Ask an agnostic...

[Eran of Arcadia]

But that means that we would not know if a theory of the universe is complete unless we knew for sure whether God exists, and what form He/She/It/They might take. Which basically means such a thing is not possible. I meant that we could have a pretty good understanding of a lot of things without taking into account my alleged existence.

 

[Sidhe]

@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.

Oh okay, point taken.

But that means that we would not know if a theory of the universe is complete unless we knew for sure whether God exists, and what form He/She/It/They might take. Which basically means such a thing is not possible. I meant that we could have a pretty good understanding of a lot of things without taking into account my alleged existence.

Ontology or the philosophy of existence is not necessarily necessary to prove God's existence, if you think about it this is logically consistent, but let's not go too far into ontology, we may dissappear too readilly up our own already cavernous arses

 

[ThePhysicist]

But that means that we would not know if a theory of the universe is complete unless we knew for sure whether God exists, and what form He/She/It/They might take. Which basically means such a thing is not possible. I meant that we could have a pretty good understanding of a lot of things without taking into account my alleged existence.

Imagine an equation. This equation is the mother of all functions. It takes an input for the x axis, z axis, y axis, and time. It's output gives you a quantum state. This equation, say, defines our universe. Also, this equation is derived from pure logic- that is to say, for the universe to be any other way would lead to a logical contradiction

Now, such a situation is a far out concept, but it gets the idea across. Under that situation (or one similar to it), there's no need to debate God's existence as he evidently has no effect. He could be real, sure. But that would be a needless complication to our understanding and so we would just dismiss it.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Under such a situation, perhaps, we would not need Him/Her/It/Them.

The real problem is that not only do we not know whether God exists, we don't know what affect said existence would have. We don't have any control groups that allow us to compare, this is the only universe we have. Maybe in reality, God's existence is impossible. Maybe in reality the universe could not exist without God. We can't tell.

 

[FredLC]

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.

I don't see many arguments against generic Gods, I'm afraid; Christian God is usually the poinson of choice. Nevertheless, the most generic the God, the most omnous and meaningless it turns. Like the God of Spinoza, which is little more than refering to the spasms, the peristalty (is that a word in english? ) of existence. But I don't know exactly what I'm retorting to, since I'm unaware of the caractheristics of that "generic God".

So, to keep things fruitful, can you offer me a description of "a" God that you consider valid - which cannot be refuted by the reduction to absurd - and at the same time, is formated enough to be meaningful?

Let's narrow down what are we talking about, shall we? What are the caractehristics something/someone ought have in order to be a "God"?

Regards .

 

[ThePhysicist]

Under such a situation, perhaps, we would not need Him/Her/It/Them.

The real problem is that not only do we not know whether God exists, we don't know what affect said existence would have. We don't have any control groups that allow us to compare, this is the only universe we have. Maybe in reality, God's existence is impossible. Maybe in reality the universe could not exist without God. We can't tell.

I agree entirely. And that's why occum's razor doesn't work. We can't prove that it's actually concievable to have a universe without God. We can imagine it is concievable, and this seems to be what atheists do. But we don't know.

And no, before the atheists pounce on me, the word "God" in the above cannot be replaced with "invisible pink unicorn" or "Flying Spagghetti Monster" and still make sense. Just by their own definition, I can use occum's razor to assert that yes they may exist, but a simpler and more vague God survives the chop.

 

[ThePhysicist]

I don't see many arguments against generic Gods, I'm afraid; Christian God is usually the poinson of choice. Nevertheless, the most generic the God, the most omnous and meaningless it turns. Like the God of Spinoza, which is little more than refering to the spasms, the peristalty (is that a word in english? ) of existence. But I don't know exactly what I'm retorting to, since I'm unaware of the caractheristics of that "generic God".

So, to keep things fruitful, can you offer me a description of "a" God that you consider valid - which cannot be refuted by the reduction to absurd - and at the same time, is formated enough to be meaningful?

Let's narrow down what are we talking about, shall we? What are the caractehristics something/someone ought have in order to be a "God"?

Regards .

This is subjective of course, but I would say that the one charecterisitic that God boils down to is supernaturality. A vague or generic God would be only this, some supernatural force. This force would have to be unquantifiable, incomprehensible, whatever. Just as long as it's not within the natural realm. I realize how horribly vague this definition is, but that's all I can think of that would be consistent. Maybe someone has a better one?

