Keith DeRose thinks “those who claim to know whether God exists — whether theists or atheists — are just blowing smoke.” And yet he also thinks it is rational to take a stance on whether or not God exists.
Keith DeRose thinks “those who claim to know whether God exists — whether theists or atheists — are just blowing smoke.” And yet he also thinks it is rational to take a stance on whether or not God exists.
Socratically Speaking 
I wrote a post recently about this very article, asking the question, “Do we need to take a stance on God?” You might be interested in the replies:
http://philosophyandfiction.com/2014/09/18/calling-all-agnostics/
I think the actuality of something like determining God’s existence is quite difficult, but not impossible. The stipulations for his existence are simple definitions and stipulations, and if you are presented with stipulations that contradict one another then you have reason to find this particular version of someone’s idea of God false.
The claim to understand these stipulations is the real absurdity. Take for instance the statement “there is a parallel universe filled with teapots.” An opposing person cannot prove an argument that this is false, but there is merit to understanding that the one stating the argument could not know this information, and when dealing with chances it is highly more likely that this individual is either lying or is crazy than the possibility that this statement is true.
The arguments for God are comparable to the parallel teapot universe. People present the idea of God then claim that it is not disprovable, but fail to shed light on how they could know something that is impossible to know. And though it may be impossible to disprove some ideas, that is not, and never has been, a consistent argument for something’s truth. So it is a thought presented as truth without merit, and there is a fiasco in the attempt to disprove it.
Extending upon the idea of knowing, when people say that they believe in God, it is likely arguable that they do now even know what God is, and by extension, cannot know what it is to believe in God.
Also if the argument was Spinoza’s, then the opposition would be small from the atheistic perspective, as such is a perspective that takes into account our lack of understanding. It is not saying that you have all the answers and then struggle when trying to produce them when you realize you do not. It does not claim a perspective or intent. Basically an identical claim to there being no god.
Having said all this- apart from Spinoza’s god, God IS disprovable (as I stated in the first paragraph), in the same way that any other concept or definition is disprovable, that is assuming there is a definition. If God is just some whimsical abstraction, then there is no merit to truth in the first place. If God is say- God 4.0 as we have discussed then there is plenty to work with.
More than the traditional set of values that make up the typical God, the general modern understanding is that God is the creator, and as the median for this endeavor is for nothing, and not Lawrence Krauss’ version of nothing, to transform into something presents contradictions that cannot be overlooked.
I have an article explaining all the contradictions in detail here:
http://subjecttoreason.blogspot.com/2014/09/god-40.html
Sorry for yammering on. :0}