Ask an agnostic

[Defiant47]

I think we need to define truth here.

Truth about god can only be that he either exists or not. It can't be both.

So then, if the truth is that God exists and is the Christian God of the Bible (the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost), then we're supposed to say that atheists, agnostics, and Muslims don't exist?

Some atheists know there is no God, but if there actually is a God, then they're not atheists?

Perhaps we should keep the definitions as they are right now, since they're more useful like this.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Plus, some things can be either true or false but which can never be proven to be true (see: Godel).

It's called undecidability. I think proof of a god falls into that category, myself.

EDIT: As do these http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_undecidable_problems

 

[GamezRule]

Well, as a mathematician (kind of), obviously a thread about agnosticism should discuss the nature of proof, which Bertie ultimately failed in proving

If the Party God wills it, then 2+2=5.

Spoiler :

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Here's an interesting article as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berry's_paradox

The Berry paradox as formulated above arises because of systematic ambiguity in the word "definable". In other formulations of the Berry paradox, such as one that instead reads: "...not nameable in less..." the term "nameable" is also one that has this systematic ambiguity. Terms of this kind give rise to vicious circle fallacies. Other terms with this type of ambiguity are: satisfiable, true, false, function, property, class, relation, cardinal, and ordinal.[2] To resolve one of these paradoxes means to pinpoint exactly where our use of language went wrong and to provide restrictions on the use of language which may avoid them.

Bolding mine

 

[dirtyparrot]

Some atheists know there is no God, but if there actually is a God, then they're not atheists?

If there was one, then they would be mistaken. People can't know with complete certainty whether there is or isn't a god (that's not to say that they have equal chance of being correct). At best, I think can say that there's no reason to believe that there is one.

But, again it is a matter of faith and at what degree of certainty we are willing to believe something. For example, I can't be 100% certain that there isn't a lion waiting to pounce on me the second that I open the door. But, based on my knowledge, I know that there is no reason to fear opening the door.

 

[erez87]

God is all. All is not God. God only, allows everything to exist inside the parameters that we call this universe or multiverse. Many believe that if God did not exist, then neither would anything. Many people do not believe God exist, because there is no way to explain "His" existence.

There are people who know they exist because they are the product of billions of evolutionary cycles, although they have no knowledge of beginnings.

There are people who know that God exist and that there was a beginning.

There are people who will either know or just cease to exist after they die, but know one knows that for a fact, because that is what we call future and no one knows the future. Science can not predict the future, but if scientific predictions "happen" then that science becomes a reality. If an individual does claim to know the future they are scoffed at, and then ridiculed after that point in history comes and passes. Or their prediction does become a reality and belief becomes knowledge.

God is all means god is nothing. Anything that includes everything is pointless on itself. Besides, there is already a word for that - it's called the universe.

You are totally misusing the word "know". What is knowledge according to you? Does knowing I have magical healing hands means its true? You are totally mixing know and believe.

Science doesn't know the future, but it's the best and only method we know of to make attempts at guessing it.

So then, if the truth is that God exists and is the Christian God of the Bible (the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost), then we're supposed to say that atheists, agnostics, and Muslims don't exist?

Some atheists know there is no God, but if there actually is a God, then they're not atheists?

Perhaps we should keep the definitions as they are right now, since they're more useful like this.

What???! Again misusing the word know. It's not know, it's believe (or disbelieve). No one knows if gods exist or not exist since there are no evidence backing its existence or it's none existence. If there are people who believe there is a god and there isn't one, they are wrong. If there are people who don't believe there is a god and there is they are wrong too. Both can't be right.

Plus, some things can be either true or false but which can never be proven to be true (see: Godel).

It's called undecidability. I think proof of a god falls into that category, myself.

EDIT: As do these http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_undecidable_problems

There are things, like ideas or questions that can be both true and false. But things that are testable, and exist within the physical universe (and influence it in any way) cannot be both true and false. The existence of a snake skeleton in front of me right now isn't true and false, it can only be one of them. Existence isn't a trait that can be both true and false, it must be one or the other, otherwise it contradicts itself.