And so demolishing, say, the christian God and then asserting God does not exist is a strawman argument. The Christian God is far easier to disprove than a generic/vague/whatever/ God as it is more complicated.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

But there is no "Christian God". Different Christians have widely different views of God. Disprove Jack Chick's God and mine still stands, for example. And I have seen that when a lot of people say "religion" they mean "Jack Chick Christianity".

 

[ThePhysicist]

But there is no "Christian God". Different Christians have widely different views of God. Disprove Jack Chick's God and mine still stands, for example. And I have seen that when a lot of people say "religion" they mean "Jack Chick Christianity".

Yeah I know. God is very subjective. But any version of the christian God would inevitably entail more than my vague definition. So it would be easier to refute, assuming it is infact refutable.

 

[FredLC]

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.

Well, since you aren't a judge, this is a pointless excercize, is it not?

Anyway, nice little strawman there. He's a Lawyer, so he's obviously's trying to trick us with his fancy words. Convincing a-plenty.

Trying to imply fact? What fact, am I implying at any point, of my argument? As far as I know, I challenged an opinion with another opinion, both regarding how much internal consistency atheism and agnosticism have.

Is the burden on me to prove that atheism is more consistent than agnosticism? Why, if I have never made any constructive claim whasoever? Not that it isn't an interesting excercize, which I'll probably dwelve into in good time, but, I'd say that the burden is on you to prove that agnosticism is more consistent than atheism. Do I have good reason to think that? Not at all. It's just that I wanted to share the feeling of throwing empty challenges.

Do I (personally or as a member of the dark fellowship of lawyers) complicate issues? Maybe, on occasion. Not on purpose, and not on this time, though. The actual issue is complex, and my arguments were short, concise and clear-cut. What brings me to my final point here:

The most interesting part is that in none, not a single point of your reply, have you faced any of the arguments delivered in my text. You bluff about how lawyers deliberately trick people, and how you aren't fooled by that scheme, oh my, and hence you pronounce thy judgement of my unworthy repartee. You throw the "semantics" card but don't bother to demonstrate where nor how have I employed it. If a judge you were, you'd know your sentence is null, for lack of fundamentation, the most important part of a judgement by lighyears.

As so, I invite you kindly to solve that, by showing the error of my ways. Where have I unnecessarily cluched easy things, and where have I nitpicked on the unimportant. I know that someone as lawyer-proof will find it rather an easy task.

There. Hope this wasn't too needlesly complicated.

Regards .

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Too needlessly complicated? How could a debate on religion in CFC OT be anything but too needlessly complicated?

 

[FredLC]

This is subjective of course, but I would say that the one charecterisitic that God boils down to is supernaturality. A vague or generic God would be only this, some supernatural force. This force would have to be unquantifiable, incomprehensible, whatever. Just as long as it's not within the natural realm. I realize how horribly vague this definition is, but that's all I can think of that would be consistent. Maybe someone has a better one?

And so demolishing, say, the christian God and then asserting God does not exist is a strawman argument. The Christian God is far easier to disprove than a generic/vague/whatever/ God as it is more complicated.

I think than, we are going down to the reduction of God as utterly meaningless. Saying that God is a synonim of supernatural - which is what your definition accomplishes - renders it completely detached from any conceptualization ever linked to the term. Is a vampire God? what's the difference between a God and a ghost? Is God like the power of reading minds? All fit in your definition.

If we are to debate this, we are in the wrong thread. We should open up an thread on induction/deduction and on falseability, or, generally, means of informatiuon gathering, and take it there. God, as you defined, is nothing but a word loaded with stigma blocking us from the real subject at hand.

Remember, I asked not only for an generic God, but for a definition that meant something. Your definition simply don't do it.

And to think that it was I who were accused of playing with semantics...

Regards .

 

[FredLC]

Too needlessly complicated? How could a debate on religion in CFC OT be anything but too needlessly complicated?

Being needlesly complicated just enough, I'd say.

Regards .

 

[Sidhe]

Well, since you aren't a judge, this is a pointless excercize, is it not?

Anyway, nice little strawman there. He's a Lawyer, so he's obviously's trying to trick us with his fancy words. Convincing a-plenty.

