Strongest Explicit Atheism “positive” / “strong” / “hard” atheists similar to Antitheist Atheism?

I am so out about my disbelief as I support reality and not because I feel better than a believer in supernatural things, gods or religions. Actually, I too once was the same until somewhat late in my life. In fact, I did not stop being this way until I was 36. I am so open now with good belief etiquette focusing on reasoned belief acquisitions, good belief maintenance, as well as honest belief relinquishment and challenging not out of hate or loathing, but out of deep compassion and understanding. This care wishes to save the indoctrinated victims of magical thinking falsehoods. I wish then self-esteem, self-ownership, self-leadership, self-efficiency, self-empowerment, self-love and self-mastery all of which can and in some way, are undermined by God’s and Religions; which either directly attack/challenge or subvert in some lesser realized way. Science is an intellectual endeavor to search for that which is accurate to the way the world is while religion is still desperately relying on fantasy stories and about what the world is not full of many inconsistencies as well as glaring inaccuracies in relation to true reality, thus religion is an unintellectual endeavor forcing a non-accurate/non-truth “faith” over “valid and reliable reason and evidence” so a blind searching to not understand the accurate to the way the world actually is in reality. This is likely because religions are not “real truth” searching endeavors and beyond all the other negative things, on the whole religions and their make-believe are but conspiracies theories of reality not worth believing in. Did you know Moses write nor asked for the writing of the Torah, the first five books Jewish holy book (the old testament)? Well, Moses didn’t, and neither did Jesus write nor asked for the writing of anything not one word in the Bible, just like how Mohammed did not write nor asked for the writing of the Quran: holy book of Islam. Do you see a theme? Well, here you go, because neither did Lao-Tzu write nor asked for the writing of the Tao Te Ching, the holy book of Taoism, and guess what neither did Gautama Buddha (the first Buddha) write nor asked for the writing of a book in Buddhism. And what do you know just like all the rest neither did nor guru Nanak write nor asked for the writing of Guru Gobind Singh the holy book in Sikhism? Funny isn’t it how almost all of the world’s religions share the same facts that the claimed holy teacher never wrote their holy book and for that matter are not even sure if they are historical or made up. But please don’t say they were not fake or that we don’t know the truth about them. Ha, ha, ha, please, I feel safe in my anti-religionism, thank you very much. I am a reality revolutionary fighting hard to defend reality as it actually is in a world working hard to do the opposite. To offer that which is not true to reality is to offer a conspiracy theory about it, including the beliefs of ghosts, gods, and religions. Believe me wrong prove it with valid and reliable reason and evidence or I don’t believe you nor would anyone have good reason to either including your self if you are an honest thinker. I don’t really have trust it is just from experience I know many beliefs people like holding are not worth believing in and full of shit. Why do most religious people claim to have religious or spiritual experiences is they add make-believe to “reality.” And the general “WHY” people profess to have religious or spiritual experiences is because we are emotional beings, that while we can employ the thinking strategy of rationalism over faith or unreason/illogical beliefs, we still often seem to prefer to follow emotional driven thinking or simply learn to appeal to emotionalism. Things are not the other way around as we are not rational beings who understand the world accurately by employing the logical thinking strategies and not thinking clouded emotionalism needed to replace faith or unreason/illogical beliefs that follow such thinking, right? We are all emotional and thus will experience emotional wonder. This common experience of things like emotional wonder or awe is just a positive emotional hijacking, as the experience of joy, but that is just the joy of being alive, it’s wholly cheapened to me by fantasy daydreaming delusions (supernatural) to this beautiful magic devoid reality. To me, rationalistic thinkers of intellectual character engaging in a thoughtful critical challenge, and thus should strive to disagree, debate, dispute, debunk, and degrade harmful unjustified beliefs (such as pseudo-science, pseudo-history, and or pseudo-morality the stuff religions love to promote) and not the swindled or reality deluded believer. However, I understand how we treat others matters even as an atheist dealing with theists. When I get angry or frustrated, I strive to have understanding and patience. When I get to where I think I will say something hurtful, so I strive, to say it a better way if possible, as I want to help not hurt. So, I wish to something not often offered to me; I wish to be kind, compassionate, and thoughtful as much as I can, as often as I can because how we treat others matters. Therefore, even as an out firebrand atheist I do respect people, I do not respect religion. I believe in people; I do not believe in religion. Tolerance has its limits for it will not stand for blind ignorance and the intolerance of bigotry, and it’s connected injustice cross that line first. I will NOT tolerate the unjust intolerance of oppression and harm. Because I want to live a value-driven life to promote kindness and human flourishing as an axiological atheist not just the call for reason in thinking but also thinking in behaviors as well. Simply how we treat others reflects on us just like how we make others feel about themselves tells a lot about our chosen character. Thus how we choose to treat others, respond or react to others, will often identify the kind of person we are striving to be. I wish to be a person of value. I am 100 % sure not you nor anyone can honestly justify their claim of knowing even the concept of gods, if one like me simply demands a valid and reliable ontology of the term god. I see no honesty is saying that god anything as not one person can truly even say what it is and defiantly can offer no valid justification for the thinking either the concept of gods is a thinking error period. You have no ontology of god as you have not validated the term to mean anything but myths or confusions. Provide a support to even claim what a god could or could not be then validated hoe you know this