Ask an agnostic...

[CartesianFart]

Fred said everything that I'm thinkin and wishin I could be sayin but is too not good what at readin and writin to artickulate with any good amountsa precision.

Yeah,i second to that.

Kinda funny that someone keeps insisting with the same argument time after time.No chance of change.Like a stale cracker.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Atheist: "I find the concept of God so absurd I dismiss it as erroneous"

And I have a problem with this. God may or may not exist, and He/She/It/They may or may not take a form that we can or do understand, but I see nothing inherently absurd about it. Just as I see nothing absurd about the idea that the earth is flat; it just happens to be contradicted by evidence, is all. The universe is weird enough to allow for all sorts of things.

 

[Gogf]

I agree with Fred. To be honest, I really don't understand the motivation behind agnosticism. We don't say we're agnostic about whethere there is an invisible unicorn in the room. There's no evidence that it's not there, but there's also no evidence that it is there.

It's very difficult to disprove the existence of something, but that doesn't mean we should assume it exists. As it is, there is no evidence for God's existence. That, in and of itself, should be enough to convince those who do not have religious faith that God does not exist.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

I'm a little late to this thread, but isn't asking an agnostic about it kind of like saying "ask someone who doesn't know much about religion or spirituality and isn't trying to find out more"?

 

[CartesianFart]

I'm a little late to this thread, but isn't asking an agnostic about it kind of like saying "ask someone who doesn't know much about religion or spirituality and isn't trying to find out more"?

I think that this proposition is more closely akin to an athiest.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

I think that this proposition is more closely akin to an athiest.

Okay, replace "doesn't know much about" with "is apathetic towards" and my question stands.

 

[Sidhe]

Well, to encounter it, you probably only need to take probability and statistics 101 or something. Let x be a uniform continuous variable between 0 and 1, and the probability of x = 2/3 is 0, but yet it can happen. If you don't mind a little more math, then you can consider null sets in measure theory, basically (not neccesarily empty) sets that accumulates to 0 area/volume/measure.

personally a better analogy to maths would be x^2+1=0 otherwise known as i(or the square route of -1, I'd say belief in God is i and atheism in the strong sense is -i, technically there both imaginary numbers and the solution to the above equation, and technically they are both consistent within a framework, however there is nothing rational real or existant about imaginary numbers, no matter how usefull they might be.

I think that this proposition is more closely akin to an athiest.

Okay, replace "doesn't know much about" with "is apathetic towards" and my question stands.

Comes under apathetic agnosticism or ignosticism too. The belief that there is no rational reason in the argument of existance of God nor need to find an answer.

 

[ThePhysicist]

Oh my God (forgive the pun). Come on now! This is why atheists annoy me! Straw man arguments against christianity, repeating dysfunctional analogies! Please!

Let's examine again the attempt to disprove God.

Ok, so we want to disprove God. In general, disproving anything is difficult. One can always add "epicycles" to a theory to make it stand up to new observations or tests. Essentially, we have two tools in our arsenal- we can attempt to create a contradiction between evidence and the theory or we can use occums razor. Either of those could potentially give us a logically justifiable disproof of God.

Let's try option number one. What evidence can we use? Well, we could bring out all kinds of things, from sciences contradicting biblical claims to the very pyscology of where humans get the concept. The thing is, ultimately none of these succede in doing anything but ruling out specific Gods. The theist could counter by adjusting his definition of God and will always be able to find some description that survives any test. So this option fails.

But hah! Little does the theist know of our other weapon, occum's razor. We have led him into our trap. Surely, if the original concept of God was not silly enough to be hacked off, it must be now, as God's definition has been tweaked and complicated to fit observations. So, we shall attempt it. But it seems we have another problem. Occum's razor doesn't seem to work. First of all, occum's razor is used to differentiate between theories. We have no other complete theory of the universe to compare the theist's claim with. And second, there is no way to objectively define absurdity. How do we know which is more silly, a universe created by God or one that can stand upon it's own self? We can't, because we know only our own universe (and I daresay our grasp of it is pretty poor, atleast right now) and have nothing to compare. It seems we're stuck.

