Ask an agnostic...

[ThePhysicist]

Yes, that's the flaw of inductive reasoning, but that doesn't mean you have to "be agnostic" about God. I have inductive reasoning, and goddamnit I'm gonna use it to assess the truth of things!

Fair enough, but the problem for me then becomes, if I am to rely on probabilites now...let's look at some other numbers. Is it likely that, although probably >90% of humanity past and present have believed in god, he does not? Is it likely that the profound question "does god exist" is answerable by little old me right now, when so many great minds struggled for so long to find an answer? No and no.

Those probabilities seem to hit against the probabilities of a purely natural world...and I figure that that's not an acceptable path to proof. Too muddy.

But thats just a difference of induction between the two of us, I guess.

 

[ThePhysicist]

Would you approach a belief in an invisible donut the same way?

Yes, and I have.

Tell me, how would you approach it? Certainly not by saying, sounds stupid- forget it. No, you would say that it's a needless addition to the world...we don't need it to explain anything. It's ratio of explanation to complication is too low, there are more efficient explanations.

Ultimately, anytime you dismiss a theory, it will be because it doesn't work or because of occums razor. It may not be perfectly obvious on the surface, but those are the only mechanisms for disbelief that science allows. Unless you'd care to enlighten me.

 

[Adamb0mb]

Wouldn't it just make more sense just to talk about morality?

It would.

But this isn't a discussion on how to best develop a debate on morality.

 

[Perfection]

Fair enough, but the problem for me then becomes, if I am to rely on probabilites now...let's look at some other numbers. Is it likely that, although probably >90% of humanity past and present have believed in god, he does not? Is it likely that the profound question "does god exist" is answerable by little old me right now, when so many great minds struggled for so long to find an answer? No and no.

Shouldn't you look at the reasons people believe and the utility the did rather then the demographics? People believe in all sorts of stupid stuff, I'm not gonna take a poll to determine what I think is true. Reality is not a democracy.

Those probabilities seem to hit against the probabilities of a purely natural world...and I figure that that's not an acceptable path to proof. Too muddy.

Those are sucky probabilities. Here's a better one to try on, of all the crazy irrational widespread beliefs of people how many bore to be true?

But thats just a difference of induction between the two of us, I guess.

Because I apply inductive logic to the parts that matter instead of silly demographic arguments?

 

[warpus]

Yes, and I have.

So you are an agnostic when it comes to invisible donuts, invisible pom poms, and invisible Sid Meiers?

How do you justify such a position as more elegant than the atheist position concerning these items?

 

[Perfection]

It would.

But this isn't a discussion on how to best develop a debate on morality.

It is, but you said that the concept of a qualiy-less God was useful for discussions of morality, which I think I demonstrated false.

Then what utility does a quality-less God have?

 

[Adamb0mb]

It is, but you said that the concept of a qualiy-less God was useful for discussions of morality, which I think I demonstrated false.

I said:

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

meaning the discusion of god may lead to a discussion of morality but is not necessarily useful therein.

Then what utility does a quality-less God have?

The views I laid out do not offer me any insights into the 'big picture'. In fact they are a declaration of my ignorance.

 

[ThePhysicist]

No. The supernatural need not exist in any way shape or form like what humans think. My argument may be...sure all these religions are wrong, but were they inspired by something right? Does religion evolve towards a final truth, like science does?

Now I won't even pretend to say those are logical conclusions. But they are possibilities, probabilities.

 

[ThePhysicist]

So you are an agnostic when it comes to invisible donuts, invisible pom poms, and invisible Sid Meiers?

How do you justify such a position as more elegant than the atheist position concerning these items?

I edited the post and elaborated. I am not an agnostic when it comes to those things. Any effect they might have, if you would care to describe them, could be attributed to a less silly factor. Therefore occums razor functions. The problem with god is, he can be defined as everything....above the system...the creator...or whatever. So proving he doesn't exist would mean supplying a counter explanation for him. So basically, you need a counter explanantion for everything that exists.

 

[warpus]

No. The supernatural need not exist in any way shape or form like what humans think. My argument may be...sure all these religions are wrong, but were they inspired by something right? Does religion evolve towards a final truth, like science does?

Religions devolve into sects. Scientific thought evolves towards the truth.

The loch ness monster was inspired by something too, it doesn't make it real.

N

ow I won't even pretend to say those are logical conclusions. But they are possibilities, probabilities.

They are possibilities and probabilities based on pure speculation.

 

[warpus]

I edited the post and elaborated. I am not an agnostic when it comes to those things. Any effect they might have, if you would care to describe them, could be attributed to a less silly factor. Therefore occums razor functions. The problem with god is, he can be defined as everything....above the system...the creator...or whatever. So proving he doesn't exist would mean supplying a counter explanation for him. So basically, you need a counter explanantion for everything that exists.

It seems to me as though you are defining God in a way that makes the agnostic position regarding him/her/it the most elegant one.

That is a very narrow definition of God and yeah.. if you define God in such a way, then the agnostic position becomes the most elegant one.. but you are simply defining God to get the conclusion you seek.

It's like saying.. If all pies were apple pies, then all pies would be apple pies.