and why it is valid and reasonable or as I already know, no one honestly can they must intellectually lie or be so under confusion they can’t think clear to do so. What is this god whatever you are supposedly agnostic about? if you don’t know then you don’t have something to doubt rather you are holding open a thinking error possibility from some myth others invented without reason as if it was reason. The concept of gods begins with a faulty presupposition of an unsound thinker who has failed to demand justification an simply accepts the absurd. May the actions of my life be written deep with the poetry of my humanity. I have one big goal in life, I just want to make the world kinder. I am intelligent enough that I see I must be open to learn from everyone around me. I don’t try to compare people, Instead, I compare ideas. I am willing to have anyone teach me something and I hope I am always so wise. Some wish for empirical proof of some god. I say no start at what is god and how is it that you are claiming to know anything about it with a sound justification. I say empirical proof of what, when you cannot justify what the term god should contain? Start by justifying there is anything in the term god other than simply a three letter noise. Theists love their faith so much they unjustifiably appealed to the term god as if its attributes were a given, well they are not and to claim they are is uninformed, intellectually dishonest or confused. Actually, I know there is no theist that has done anything but start with something unjustified “the god claim” empty of worth to begin with, then take said unjustified claim to add something to this unjustifiably defined god term and then assert this willful theist with its myth and superstition driven attributes that not one of them are justified to be packed into the term god seems a kind of mental masturbation inventing unjustified attributes drunk on some wishful thinking hijacking, may simply be confused/uninformed, not truly thinking just willfully believing or outright intellectually dishonest. God talk is unjustified until you can demonstrate that you can know anything even belongs in the term with valid and reliable reason and justification. What is a god is the first burden of proof that is required. Some wish for empirical proof of some god. I say no start at what is god and how is it that you are claiming to know anything about it with a sound justification. I say empirical proof of what, when you cannot justify what the term god should contain? Start by justifying there is anything in the term god other than simply a three letter noise. Theists love their faith so much they unjustifiably appealed to the term god as if its attributes were a given, well they are not and to claim they are is uninformed, intellectually dishonest or confused. Actually, I know there is no theist that has done anything but start with something unjustified “the god claim” empty of worth to begin with, then take said unjustified claim to add something to this unjustifiably defined god term and then assert this willful theist with its myth and superstition driven attributes that not one of them are justified to be packed into the term god seems a kind of mental masturbation inventing unjustified attributes drunk on some wishful thinking hijacking, may simply be confused/uninformed, not truly thinking just willfully believing or outright intellectually dishonest. God talk is unjustified until you can demonstrate that you can know anything even belongs in the term with valid and reliable reason and justification. What is a god is the first burden of proof that is required. You say some wish for empirical proof. I say no start at what is god and how is it that you are claiming to know anything about it with a sound justification. I say empirical proof of what, when you cannot justify what the term god should contain? Start by justifying there is anything in the term god other than simply a three letter noise. Theists love their faith so much they unjustifiably appealed to the term god as if its attributes were a given, well they are not and to claim they are is uninformed, intellectually dishonest or confused. It is not intellectually honest to support that that lacks a sound justification. So there is no way a theist or agnostic can honestly assess to know, it’s like you saying you without looking can affirm what is in box A compared to box B. You nor anyone can honestly know anything get it the god term (asserted unknown box you have not looked inside, nor an you: thus you cannot claim anything is inside the hypothetical available posable attributes) you and others see as something is an unjustified list of things added without justification thus you don’t know nor can anyone justify claim knowing what should be added removed fro a possible god term, not one, one attribute, nothing… and each peace anyone wishes to add must be justified. All terms are empty of reality anything unless justified, there is nothing to add to justify the term god after doing so I will create a justifiably offered concept of a god something. What else do you have as a justification if you are a theist or an agnostic available something to assert? I am all ears? It is nothing that I have to know other than the term god is offered without justifying anything in the term deserves to be in the term. Is god, hod fod, nod, who knows its just letters put together, is this unknown whatever a woman, man, tansgender, or intersex? Is god pink, black collarless? All claims to everything or anything and there is no such valid confirmation for anything wished to be added in the term god must be proven to intellectually claim to know them. No such thing has ever happened or could thus there is no justified thing called god, period. So, are an ignostic now and agree no one can justifiably claim to know anything about the term god but myth terms or descriptions? I don’t start with debunking the offered term god instead I wish to show the absurdity of claiming the term god has anything of value. I begin with an argument of presumptive value, prove the accurate values for anything you wish to define the term god I assert until this is done the term god and all connected ideas that appeal to the god terms meaning which had not even justifiably been defined. You can’t get any church to 100% agree on what a fod/god is or how they think or behave because there is no valid ontology to begin with before everyone gets to do that, not even one of all the famous theistic apologetics nor any reported theist in history at all are the same no it’s a shit show with ideas all over the place, all are a little different you know like myths.