Trying to imply fact? What fact, am I implying at any point, of my argument? As far as I know, I challenged an opinion with another opinion, both regarding how much internal consistency atheism and agnosticism have.

Is the burden on me to prove that atheism is more consistent than agnosticism? Why, if I have never made any constructive claim whasoever? Not that it isn't an interesting excercize, which I'll probably dwelve into in good time, but, I'd say that the burden is on you to prove that agnosticism is more consistent than atheism. Do I have good reason to think that? Not at all. It's just that I wanted to share the feeling of throwing empty challenges.

Do I (personally or as a member of the dark fellowship of lawyers) complicate issues? Maybe, on occasion. Not on purpose, and not on this time, though. The actual issue is complex, and my arguments were short, concise and clear-cut. What brings me to my final point here:

The most interesting part is that in none, not a single point of your reply, have you faced any of the arguments delivered in my text. You bluff about how lawyers deliberately trick people, and how you aren't fooled by that scheme, oh my, and hence you pronounce thy judgement of my unworthy repartee. You throw the "semantics" card by don't bother to demonstrate where nor how I employed it. If a judge you were, you'd know your sentence is null, for lack of fundamentation, the most important part of a judgement by lighyears.

As so, I invite you kindly to solve that, by showing the error of my ways. Where have I unnecessarily cluched easy things, and where have I nitpicked on the unimportant. I know that someone as lawyer-proof will find it rather an easy task.

There. Hope this wasn't too needlesly complicated.

Regards .

Actually to be honest I haven't the will or the time and have already shown that atheism is more inconsistent than agnosticism and since your answer wasn't on this thread I see no need to address it here, if you hold to commonly held priniciples of threads, you should address my argument that strong atheism is intelectually redundant before I adress the argument that agnosticism is less redundant? Since your argument was made on a different thread with different posits, why should I get into whether it is correct, if you won't do me the courtesy of addressing the points in this thread, without resorting to being lazy and just quoting old arguments, which aren't as relevant to the points made?

Thus I simply claim that your answer is word play and nonsense in the context of this thread, and ask you to provide proof that yours is more consistent, if you would do me the courtesy of actually answering questions on this thread, then I may do you the courtesty of answering questions on another. That was made in answer to another

heads up: you can't cite precedent if the precedent is not proven to be accepted. We aint in court now and your shenannigans will not work in other contexts, this is not arbitrary law, it's philosophy.

 

[FredLC]

Since I'm not giving you an easy way out of this mess, I'll obviosuly address your point and do away the laziness excuse. Please just address me to the post you want answered (since I'm not in this thread from scratch), and I'll have a reply ready ASAP.

A few things:

1) That my post was originally from another thread is a lame excuse. I brought it up as at an relevant context. And if you weren't interested, you needed only not answering (nor reading). Since you bothered to publically demonstrate your contemption for my idea, I'd say that common thread courtesy demands that YOU take the trouble to consubstanciate it.

2) I haven't answered your post because I haven't seen it. It could have been, however, because I didn't find it compelling to merit a reply. Whatever. I'll now, because you brought it up and seen to think it's relevant to our little chat here. However, I gotta say that this "answer me this or you're lazy and I'll not play" game won't get us people anywhere. Let's try to avoid it, ok, for I haven't asked you for anything unreasonable.

3) After you show me your post, and i'll reply to it, feel free to adress my reply, but I'll require that, before you do (or at least simultaneously), you go to my post before this one and answer what is there, since THAT is what I actually want to see answered.

4) And final. I feel this is getting a bit heated. I don't want it to be. No, I'm not giving up debate, nor withdrawing anything I said. But I hope we can proceed this debate, and I mean every point of this debate, without animosity, if that is at all possible.

Regards .

Edit: BTW, I classify myself as a "weak atheist" (for lack of better term), as it was plain stated in my post; Heck, that was the very POINT of my post

 

[ThePhysicist]

I think than, we are going down to the reduction of God as utterly meaningless. Saying that God is a synonim of suppernatural - which is what your definition accomplishes - renders it completely detached from any conceptualization ever linked to the term. Is a vampire God? what's the difference between a God and a ghost? Is God like the power of reading minds? All fit in your definition.

If we are to debate this, we are in the wrong thread. We should open up an thread on induction/deduction and on falseability, or, generally, means of informatiuon gathering, and take it there. God, as you defined, is nothing but a word loaded with stigma blocking us from the real subject at hand.