But of course, the theist has nothing to support his claims either (atleast none that are objective or verifiable), so no need to surrender. But our objective cannot be completed and we have to withdraw.

Almost every single argument I've heard from atheists can be generalized to fit into one of the two above attempts. All the analogies, the "invisible whatever" arguments, the claims of absurdity. They all make use of the same logical process, one that doesn't work in this special case. Normally it would. You can use both of those tools on essentially anything and get the result you want. They are both absolutely key to science. But they fail here. It's not surprising that people would rely on them for disproofs of God as they work so well in seemingly comparable situations. It seems almost counter intuitive that they don't work. But against God, even these mighty weapons are useless. We are left without even a probablilty.*

Of course, there's Perfection and his argument for scientific completeness through induction, which would give us a way to use occum's razor. But I dispute it based on other inductive arguments. If someone wants to continue on this point, that would make sense. But let's stop going back to square one with the analogies and whatnot (unless you think I'm wrong in my rebutle of it, in which case please post why I'm wrong).

*Though it seems others in the thread have proposed that actually you can find a probability. Care to show me how? Is it more subjective (and therefore specific to a person) or...what? I really am interested.

 

[Sidhe]

Well in order to understand a concept you have to give it a rational analogy, even if that analogy is somwhat conceptual. I agree totally with you though that Perfections induction idea is flawed. I might be able to use induction in maths to gain a reason why something equates and thus it might be applicable in science but in the example you gave: God or the non existence of God cannot be induced mathematically. And neither can a probability, because it holds no absolute value.

 

[ThePhysicist]

Actually, I'm not absolutely certain the inductive approach is wrong. I just think it is right now. It's pefectly legitimate to say "science has never failed and so probaly never will." But I would counter that also, science has never succeded. On no level is there scientific completeness. Not on the physical level, not on the chemical level, not on the biological level, nor even on tinier issues. Also, as I said, the incompleteness theorem sets precedent for limits on science, and heck for all we know the universe is infinitely complex and a complete theory thus unattainable. So I don't see how you can make a conclusion on scientific completeness at all.

 

[FredLC]

Almost every single argument I've heard from atheists can be generalized to fit into one of the two above attempts. All the analogies, the "invisible whatever" arguments, the claims of absurdity. They all make use of the same logical process, one that doesn't work in this special case. Normally it would. You can use both of those tools on essentially anything and get the result you want. They are both absolutely key to science. But they fail here. It's not surprising that people would rely on them for disproofs of God as they work so well in seemingly comparable situations. It seems almost counter intuitive that they don't work. But against God, even these mighty weapons are useless. We are left without even a probablilty.

[* bolding by me]

The point of "invisible unicorns" and "flying spagetthi monsters" is a kind of ironic exercize of empathy; to demonstrate that the very same arguments used to support God can be used to support whatever claim, even those which are evidently ludicrous. They aren't too creative (they all derive from Bertrand Russel's teapot), but I find'em rather fitting, actually.

So, before I take the trouble into a more criterious retort to your argument, I'd very much like to see an elaboration of why you think this argument is impertinent. What is, in your opinion, the essence of the error in that little episthemological exercize?

Regards .

 

[FredLC]

Yeah,i second to that.

Kinda funny that someone keeps insisting with the same argument time after time.No chance of change.Like a stale cracker.

Economy and a winning streak, c'est pas?

Regards .

 

[ThePhysicist]

That argument only works against specific religions that make claims that actually can be taken out by observation or occum's razor. For instance, it's a perfect attack on chrisitanity, or Buddhism, or Islam. It does nothing, however, to disprove a more general God. Using the FSM thing against an agnostic is essentially a straw man argument. Using it against a theist, though, makes sense.

And if you recall, I admit there's no valid arguement for a God. My point is there isn't a valid argument against God either. Who cares how many times you prove theres no reason to believe in God? I agree with you, there isn't.