 

Theological noncognitivism is the argument that religious language – specifically, words such as “god” – are not cognitively meaningful. It is sometimes considered as synonymous with ignosticism. 1
 
I see Theological noncognitivism as a kind of duel attack a semantic/logical and a reasoned psychological that the mind must be able to conceptualize.
 
I see Ignosticism as using the Theological noncognitivism arguments of “mind understanding issues” (rationalism challenging) and an evidentialist/verificationist arguments of “lacking evidence issues” (empiricism challenging).
 
Ignosticism or igtheism is the idea that every theological position assumes too much about the concept of god and other theological concepts; including (but not limited to) concepts of faith, spirituality, heaven, hell, afterlife, damnation, salvation, sin and the soul. Moreover, Ignosticism is the view that any religious term or theological concept presented must be accompanied by a coherent definition. Without a clear definition such terms cannot be meaningfully discussed. Such terms or concepts must also be falsifiable. Lacking this, an ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the existence or nature of the terms presented (and all matters of debate) is meaningless. For example, if the term “god” does not refer to anything reasonably defined then there is no conceivable method to test against the existence of god. Therefore, the term “god” has no literal significance and need not be debated or discussed. Ignosticism and theological noncognitivism are similar although whereas the ignostic says “every theological position assumes too much about the concept of god”, the theological noncognitivist claims to have no concept whatever to label as “a concept of god”, but the relationship of ignosticism to other nontheistic views is less clear. 1

Consider the proposition of the existence of a “pink unicorn”. When asserting the proposition, one can use attributes to at least describe the concept such a cohesive idea is transferred in language. With no knowledge of “pink unicorn”, it can be described minimally with the attributes “pink”, “horse”, and “horn”. Only then can the proposition be accepted or rejected. The acceptance or rejection of the proposition is distinct from the concept. 1

“Damien, I had a difficult time believing in God or any type because it seems unlikely that one supreme being could control everything yet allow hate, war, misery, suffering, and pain to hurt everyone on earth.” – Messanger

My response, well to hold the thinking that it is unlikely that one supreme being could control everything yet allow hate, war, misery, suffering, and pain to hurt everyone on earth. is actually an axiological atheism argument or moral argument against god(s).


No god Claims have Justification, Challenge?

“Damien, (responding to me saying no god claims have justification) there are problems thinking everything you believe needs a justification.” – Challenger

My response, so, are you saying something can be claimed as real but have no warrant to justify why one should agree or even entertain it?

“The idea that Induction is reliable can be claimed and seems like an important assumption, but arguments for it are fallacious. There are similar issues with thinking an external world exists.” – Challenger

My response, ok, and how do we discern any of it, if nothing has a need for justification? Because to me, I see you’re saying something is fallacious as asserting a justification stance and thus, is similar to what I think, which is valid, that there is a rationalistic need for justification. You are telling me I am wrong and that needs a justification, just as me showing your thinking wrong took a justification. If not then tell me how I am wrong utilizing no justification at all. So, try to prove me wrong because even if you do you will have provided a justification so then further proving my assertion of the need for justification.