And to think that it was I who were accused of playing with semantics...

Regards .

Yes this is turning into semantics, because now I'm gonna dispute your defintion of supernaturality.

To be supernatural (by what I mean), you must be metaphysical. Vampires (would) interact with the world in a quantifiable manner. They have a direct affect. Same with ghosts (if they were real). You could knowingly evaluate them. God would not work this way. God would have an influence on the world, but it would not be observable. It would not be detectable, excepting maybe that by his nonexistence nothing makes complete sense.

But this debate is collapsing around subjective definitions and semantics as you say.

 

[FredLC]

Ok, than let's adopt your definition of supernatural and do away with the semantics. You say that God would have and influence that is completely undetectable except by the feeling (perception?) that things don't make sense without him.

I have two questions than:

1 - How does that differ from opinion?

2 - What if a person DO feel things make sense without him?

Regards .

 

[ThePhysicist]

Ok, than let's adopt your definition of supernatural and do away with the semantics. You say that God would have and influence that is completely undetectable except by the feeling (perception?) that things don't make sense without him.

I have two questions than:

1 - How does that differ from opinion?

2 - What if a person DO feel things make sense without him?

Regards .

No, it's not a perception. I'm talking about a failure of the universe to be explained by natural means. This hasn't happened yet. It also hasn't not happened yet. It has nothing to do with subjectivity. Either the world can be explained perfectly by science and logic, or it can't. If it can't, there's something more.

 

[Sidhe]

Since I'm not giving you an easy way out of this mess, I'll obviosuly address your point and do away the laziness excuse. Please just address me to the post you want answered (since I'm not in this thread from scratch), and I'll have a reply ready ASAP.

A few things:

1) That my post was originally from another thread is a lame excuse. I brought it up as at an relevant context. And if you weren't interested, you needed only not answering (nor reading). Since you bothered to publically demonstrate your contemption for my idea, I'd say that common thread courtesy demands that YOU take the trouble to consubstanciate it.

2) I haven't answered your post because I haven't seen it. It could have been, however, because I didn't find it compelling to merit a reply. Whatever. I'll now, because you brought it up and seen to think it's relevant to our little chat here. However, I gotta say that this "answer me this or you're lazy and I'll not play" game won't get us people anywhere. Let's try to avoid it, ok, for I haven't asked you for anything unreasonable.

3) After you show me your post, and i'll reply to it, feel free to adress my reply, but I'll require that, before you do (or at least simultaneously), you go to my post before this one and answer what is there, since THAT is what I actually want to see answered.

4) And final. I feel this is getting a bit heated. I don't want it to be. No, I'm not giving up debate, nor withdrawing anything I said. But I hope we can proceed this debate, and I mean every point of this debate, without animosity, if that is at all possible.

Regards .

It's a matter of manners then, I'm asking you to read the whole thread and make posts based on it, because I guess I consider this well mannered in a thread. I'm not getting heated but I am asking you to address a new thread not another thread with an argument based on an old one, do this in it's context and I'll do that in your old one. Issues here have to be adressed first in my mind, I don't think your old thread addresses them, so I question the relevance to this thread.

At the end of the day though my argument agianst your argument is you've simply replaced logic and proof with bold statements without any of those two parameters. In other words your comparisson is not valid, your just trying to make out it is more valid, without actually showing that agnosticism<atheism. But I'll answer this at length when you answer this thread.

 

[FredLC]

No, it's not a perception. I'm talking about a failure of the universe to be explained by natural means. This hasn't happened yet. It also hasn't not happened yet. It has nothing to do with subjectivity. Either the world can be explained perfectly by science and logic, or it can't. If it can't, there's something more.

Maybe it can, and we just haven't figured it out yet; or maybe it's just that a better process than logic is needed, but another entirely mundane explanation is viable. Or maybe there IS something else, it just isn't [a] God.

Getting to God by what we don't know IS, in the end, an appeal to ignorance. It requires a leap of faith, and has too few substance to it. See, the manner you are employing to keep the concept of God viable is by butchering any meaningful dennotation it has. I wonder if the God you are advocating would satisfy the believers.

Not that God intrinsically has to satisfy believes, but hey, if the concept wasn't very popular, we would hardly be having this chat at all, would we not?

Regards .