Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Do you believe in God?
Ask an agnostic
- Thread starter ParadigmShifter
- Start date
ParadigmShifter
Random Nonsense Generator
Nope.
EDIT: Have you read page 1?
EDIT: Have you read page 1?
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
I skimmered it.
We're talking proof. Belief is so last thread.
We're talking proof. Belief is so last thread.
And before anyone gets ahead of themselves with name-calling, we should lay out the definitions. (God is interchangeable with divinity)
Atheist: Lacks belief in God - "Do you believe in God?"
Agnostic: Does not know if God exists - "Do you know if there is a God?"
Weak Atheist: Does not believe in God (because there is insufficient proof or evidence). "There isn't any proof of God that I've seen to posit that there exists a God." - An atheist, position by itself has no direct agnostic claim (though usually an agnostic)
Strong Atheist: Believes there is no God (because there is no proof or evidence). "Since there is no proof of God, we are forced to conclude that there is no God." - An atheist, not an agnostic
Weak Agnostic: Does not know if there is a God (because there is insufficient proof or evidence). "I don't know if there's a God, I haven't seen anything to convince me." - An atheist, an agnostic
Strong Agnostic: Believes God is unknowable (by virtue of the proof or evidence required being impossible to be comprehended or accepted). "Nobody (truly) knows if there is a God, nobody can make any comment on the divine." - An atheist, an agnostic
Note: the positions are stand-alone. You could say that a strong atheist is also a weak atheist, but that would be a misapplication of definitions. The strong atheist's claim is more firm and robust than the weak atheist claim, such that you should only call a strong atheist as such. Likewise, I, as a strong agnostic, could be called an "atheist" or an "agnostic" and so on, but that would be like calling a Catholic "Christian", when calling them "Catholic" yields so much more information and breadth to the exact degree of their beliefs.
There is a great deal of interchangeability between these terms, and usually somebody is not hard-set into any particular one of them. For example, a weak atheist is usually also a weak agnostic; if you don't believe in a God then you usually don't know if there is a God. If you poke and prod a strong atheist hard enough, he'll probably give in that there is actually some possibility of a God existing, giving him some weak agnostic characteristics.
Of course, strong agnostic is the correct religious belief for anyone and everyone.
Atheist: Lacks belief in God - "Do you believe in God?"
Agnostic: Does not know if God exists - "Do you know if there is a God?"
Weak Atheist: Does not believe in God (because there is insufficient proof or evidence). "There isn't any proof of God that I've seen to posit that there exists a God." - An atheist, position by itself has no direct agnostic claim (though usually an agnostic)
Strong Atheist: Believes there is no God (because there is no proof or evidence). "Since there is no proof of God, we are forced to conclude that there is no God." - An atheist, not an agnostic
Weak Agnostic: Does not know if there is a God (because there is insufficient proof or evidence). "I don't know if there's a God, I haven't seen anything to convince me." - An atheist, an agnostic
Strong Agnostic: Believes God is unknowable (by virtue of the proof or evidence required being impossible to be comprehended or accepted). "Nobody (truly) knows if there is a God, nobody can make any comment on the divine." - An atheist, an agnostic
Note: the positions are stand-alone. You could say that a strong atheist is also a weak atheist, but that would be a misapplication of definitions. The strong atheist's claim is more firm and robust than the weak atheist claim, such that you should only call a strong atheist as such. Likewise, I, as a strong agnostic, could be called an "atheist" or an "agnostic" and so on, but that would be like calling a Catholic "Christian", when calling them "Catholic" yields so much more information and breadth to the exact degree of their beliefs.
There is a great deal of interchangeability between these terms, and usually somebody is not hard-set into any particular one of them. For example, a weak atheist is usually also a weak agnostic; if you don't believe in a God then you usually don't know if there is a God. If you poke and prod a strong atheist hard enough, he'll probably give in that there is actually some possibility of a God existing, giving him some weak agnostic characteristics.
Of course, strong agnostic is the correct religious belief for anyone and everyone.
ParadigmShifter
Random Nonsense Generator
That makes me a strong agnostic then! Yay! (feels intellectual muscles)
EDIT: Maybe not, proof would be knowable, if god is as all powerful as they say.
EDIT: Maybe not, proof would be knowable, if god is as all powerful as they say.
If you believe that it would be possible for a proof to be presented to you or anyone (without you becoming God in order to understand this proof*) that would prove God in such a manner that it would be logical and appropriate to believe in God, then you are not a strong agnostic.