 

[timtofly]

God is all means god is nothing. Anything that includes everything is pointless on itself. Besides, there is already a word for that - it's called the universe.

You are totally misusing the word "know". What is knowledge according to you? Does knowing I have magical healing hands means its true? You are totally mixing know and believe.

Science doesn't know the future, but it's the best and only method we know of to make attempts at guessing it.


What???! Again misusing the word know. It's not know, it's believe (or disbelieve). No one knows if gods exist or not exist since there are no evidence backing its existence or it's none existence. If there are people who believe there is a god and there isn't one, they are wrong. If there are people who don't believe there is a god and there is they are wrong too. Both can't be right.



There are things, like ideas or questions that can be both true and false. But things that are testable, and exist within the physical universe (and influence it in any way) cannot be both true and false. The existence of a snake skeleton in front of me right now isn't true and false, it can only be one of them. Existence isn't a trait that can be both true and false, it must be one or the other, otherwise it contradicts itself.

I assume/believe that your post was posted on a computer. I cannot say 100% I know you posted on a computer.

You know 100% if your post was done on a computer. 5 years ago, it would have been a forgone conclusion. Now we have the variable of cell phones. These phones are computers, but they still use a cell phone label.

The above contained both symantics and facts. I know exactly what I mean when I use the word know and yes two people can have the same belief, but only one can know that belief. An athiest hates it when they are accused of not knowing and claim they just do not believe. I would not be afraid if I said I do not know that you are posting on a computer even if you were posting on a computer. I just do not have that knowledge available. "Not knowing" is not wrong nor sinful nor amoral. It just means that one does not know. An agnostic believes it cannot be known. They definetly cannot know that there is or is not an unknown.

This realy has nothing to do with whether people know or even believe they know. Today there is no proof for either side. There is no proof that there is and there is no proof that there is not a God. There may have been proof in the past or there may not have been. That knowledge has been lost. All knowledge has been lost except that which has been written down. Faith does come into play whenever we read history, since we can only accept or deny what was written down.

No one knows what another person knows no matter how hard they protest that it can be true or not.

 

[erez87]

I assume/believe that your post was posted on a computer. I cannot say 100% I know you posted on a computer.

You know 100% if your post was done on a computer. 5 years ago, it would have been a forgone conclusion. Now we have the variable of cell phones. These phones are computers, but they still use a cell phone label.

The above contained both symantics and facts. I know exactly what I mean when I use the word know and yes two people can have the same belief, but only one can know that belief. An athiest hates it when they are accused of not knowing and claim they just do not believe. I would not be afraid if I said I do not know that you are posting on a computer even if you were posting on a computer. I just do not have that knowledge available. "Not knowing" is not wrong nor sinful nor amoral. It just means that one does not know. An agnostic believes it cannot be known. They definetly cannot know that there is or is not an unknown.

This realy has nothing to do with whether people know or even believe they know. Today there is no proof for either side. There is no proof that there is and there is no proof that there is not a God. There may have been proof in the past or there may not have been. That knowledge has been lost. All knowledge has been lost except that which has been written down. Faith does come into play whenever we read history, since we can only accept or deny what was written down.

No one knows what another person knows no matter how hard they protest that it can be true or not.

I won't go into how little sense you post made. You mix know and believe constantly.

I'll only do this:
1. Define knowing
2. Define believing
3. I KNOW that you don't KNOW if god exists or don't. I KNOW that no body knows if god exists or not. I DON'T KNOW if god exists or not.

God, and anything else that has not been shown to have evidence, is not known, by anyone. If anyone would know god exists, than he would have evidence to support it - since no one has the evidence, no one knows.

 

[warpus]

Today there is no proof for either side. There is no proof that there is and there is no proof that there is not a God.

It would be impossible to come up with a proof that something doesn't exist, unless you were first able to define it in quite a lot of detail, which cannot be said for god.

 

[timtofly]

I won't go into how little sense you post made. You mix know and believe constantly.