 

[ThePhysicist]

And so is the question of whether or not science can continue forever! Pure speculation. That's the point. I am hit with both and I say, forget it, too muddy. Not gonna answer a profound question by relying on this shady of inductive reasoning. Which is more likely, that science can continue forever or that there may be some grain of truth to religion? Both seem nearly equal probabilities to me. But that's just me. I can't back that up...it's just perception. And that's why I tried to rely only on logic before. And pure logic refuses to yield a disproof of god. Thus we are where we are.

 

[ThePhysicist]

It seems to me as though you are defining God in a way that makes the agnostic position regarding him/her/it the most elegant one.

That is a very narrow definition of God and yeah.. if you define God in such a way, then the agnostic position becomes the most elegant one.. but you are simply defining God to get the conclusion you seek.

It's like saying.. If all pies were apple pies, then all pies would be apple pies.

Not sure what you are saying...more elegant? I don't care about elegance. Truth does not care about elegance. I'm speaking of simplicity and explanitory power. And the fact that God is a vague idea so a disproof of him is difficult, of course.

 

[warpus]

Not sure what you are saying...more elegant? I don't care about elegance. Truth does not care about elegance. I'm speaking of simplicity and explanitory power. And the fact that God is a vague idea so a disproof of him is difficult, of course.

I'm just saying that if you define God in a very specific way, then agnosticism becomes the most sensible position to take.

However, such a definition is very specific and to me, it seems as though it was made for the sole purpose of coming to the conclusion that agnosticism is the most sensible position.. a circular argument of sorts.

I could easily define an invisible donut to have properties that would force me to accept that agnosticism regarding this object is the most sensible position to take. However, this invisible donut is unlikely to exist, given the assumptions made about it.

I am an atheist when it comes to all the specific Gods that have been described through the ages. A vague God that doesn't really have any clear attributes? Yeah, I guess agnosticism is the most sensible position when it comes to something like that.. But does that really get us anywhere? Of course such a concept must be possible to come up with - but it doesn't mean that it is likely to exist. Quite the opposite, even though agnosticism is the most sensible position, I move that statistically speaking, when looking at the big picture, atheism is far more sensible.. considering your original definition.

That is my position and I am going back to bed

 

[Perfection]

I edited the post and elaborated. I am not an agnostic when it comes to those things. Any effect they might have, if you would care to describe them, could be attributed to a less silly factor. Therefore occums razor functions. The problem with god is, he can be defined as everything....above the system...the creator...or whatever. So proving he doesn't exist would mean supplying a counter explanation for him. So basically, you need a counter explanantion for everything that exists.

That's a dumb vague useless definition.

 

[El_Machinae]

In our lives, we consider the opinions of experts or the majority to be important. The experts tell me they have found evidence of Black Holes, so I believe them. The majority of people tell me that there're wars going on right now, I believe them.

And, the majority of people claim to have experienced a spiritual experience or spiritual connection - even a divine interconnection. Why not believe them? If the majority of scientists told you X, but you were unable to mimick their results easily(though you didn't really try) - would you disbelieve them? If a dozen friends insisted that a cloud had looked like a Star Destroyer, would you believe them?

Hell, the majority of people tell me that blood and chocolate are different colours; I've never experienced this (colourblind), but I believe them anyway. Why not start with the position that you lack the sensory-equipment/dedication to detect the supernatural? Especially because your sensory-data is in the minority?

Religions devolve into sects. Scientific thought evolves towards the truth.

This is a very powerful statement, and (when I'm not playing devil's advocate) a large brunt of my argument. Two evangelical Christians (who pray, and claim a connection to the Holy Spirit) cannot agree if Bush is really a Christian; put him in a lie detector MRI, and we'd know if he really believes in Christ!

The problem with god is, he can be defined as everything

I note this too; the best thing to do is ask people to define their god. Eventually they will (likely) give an attribute that can be disproven.

 

[Perfection]

And, the majority of people claim to have experienced a spiritual experience or spiritual connection - even a divine interconnection. Why not believe them?

If the majority of people are fooled by an optical illusion, why not believe them?

 

[El_Machinae]

If the majority of people are fooled by an optical illusion, why not believe them?

Ah, but now you're making a positive claim: that it's an optical illusion. At that point, you have the beginnings of a theory on how the illusion is formed, based on your physical knowledge. You touch the glass to show it's a reflection. You cover one eye to show it's a 3D effect, etc.

Can you show evidence, or even propose a mechanism, as to how the majority of people are fooled by prayer?

 

[Perfection]

I think the existance of hallucinogens and electrical stimulations that produce similar effects coupled with the culture-dependant interpretation of the event leads one to conclude that these have material explinations.

 

[El_Machinae]

I think the existance of hallucinogens and electrical stimulations that produce similar effects

Just because LSD can make me see an apple when it's not there, doesn't mean that I don't see apples that are really there when I'm sober. Being able to hallucinate something doesn't disprove that it exists ...

coupled with the culture-dependant interpretation of the event leads one to conclude that these have material explinations.

Each culture/person describes their experience in ways that are similar and ways that are different. That doesn't mean that they're not describing something that, essentially, is the same thing.

Ask Floridians, Africans, Incans, and Indians to describe the largest stalking predator in their region. Just because they each report different things: tawny, ruff, spots, stripes ... doesn't mean that they're not all describing cats. And disbelieving in hunting cats will get you mauled in each location.

In the end a few 'cultural differences' are washed out by the massive similarities between their experiences; a sense of connection, a sense of purpose, a sense of something greater...