* - I would venture to say that even this qualification may not be universal among all strong agnostics, wherein even God may not be able to confirm divinity with any appropriate confidence.
ParadigmShifter
Random Nonsense Generator
Well, that sounds like they are a priori discounting the proof.
EDIT: Which has not yet been presented, of course. So sounds like atheism to me.
EDIT: Which has not yet been presented, of course. So sounds like atheism to me.
Proof that you cannot accept proof:
1. Consider a deluded man who believes he is God.
2. He is absolutely sure he is God, either through imagination, virtual reality, delusion, etc. He is 100% sure.
3. He is not God.
4. Therefore, how could God himself/herself be sure of the divinity. God could be 100% sure. Just like the deluded man. God could prove it through, say, powerful actions. Just like the deluded man in the virtual reality. God could posses metaphysical knowledge that proves to him/her that he/she is God. Just like the deluded man (with knowledge that in reality is nonsensical).
ParadigmShifter
Random Nonsense Generator
I already said proof would involve everyone everywhere and be convincing though. Maybe aliens could do it...
If god is that powerful (as people say) he could pull it off.
If god is that powerful (as people say) he could pull it off.
Who are you to say that such proof is possible?
After all, God cannot create a rock so heavy that even he/she couldn't lift. God cannot defy logical impossibilities.
And if he/she can, this is still so beyond our capacities that we could never be able to appropriately say "God exists" or even worse "God is exactly this".
Unless we became God ourselves, we should never be able to accept a proof of God.
ParadigmShifter
Random Nonsense Generator
I'm not convinced. Need more proof 
I'm not convinced. Need more proof
The proof that there is insufficient proof to prove that it is impossible to obtain proof of proof of God should prove that it is likewise impossible to prove God under any appropriate standard of proof.
ParadigmShifter
Random Nonsense Generator
I'm on my last beer. You going all Godel on me.
Whiskey_Lord
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2008
- Messages
- 2,163
Do you believe that we can have a detailed definition of the self? If so, then what is it?
Thats sort of my conception, that God is the ultimate reality and nothing can exist outside this reality. We may not be able see things as Divine, yet without some kind of support from this ultimate reality nothing can exist (including... say Satan)
My wiew here is that it may not be beyond our capacity but beyond the capacities of senses/mind under ordinary condition (just like we cant see something tiny/far away without microscope/telescope or understand certain things in life till our mind/psyche matures). Thus Yogis/mystics who are controling their though flow or keeping mind calm or thougless are talking about higher layers of mind such as intuitive mind, overmind, supermind,... And with these "instruments", which are not subject to the same kind of laws as ordinary mind or even intelectual mind, can percive other realities and even this world of ours in totaly different light.
The funny part is that even if you become God yourself if you would want to share that with others it would be probably like trying to teach the donkey etiquette or mathematics.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
They just claim they can, but most likely they can't. They're either deluding themselves or deluding others.
Thx sincerely. Of course there are fakes but from what little I have experienced myself and have got idea over the years from associating with true spirituality the opposite is much more likely to be correct. Just becouse right now the majority of humans do not have access to certain knowledge or becouse of our limited discrimination and insight we consider something unnatural it may not be so and vice versa.
Also from what I understand most socaled fakes can be quite sincere but are rather confused and misinterpreting their own experiences rather then just trying to take advantage of others stupidity.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
"We can't know it, so it is most likely true", isn't the most convincing argument. Neither is "trust me".
Amount of scientific evidence for it to be true amount to zip, zilch, zero, nada.
Subjective evidence is prone to delusions.
My point remains unchallenged.
Amount of scientific evidence for it to be true amount to zip, zilch, zero, nada.
Subjective evidence is prone to delusions.
My point remains unchallenged.
I have mentioned that we can know it. It just that we have to use our minds in different way and just becouse majority have not done it you cant say that "We cant know it through scientific method, so its likely untrue"; hence my point remains unchallenged.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
As I said, "trust me" is not the most convincing argument.
Parrotry. Nice. Thanks for the compliment.
edit: I see you edited your other post. There are two kinds of fakes. The fakes who have convinced themselves, and those who knowingly delude others. The first group will not listen to reason and use their own experience as evidence, but I hope I don't have to convince you how easily we delude ourselves.
Link to video.
And this is vision. A sense which is deemed to be so reliable that it sparked the phrase: "seeing is believing". Which is true insofar you believe you see the face towards you, even though you know this isn't so.