“You are missing part of the conversation. Can you prove every belief needs a justification? Let’s say every belief needs a justification. Then you have to argue for every premise of every argument. That requires infinite arguments. What exactly is your argument that all beliefs require a justification?  I am not challenging the importance of justification. I am challenging the idea that every belief has to have a justification. The example above is induction. Hume showed why arguments for induction will be fallacious. I did not just make the claim. Go ahead and prove induction is reliable if you can. It would revolutionize philosophy. In response to >>sure you can believe all kinds of things with no justification at all but we can’t claim them as true not wish others to actually agree unless something is somehow and or in some way justified. I already said every challenged claim in a debate has to be argued for. Every claim has a burden of proof anyway. Most beliefs that do not require justification are things basically everyone already agrees with. But if you debate someone who rejects the existence of an external world or the reliability of induction, you can’t prove that they have to agree as far as I can tell. In response to >>When is something true that has no justification? Lots of things are true and we don’t know they are true. To claim to know something is true is another issue. But maybe we know induction is reliable. Maybe we know there is an external world. If so, it’s not clear how we know those things. I already mentioned induction above and you never talked about it.” – Challenger

My response, “Sure, there can be many things that may be true but actually receiving rational agreement that they are intact true needs justification.”

“Right, I think we might have talked past one another a bit. I don’t expect agreement without a good argument.” – Challenger

My response, so you, like me want a justification?

Of course, it is a very important thing to me in general.” – Challenger


Agnosticism No Thanks, I am Ignostic

Is it correct to hold a belief that theists, such as Christians actually have a concept of something nonexistent labeled “GOD”, just like we all have a concept of something nonexistent labeled “unicorns”?

Do they really have any reality tangible concept to label “the god concept” because without it are not beliefs about “the god concept” reality intangible? A concept of something nonexistent labeled “GOD”, is not tangible and is incapable of being perceived as something in or of reality. It is an unknowable reality intangible unfounded speculation, not a known concept.

Such as, can we not form a somewhat reality tangible concept to label “the unicorn concept,” for we can conceive of a horse and a singular horn in order to intelligibly have a unicorn concept. Can we not generate a mental picture of a concept that fits the label unicorn, but one cannot really close their eyes and conjure up any concept of anything labeled “GOD” even though no one has any more reason to believe in unicorns then gods.

I do reject that the god label has any meaning in reality and that any effort given to a god concept is still nothing but lies made up claiming to know or give believed qualities and it is that which I am rejecting as an atheist. But when asked if I believe an offered deity such as Allah to me I am a ignostic atheist (I reject the god label as expressing anything real and also reject the belief of any god concept connecting to anything real).

I don’t believe that the label “God” refers to anything imaginable. That doesn’t mean I don’t also reject the claim offered thus am Atheist as well. You are saying I must choose and I am saying I don’t think I have to. If you ask is god an intelligible thing no. Do I believe the claims given to it? No. Thus, to me, I can be both, hold in myself the stance it (all god claims) is meaningless (lack any coherent offering linking reality to the term labeled gods) therefore, reason would seem to require an honest thinker to profess “Ignostic Thinking” (whether or not they know what the term labeled “Ignostic” even is) and reject their claim of a god so am an atheist. Furthermore religionists personally in most of my personal experience whether it is Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc., none really or truly understand much of what they like to talk about as if it’s fact magic that is not yet once even proven in a small way thus them asking other to somehow take serious their big magic claims is not even require much consideration at all as its self debunking with no valid and reliable ontology to find or offer thus such claims as gods something offered with evidence of nothing are not really believable in a real way and are instead believed in a psychological way and it is this psychological battle that we must address as the so-called believers are just self-lying and in a real way also do not really believe in a god at all as no one can, as there is no way to actually believe in an undefinable in reality, unknown from reality, and nonpositional to reality as the opposite is required to know something, therefore this only believe that they believe that the label “God” refers to something imaginable but god is like a square circle statable in words even understandable as separate pieces but impossible by design when added together. So we much over come the psychological certain belief that is not a normal reality belief, it is instead a psychological blind acceptance of the pseudo-reality thinking that is needed to formulate or accept a god (big magic claim or actually often a set of magic nonreality/pseudo-reality claim/claims) as if it was even more real than the actual reality (“faith-ism” or fideism).


