[rdevilla]

You will be better served investigating alternative definitions of God, such as the pantheistic god; the panentheistic god (encompassing not just the physical universe but the intellectual one as well); or simply the Aristotelian "first cause" proven (non constructively) to exist of necessity by various cosmological arguments, rooted in ex nihilo, nihil fit and rejection of infinite regress (preferring axiomatics in the Munchhausen Trilemma).

It should be noted that even the late Hitch was unable to defeat the Kalam version of the cosmological argument in debate against Dr. Craig at Biola University.

With 9 years of philosophy reading it should be trivial for you to prompt-expand this comment into its full ramifications.

[butILoveLife]

I'm agnostic, not atheist.

There can be a God, but I don't see him writing any messages in the sky. I def don't think the doctrines given to us by old men are god.

(Also, I try really hard to stay away from contemporary philosophy because most people are academia, and academia is awful. I genuinely think they are subpar, but mostly because they are indoctrinated with platonic realism and that permeates/infects them.)

[rdevilla]

You should work on your reading comprehension skills. Everything you have written is a complete non sequitur.

It's useless to copy/paste words from an LLM when you barely understand what they mean, and you are fooling nobody with your self-professed "9 years" of knowledge.

Perhaps yesterday's commenters were right, and HN should just bar all new accounts from posting entirely.

[butILoveLife]

You just mad that I already knew those ideas. I didn't even disagree. You know what the word agnostic means right?

[rdevilla]

Just go back to pouring my beers, please. I'll take a Labatt 50.