Atheists, define 'God'

[Davian]

No I didn't miss it, nor the other attempts.

So why did you say they were not 'forthcoming'?

I'm just a little puzzled why not believing in God doesn't make you intensely curious as to what a prevailing belief system like that includes. Not one of you asked what God would be like. It's the absence of the question that I think speaks volumns.

From the impression I am getting from many theists, it includes a lot of self-deception.

It's two things, the asiety (utter independence) of God and think about it. Divine attributes sounds like character qualities to me, are they visible or just manifest? Again, the question of what those 'divine attributes' would be never emerges.

You will need to provide a robust, testable definition of 'devine.' You have too many presuppositions in that sentence.

What part of 'self existing' and 'self evidence' is alluding you? This is sounding more and more like skepticism.

What part of 'a character in a book' is elluding you?

Kant was not a biologist, Kant's philosophy was metaphysics, the substantive element that transcends all reality. It's a unified theory and by far one of the most difficult philosophical studies in academics.

As you say, Kant was not a biologist. The brain is biology.

To date, physics has not been able to produce one despite a continuous effort for at least a hundred years. Einstein on his death bed was working on it and Stephen Hawkins said that the biggest disappointment for him as a scientist was the failure of science to produce a unified theory for physics.

Irrelevant.

What do I think? You dismiss Kant and then ask me what I think. Do you read Philosophy, ancient modern or otherwise? It works like this, thesis - antithesis - synthesis. In epistemology it's how do you know? Not how do you know something but how do you know anything?

Neurons huh? A man born without sense data still has neurons, synaptic nerves and every physical element necessary for form a thought. What that mind would be forming is an a priori thought, pure reason without prior sense data. The neurons process sense data, before the sense of something arises in the conscious mind it must emerge as a thought.

On what science do you base this?

That's philosophy dude, science itself is actually pure epistemology.

Indeed.

Theology on the other hand is almost pure metaphysics.

And is dismissed as such.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

If we (de-)define "God" to "self-existing and self-evident", then indeed atheism is a pretty pointless 'endeavor'. Theism on the other hand would not exist either.
But theism does exist.
Therefore, the God-concept of theism goes beyond "self-existing" and "self-evident".

And theistic epistemology? What on earth! What do you need an epistemolgy for self-existing and self-evident for?