“Damien, as a philosophical position, agnosticism is the only honest position……. but it fails when presented with physical evidence.. and so it is the middle way…” – Challenger
 
My response, what is a god to doubt? I don’t start my disbelief on the dilutions of god claims I assess are these claims warranted they are not so nothing to doubt so agnosticism starts with a presupposition of the term god to say they are unsure about this to me making a thinking error as there is no presupposition god term to reality. I stand with ignosticism, roughly that the term god is given to much leeway as a valid offering of a possible real thing when no god claim if limited to only reality coherent attributes all add nonsense like supernatural things one of which at its simplest a being or at least a thinking thing with no physical mind but can think, an invisible thing and of courses an immaterial thing such as the no physical body in any way. And there we see the problem with accepting any god claim as even reality coherent as it is not. All claims must be coherent with or correspond to reality and just like many theological nonsense terms such as the soul. I don’t know what people are talking about when they say the term “soul” (it’s a made-up concept which connects to nothing that is reality coherent) as there is no part of the body exhibits as such magic thinking idea, soul, thus a debunked claim and does not need doubt. Similarly, I don’t know what people are talking about when they say the term “god” (it’s a made-up concept which connects to nothing that is reality coherent) as there is no part of the body exhibits as such magic thinking idea, god, thus a debunked claim and does not need doubt.
 
Kurtz, New Skepticism, 220: “Ignosticism or igtheism, finds the belief in a metaphysical, transcendent being basically incoherent and unintelligible.”
 
“Ignosticism or igtheism is the idea that every theological position assumes too much about the concept of God and other theological concepts; including (but not limited to) concepts of faith, spirituality, heaven, hell, afterlife, damnation, salvation, sin and the soul. Ignosticism is the view that any religious term or theological concept presented must be accompanied by a coherent definition. Without a clear definition such terms cannot be meaningfully discussed. Such terms or concepts must also be falsifiable. Lacking this, an ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the existence or nature of the terms presented (and all matters of debate) is meaningless. For example, if the term “God” does not refer to anything reasonably defined then there is no conceivable method to test against the existence of god. Therefore, the term “God” has no literal significance and need not be debated or discussed.” Ref

Theological noncognitivism atheism:  theological noncognitivism atheists – holds that the statement “god exists” does not express a proposition, but is nonsensical or cognitively meaningless. A theological noncognitivist atheist claims “god” does not refer to anything that exists, “god” does not refer to anything that does not exist, “god” does not refer to something that may or may not exist, and “god” has no literal significance, just as “Fod” has no literal significance. The term God was chosen for this example, obviously, any theological term [such as “Yahweh” and “Allah”] that is not falsifiable is subject to scrutiny. Many people who label themselves “theological noncognitivists” claim that all alleged definitions for the term “God” are circular, for instance, “God is that which caused everything but God”, defines “God” in terms of “God”. They also claim that in Anselm’s definition “God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived”, that the pronoun “which” refers back to “God” rendering it circular as well. Others who label themselves “theological noncognitivists” argue in different ways, depending on what one considers the “theory of meaning” to be. Michael Martin, writing from a verificationist perspective, concludes that religious language is meaningless because it is not verifiable. 1

Ignostic atheism: ignosticism is similar to agnosticism, but where agnosticism is the claim that you can’t know something (god), ignosticism is the claim that, if the definition of something (god) is incoherent, then it can’t be meaningfully discussed, and if the definition of something (god) is unfalsifiable, then it has no meaning. Ignosticism or igtheism is the idea that every theological position assumes too much about the concept of God and other theological concepts. Ignosticism could possibly be one of the best argument against god concepts ever as it sees all efforts surrounding existence of a God concept semantically twisting the definition of God to mean that which is incomprehensible. If God is incoherent then the experiences believers attribute to God are by extension unintelligible and therefore meaningless. In which case you void any and all purported experiences of God because you couldn’t comprehend them. Ignostic atheism holds two interrelated views about to reject all God concepts. They are as follows: 1) The view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of god can be meaningfully discussed. 2) If the definition provided is unfalsifiable, the Ignostic atheist takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of a God concept is rendered meaningless thus must stay refuted. As with any topic, and especially in the realm of the supernatural and woo, the subject of any debate should be coherently defined. If one offers a clear definition of an entity, then in order to take a position whether it exists or not the definition of the entity must be one in which its existence can be falsified (there is a rational and logical method by which we can test the existence of the subject as it has been defined). Few theists ever offer a clear definition of God. The few who do offer a definition almost never offer one in which the existence of that God could be tested. The rare falsifiable definition offered regarding God’s existence is easily falsified. And so as with any subject (such as the existence of almost all supernatural entities) debate about the existence of God is, for the far majority of such conversations, pointless. 1 2 3