 

[Sidhe]

Actually, I'm not absolutely certain the inductive approach is wrong. I just think it is right now. It's pefectly legitimate to say "science has never failed and so probaly never will." But I would counter that also, science has never succeded. On no level is there scientific completeness. Not on the physical level, not on the chemical level, not on the biological level, nor even on tinier issues. Also, as I said, the incompleteness theorem sets precedent for limits on science, and heck for all we know the universe is infinitely complex and a complete theory thus unattainable. So I don't see how you can make a conclusion on scientific completeness at all.

I never said it was complete, when is science ever complete? As I've said countless times before though science can't prove something doesn't exist, it is not within it's remit, logically though following this argument it can't prove God exists either so it is a flacid member of an argument to use science in the argument.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Actually, using the FSM against a lot of theists is not that effective either. Okay, maybe it is just my subconscious or my emotions, and not actually God, but the FSM doesn't even have that.

 

[ThePhysicist]

I never said it was complete, when is since ever complete? As I've said countless times before though science can't prove something doesn't exist, it is not within it's remit, logically though following this argument it can't prove God exists either so it is a flacid member of an argument to use science in the argument.

No no, his point is we can inductively prove scientific completeness exists. We then could use occum's razor, because God would be a needless complication/require too many axioms/be absurd.

After all, what is existence? If we can describe everything physically, then God has no affect on anything and for all intents and purposes doesn't exist.

 

[Sidhe]

No no, his point is we can inductively prove scientific completeness exists. We then could use occum's razor, because God would be a needless complication/require too many axioms/be absurd.

After all, what is existence? If we can describe everything physically, then God has no affect on anything and for all intents and purposes doesn't exist.

I agree scientifically we still cannot say that God does not exist, all we can say is that we have no idea nor is it within sciences remit to answer this question without empiricism, thus I resort to my original agnostic position: I don't know. I was backing you up, Perfections argument is not valid.

Actually, using the FSM against a lot of theists is not that effective either. Okay, maybe it is just my subconscious or my emotions, and not actually God, but the FSM doesn't even have that.

It doesn't need it, what it does need though is to point out that the reducto ad absurdum argument is valid.

Your religion is as valid as any other, that much is clear. In that no religion is logically consistent, only subjectively consistent, and this isn't a great foundation for belief to most atheists or agnostics.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

After all, what is existence? If we can describe everything physically, then God has no affect on anything and for all intents and purposes doesn't exist.

I disagree. Just because everything can be described physically does not mean that it is not affected by God, in a way too subtle for us to figure out.

And besides, I am sure you can come up with a great theory of the universe that doesn't require my existence, but that has no real bearing on my existence.

 

[Sidhe]

Yeah,i second to that.

Kinda funny that someone keeps insisting with the same argument time after time.No chance of change.Like a stale cracker.

The fact that he's still using a tired old argument is a stale cracker too, particularly because his argument answers nothing and only complicates the issue, if he'd of given us something concrete to work with then fine but any good lawyer he's simply playing with ideas and trying to imply fact, it's nice your fooled by this type of argument but let's not forget it's still philosophy not proven fact. FTW you still have to prove your idea more logically consistent than agnosticism, and the only arguments against agnosticism delve into semantics not reality. I can play with words to make something seem less consistent, but whether it is or isn't remains a logical consideration, not an appeal to philosophically well written text, or to word play.

A lawyers means to an end is to convince a judge, I judge his argument unconvincing and not grounded in any proof.

 

[ThePhysicist]

@Sidhe: Yes I know, we're on the same side here. I was just pointing out what could be a valid argument. I don't think it is, and neither do you. But if it was, God's nonexistence could follow.

@Eran: Your right, it wouldn't rule him out. But occum's razor would compel us to, from a logical standpoint, dismiss his existence. We could theorize all kinds of weird things that have undetectable, but real, affects on us into existence. But we wouldn't take them seriously.

About the theory of the universe without you- no, that would be a failure. A complete theory would take into account everything- every interaction, every atom, every wave, every field. Ignoring your affect on the universe would leave the theory incomplete. It would be damned close, but it would be incomplete.