Ask an agnostic...

[Cheetah]

Or, like me, accept that since I can not prove them not to exist they might exist, but since there is no reason to believe they exist, I think and act as if they do not.

I'm agnostic, but in practise I behave as an atheist.

That's consistent but it isn't logical but fair play.

What about it is unlogical?

 

[Perfection]

I'm not your simply applying proof to something you can't prove, my position is that I can't prove it. Therefore if you can't prove yours my postion is sound.

But you keep assuming that I can't prove it! Can you prove I can't prove it?

cmon Perfection your out of means to prove God exists or doesn't therefore you have to accept you have nothing to work on.

That does not equate! Proof isn't the only source of knowledge!

This is basic logic you can twist an turn all you like but you have nothing, if you don't like it then prove me wrong by proving God exists or he doesn't. Simple. It's not rocket science hell you study rocket science it's easier than this.

Demanding "proof" for anything out of mathematics is stupid, ask for a good argument or evidence. That way you don't get caught up in lame philosophical arguments.

 

[Sidhe]

But you keep assuming that I can't prove it! Can you prove I can't prove it?

That does not equate! Proof isn't the only source of knowledge!


Demanding "proof" for anything out of mathematics is stupid, ask for a good argument or evidence. That way you don't get caught up in lame philosophical arguments.

OK I'm just assuming you have no argument to prove or disprove God exists, therefore I win because my argument requires neither. It's not lame argument it's just logic and you have no recourse to logic, if you want to prove or disprove God do so: I ask again prove or disprove God, if you can't, then my position of not knowing is right. It's very simple I'm afraid you don't get it yet but you will. I have no need to prove you can or can't prove it by definition all I need is the fact that you can do neither. Whether I can prove you can or cant's beside the point, welcome to logic.

 

[Perfection]

OK I'm just assuming you have no argument to prove or disprove God exists, therefore I win because my argument requires neither.

You win because you made an assumption of the lack of argument? That's totally what atheists say about God! Hell, they go even farther, and so not only do people not have proof, they don't even have considerable evidence!

It's not lame argument it's just logic and you have no recourse to logic, if you want to prove or disprove God do so: I ask again prove or disprove God, if you can't, then my position of not knowing is right. It's very simple I'm afraid you don't get it yet but you will.

Proof isn't the only source of knowledge! I can't prove the sun won't suddenly explode tommorow and kill me, but do I take an agnostic position? No! I say it ain't gonna happen and that the man shouting on the streets is a crazy nutball!

Stop getting tied up in stupid logical mumbo jumbo and call stupidity what it is!

 

[Xanikk999]

You win because you made an assumption of the lack of argument? That's totally what atheists say about God! Hell, they go even farther, and so not only do people not have proof, they don't even have considerable evidence!

Proof isn't the only source of knowledge! I can't prove the sun won't suddenly explode tommorow and kill me, but do I take an agnostic position? No! I say it ain't gonna happen and that the man shouting on the streets is a crazy nutball!

Get getting tied up in stupid logical mumbo jumbo and call stupidity what it is!

The sun comparison is not a fair one. We have scientific evidence that the sun wont expand and destroy the earth for another 5 billion years.

There is no evidence at all saying there is a god or is not a god. Its a human construct.

But since we dont know what was before the big bang can it not be possible that a god started it?

 

[Perfection]

The sun comparison is not a fair one. We have scientific evidence that the sun wont expand and destroy the earth for another 5 billion years.

But no proof! My point is the whole demanding of proof thing sucks! We can sling it back and forth and in the end we'll get jack squat!

There is no evidence at all saying there is a god or is not a god. Its a human construct.

Whoop-de-doo! That doesn't mean we should give it an iota of credibility. I hear stupid stuff day in day out. I call it rubbish and move on! Instead of going, "well, it might be right but..."

But since we dont know what was before the big bang can it not be possible that a god started it?

Do I have to go over the idiocy of the first cause arguement, AGAIN?

 

[ThePhysicist]

Agnosticism, to me, is a logically consistent position. Atheism is not. Arguements for Atheism (as presented to me) usually follow the same basic pattern. They assert that the world can be explained entirely by scientific/natural means. They then use occams razor to effectively (though not certainly, as there can be no such thing) disprove the existence of god. There is a problem with this arguement, however. We do not know if we can, in fact, make a "Theory of (literally) Everything" that totally and perfectly explains the universe by natural/scientific means. No one has done this, and no one has proven it possible. So occam's razor cannot be applied, the assertion is wrong, and we cannot disprove the existence of God/Gods/whatever. Of course, this will depend on the definition of god, but I suspect that as long as there is no complete theory of the universe then there will exist atleast some sufficiently vague notion of god that could potentially (and in compliance with occam's razor) exist.

If there is a way to disprove (in the sense I refer to above, as of course a universal negative cannot be proven) God another way that is logically consistent, I would like to know it. But as I say, the arguments I hear are almost universally some variation on the above, which I see to be wrong.

Also, I should note that when I see atheists attack agnostics with charges of sophomorism and the like, I see the same arrogance that marks theists. But that's just me.

 

[Perfection]

What's so great about this stupid meaningless probabilities of god exists. So, it's logically possible? Big whoop! Just because you acknowledge that doesn't mean you should claim agnosticism. It implies that that tiny thing has any credibility whatsoever, which it doesn't.

 

[ThePhysicist]

What's so great about this stupid meaningless probabilities of god exists. So, it's logically possible? Big whoop! Just because you acknowledge that doesn't mean you should claim agnosticism. It implies that that tiny thing has any credibility whatsoever, which it doesn't.