Noncognitivism atheism: is the position that religious language — and specifically religious terms like “god” — are not (cognitively) meaningful. Noncognitivism atheism argues that religious language is not meaningful because its empirical claims cannot be verified, even in theory. Likewise, they further think there are no positive attributes that can be ascribed to entities like “god,” and entities without attributes are meaningless.This means that noncognitivism denies the essential meaningfulness of religious language, religious arguments, and religious apologetics. If they aren’t meaningful, then they can’t be either true or false and believing them to be true is pointless. 1

Evidential atheism: thinks that whether or not to believe in a divine being is epistemically acceptable will be determined by the evidence. I intend to treat “evidence” in a broad sense including a priori arguments, arguments to the best explanation, inductive and empirical reasons, as well as deductive and conceptual premises. (Also note that one could be an evidentialist theist.) The evidentialist theist and the evidentialist atheist may have a number of general epistemological principles concerning evidence, arguments, an implication in common, but then disagree about what the evidence is, how it should be understood, and what it implies. They may disagree, for instance, about whether the values of the physical constants and laws in nature constitute evidence for intentional fine tuning, but agree that whether God exists is a matter that can be explored empirically. 1

Non-evidential atheism: goes beyond a limitation in common atheism which likely is using evidentialist theory of knowledge which is any theory of knowledge that says that having evidence for a thing is necessary for knowing that thing. A non-evidentialist theory of knowledge denies this most commonly offering instead two additional non-evidentialist theories of knowledge: the causal theory, and reliabilism. Even if a belief lacks a credible rational it is not automatically irrational it may simply be utilizing a less supported or even wishful idealism stance that may even be somewhat flawed and yet still not irrational which is to be without the faculty of reason or deprived of reason. According to the Causal Theory of Knowledge, the difference between a true belief that isn’t knowledge and a true belief that is amounts to the following: if a true belief that P is knowledge, then it is causally connected to the fact that P. The simplest sort of causal connection would be direct: one where the fact that P is the cause of a subject’s belief that P. Causal connections can also be indirect: perhaps the fact that P causes the fact that Q which causes the subject to believe that P. It allow that you can know P if P is “logically related” to a fact that is causally connected to your believing P. According to the Reliabilism theory of Knowledge, which holds that the difference between mere true belief on the one hand and knowledge on the other is that the latter is formed via a reliable process:  Reliabilism S knows that P if and only if S’s true belief that P was caused by a reliable process. What is a “reliable process”? Well, think of an analogy. A reliable car is one that generally works when you want it to. What “work” do we want our belief-forming processes to do? We want them to form true beliefs. So a reliable belief-forming process is one that generally leads to true beliefs. Reliabilism says that knowledge is true belief that was formed by a process that can generally be relied on to form true beliefs. As long as perception, memory, testimony, and reasoning are reliable in this sense, they can give us knowledge. If the processes of reasoning that lead us to form inductive generalizations (like “All men are mortal”) are reliable, then according to RT, they can lead us to knowledge. 1

Experiential atheism: The second type of argument commonly advanced against the doctrine of divine omniscience attributed to a god something, which is the problem of experiential knowledge. This is that there appear to be certain kinds of knowledge that can only be acquired by having certain kinds of experiences. The Problem of Experiential Knowledge: (1) There are some items of knowledge that can only be acquired through experience. (2) Some of the experiences through which items of knowledge that can only be acquired through experience are acquired are such that they cannot be had by a god something. (3) If some of the experiences through which items of knowledge that can only be acquired through experience are acquired are such that they cannot be had by a god something, then there are some items of knowledge that cannot be acquired by a god. Therefore: (4) There are some items of knowledge that cannot be acquired by a god something. (5) If there are some items of knowledge that cannot be acquired by a god something then it is not the case that a god something is omniscient. Therefore: (6) It is not the case that a god something is omniscient. 1