack of a better explanation.

[Belthus]

BUT there is no proof that God doesn't exist, so how can you validate that there is an uncreated Creator?

...or as Woody Allen said, "You cannot prove the nonexistence of God; you just have to take it on faith.” Is being an atheist as unscientific a stance as believing in God? Isn’t it more intellectually honest to be agnostic?

Are you agnostic about unicorns? You can't prove that they don't exist. You haven't looked everywhere in the universe. Even if you did, maybe they move around so they are in the places you aren't at the moment. Maybe they can become invisible. And so on.

There is a difference between taking a position and asserting absolute certainty. We take positions on all kinds of things everyday, and we do this at the same time as we recognize the possibility that we may be mistaken. There is no contradiction. The atheist can take a position on the nonexistence of gods and yet still recognize the possibility of error, just as he/she can be mistaken about whether the milk in the fridge has gone bad. We must drink the milk or not drink it, and the same is true of life. Take a position, yet be open to the possibility that you may be wrong.

[Artois]

Take a position, yet be open to the possibility that you may be wrong.

I believe it is impossible to make a 'leap of faith' whilst remaining open to the possibility that my faith may be wrong.

Further, whilst God requires worship and praise, in return for eternal salvation, to the best of my knowledge Unicorns don't give a damn.

[OldTrees]

Take a position, yet be open to the possibility that you may be wrong.

I believe it is impossible to make a 'leap of faith' whilst remaining open to the possibility that my faith may be wrong.

Further, whilst God requires worship and praise, in return for eternal salvation, to the best of my knowledge Unicorns don't give a damn.

I believe it is possible to believe something whilst remaining open to the possibility that my belief may be wrong. However I may be wrong.

[Artois]

Take a position, yet be open to the possibility that you may be wrong.

I believe it is impossible to make a 'leap of faith' whilst remaining open to the possibility that my faith may be wrong.

Further, whilst God requires worship and praise, in return for eternal salvation, to the best of my knowledge Unicorns don't give a damn.

I believe it is possible to believe something whilst remaining open to the possibility that my belief may be wrong. However I may be wrong.

You should try believing in an omnipotent God, whilst remaining open to doubts... she notices that kind of stuff.

[Nepycros]

Take a position, yet be open to the possibility that you may be wrong.

I believe it is impossible to make a 'leap of faith' whilst remaining open to the possibility that my faith may be wrong.

Further, whilst God requires worship and praise, in return for eternal salvation, to the best of my knowledge Unicorns don't give a damn.

I believe it is possible to believe something whilst remaining open to the possibility that my belief may be wrong. However I may be wrong.

You should try believing in an omnipotent God, whilst remaining open to doubts... she notices that kind of stuff.

Then I should worship my wife?

[OldTrees]

Take a position, yet be open to the possibility that you may be wrong.

I believe it is impossible to make a 'leap of faith' whilst remaining open to the possibility that my faith may be wrong.

Further, whilst God requires worship and praise, in return for eternal salvation, to the best of my knowledge Unicorns don't give a damn.

I believe it is possible to believe something whilst remaining open to the possibility that my belief may be wrong. However I may be wrong.

You should try believing in an omnipotent God, whilst remaining open to doubts... she notices that kind of stuff.

Indeed. Most doctrine considers lack of being open to your own potential fallibility to be hubris. Most doctrine claims a hubris hating god.
If Theists can do it and Agnostic Theists can do it, where is the problem?

[Belthus]

I believe it is impossible to make a 'leap of faith' whilst remaining open to the possibility that my faith may be wrong.

Further, whilst God requires worship and praise, in return for eternal salvation, to the best of my knowledge Unicorns don't give a damn.

I bring up unicorns and possibly spoiled milk to show that uncertainty is not unique to the question of gods. We move through life and act on uncertain knowledge all the time. So what is the point of agnosticism? Why is it more "intellectually honest"? It's just fence-sitting - which is fine if you really have no clue as to which position makes more sense to you. But if you do have a clue, you can take a position without claiming absolute certainty. If people can be wrong about spoiled milk and realize that, they will (or at least should) admit fallibility on larger issues.

[maverixk]

Just thought I'd add this in here; Do not confuse doubt or openness with disbelief.

[Artois]

For example, I'd like you to explain how this statement reflects openess or doubts?

Where did God come from?

God always has and always will be in existence, has no beginning or end.

I think you will find that faith is absolute, and God rewards absolute faith.
____________________________________________________________

A further point: if God didn't create the world then it would be different, therefore because it is not different God made it.

[OldTrees]

For example, I'd like you to explain how this statement reflects openess or doubts?

Where did God come from?

God always has and always will be in existence, has no beginning or end.

I think you will find that faith is absolute, and God rewards absolute faith.
____________________________________________________________

I have not witnessed God rewarding or punishing. Also please note the difference between noting you can be wrong and disbelief. BP has confirmed he does not disbelief but does recognize that he can be wrong.

A further point: if God didn't create the world then it would be different, therefore because it is not different God made it.

What?
Please provide your logic (in standard format please). This appears to assume the conclusion to support the conclusion.