I am not playing probabilities. That's my point. It's atheism that relies on probability. You say that because so far we have no reason to believe in a God of any imagining, then it must (by probability) be so forever. You say that, because we have scientificaly described so much, it is probable that we can do this for everything.

The only way around the fact that you cannot dissprove a universal negative is occams razor. Occams razor is key to scientific and logical truth. Without it, there would be no reason to believe anything science says (because one could come up with an infinitude of plausible explanations for everything). As I say, occams razor cannot be used to disprove god, so you are stuck accepting God's potential existence, as any disproof of god would not be scientific.

 

[Adamb0mb]

My two tenets of agnosticism:

I don't believe man (any man) has the ability to quantify god (in terms of none, one, many).

I don't believe man (any man) has the ability to qualify god (in terms of male/female, human/animalistic, white/black, etc.)

Therefore I am an agnostic.

 

[Perfection]

The only way around the fact that you cannot dissprove a universal negative is occams razor. Occams razor is key to scientific and logical truth. Without it, there would be no reason to believe anything science says (because one could come up with an infinitude of plausible explanations for everything). As I say, occams razor cannot be used to disprove god, so you are stuck accepting God's potential existence, as any disproof of god would not be scientific.

Yeah, but who cares about "potential existance"? The logical possibility that does exist doesn't mean that it shouldn't be dismissed as rubbish.

 

[Perfection]

My two tenets of agnosticism:

I don't believe man (any man) has the ability to quantify god (in terms of none, one, many).

I don't believe man (any man) has the ability to qualify god (in terms of male/female, human/animalistic, white/black, etc.)

Therefore I am an agnostic.

Doesn't that just render God a completely meaningless concept?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I believe in God because I believe that He has revealed Himself to me. If not for that, I would be an agnostic - perhaps everyone who claims that they have interacted in some way with the divine are deluded, probably, even, but there is just a little chance that maybe they are right. I am agnostic towards the FSM and IPU and whatnot; if Cthulu wants to reveal himself to me I will believe in him for the few seconds before I die of terror.

But I can understand agnosticism - perhaps more than atheism, I am not sure.

 

[Adamb0mb]

Doesn't that just render God a completely meaningless concept?

in a scientific framework? yes.

There is still no harm in discussing god in a philosophical or theological framework. A discussion of god can bring up important concepts like morality, purpose, and mortality.

 

[ThePhysicist]

Yeah, but who cares about "potential existance"? The logical possibility that does exist doesn't mean that it shouldn't be dismissed as rubbish.

Dismissing things as rubbish falls under the occams razor argument. You say that God's existence is rubbish as your alternative makes more sense or is less fanciful. The problem is, you don't have an alternative for describing things. You may one day, but now you don't. So either you take the leap of faith (or rely on probability) and believe that in fact one day you certainly will have an alternative, or you believe as theists do that you cannot and thus accept the supernatural. I choose neither, as both involve a leap of faith that I won't take. I don't know if you can construct a perfectly scientific description of the universe.

I do, however, suspect that you can. But that's mostly irrellevent.

 

[Red Door]

Well... he can tell us he exists without giving us the secret of his power.. can't he?

Bah, dont answer that or the existance of this thread is doomed.

He is telling you. You just refuse to listen.

Xanikk, here's trolling:

Thats why all religion is pointless.

That is offensive and trolling.

 

[ThePhysicist]

Let me re-state this. You seem to accept that God could potentially exist. But you go on to say that potentiality does not mean you must accept it. From a logical standpoint, this is incorrect. It does dictate that you accept it as something other than "rubbish," as the only acceptable way around this situation would be occams razor. As I've noted, occums razor does not seem to apply. Therefore, there is no logically acceptable and defensible way of dismissing God's existence.

Let me give you an example. Take santa clause. Atheists use the santa claus arguement alot. Of course, you can never disprove santa claus. You can, however, provide a completely consistent alternative (for instance, that it's really just a fable and the actions of caring parents) that is much simpler. Therefore, by occums razor you can justify a disbelief in santa claus not as faith but as logical. The atheist would then say it is likewise with god.But you cannot do this with God. We cannot provide a consistent alternative to God (yet*), so occums razor does not apply and any disbelief in God is from a logical standpoint equal to belief.

*And as I say, for all we know it could be impossible.

 

[Perfection]

in a scientific framework? yes.

There is still no harm in discussing god in a philosophical or theological framework. A discussion of god can bring up important concepts like morality, purpose, and mortality.

Actually, I'd argue In all frameworks. Things without qualities are meaningless.

Dismissing things as rubbish falls under the occams razor argument. You say that God's existence is rubbish as your alternative makes more sense or is less fanciful. The problem is, you don't have an alternative for describing things.

Sure I do, science. Completeness is irrevant, I don't need a complete idea of the universe to function.

 

[Perfection]

Let me re-state this. You seem to accept that God could potentially exist. But you go on to say that potentiality does not mean you must accept it. From a logical standpoint, this is incorrect. It does dictate that you accept it as something other than "rubbish," as the only acceptable way around this situation would be occams razor. As I've noted, occums razor does not seem to apply. Therefore, there is no logically acceptable and defensible way of dismissing God's existence.

Sure it's perfectly acceptable, I don't have the time to worry about all these stupid religion things. There's a bajillion out there, it's pragmatic to dismiss it as hooey and move on!

 

[ThePhysicist]

That's a ridiculous rebuttle. I'm starting to think your joking with me.