I'll only do this:
1. Define knowing
2. Define believing
3. I KNOW that you don't KNOW if god exists or don't. I KNOW that no body knows if god exists or not. I DON'T KNOW if god exists or not.

God, and anything else that has not been shown to have evidence, is not known, by anyone. If anyone would know god exists, than he would have evidence to support it - since no one has the evidence, no one knows.

Knowing = observed knowledge
Belief = what one thinks they have knowledge of but cannot be observed.

No one can know what another person knows. No one can tell another person that that person has no knowledge of that which they have knowledge of.

A person can only know what they themselves know.

A person can be told what another person believes, and that may be "knowledge" but it does not mean that that person is telling you the truth. You still have to trust that what that person is saying can be varified (observed).


Just because you think you know that another person can never have a "given" knowledge of something, does not make that knowledge dissappear. It just means you are good at changing the way that person thinks. Doubt?

@ Warpus

It is easier to cast doubt, than to prove a truth?

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

So then, what makes you think god gave the secret of its existence to you and denied it to others?

 

[timtofly]

So then, what makes you think god gave the secret of its existence to you and denied it to others?

What makes you think I have that knowledge?

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

You don't. It's not knowledge because it isn't knowable. Faith isn't knowledge, by definition.

 

[Defiant47]

You don't. It's not knowledge because it isn't knowable. Faith isn't knowledge, by definition.

But faith is an avenue of opening yourself up to knowledge.

If I were to have faith, then I would discover the knowledge that God is with me every day in everything that I do, as well as in various other things. Without faith, I could not have the knowledge that God exists, is in my heart, is in the sunset, etc.

 

[Antilogic]

But faith is an avenue of opening yourself up to knowledge.

If I were to have faith, then I would discover the knowledge that God is with me every day in everything that I do, as well as in various other things. Without faith, I could not have the knowledge that God exists, is in my heart, is in the sunset, etc.

We have very different definitions of the word 'knowledge'.

 

[Defiant47]

We have very different definitions of the word 'knowledge'.

As you can see, knowledge is subjective. "Knowing" something is subjective.

Even if we were to define it in an objective manner, it would render the word useless. How can anyone claim to "know" something - for in order to claim it, this must be known objectively, an impossible feat.

So if you complain that someone cannot "know" that there exists a God, then they could likewise claim that you cannot "know" that you are touching a keyboard.

 

[Antilogic]

As you can see, knowledge is subjective. "Knowing" something is subjective.

Even if we were to define it in an objective manner, it would render the word useless. How can anyone claim to "know" something - for in order to claim it, this must be known objectively, an impossible feat.

So if you complain that someone cannot "know" that there exists a God, then they could likewise claim that you cannot "know" that you are touching a keyboard.

So if you, hypothetically, were standing in the room I am in, and were watching me, you still could not 'know' whether or not I was touching a keyboard?

 

[Defiant47]

So if you, hypothetically, were standing in the room I am in, and were watching me, you still could not 'know' whether or not I was touching a keyboard?

On the contrary. One can "know" something that is false. [Turns out I was dreaming]

Whereas imposing the requirement that one can only "know" something that is true would render the word impossible to quantify in most circumstances and rob it of its meaning and usage.

 

[MantaRevan]

Perhaps this may shut the door on this discussion. This is what Webster's has to say:
Know: to understand, remember, or experience
Believe: to accept the truth of something

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Perhaps this may shut the door on this discussion. This is what Webster's has to say:
Know: to understand, remember, or experience
Believe: to accept the truth of something

Well, not really. That's not even what Webster says.

be·lieve
verb \bə-ˈlēv\
intransitive verb
1 a : to have a firm religious faith b : to accept something as true, genuine, or real.

To accept something as true is not the same as to accept the truth of something.

Definition of KNOW
transitive verb
1
a (1) : to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2) : to have understanding of <importance of knowing oneself> (3) : to recognize the nature of : discern b (1) : to recognize as being the same as something previously known (2) : to be acquainted or familiar with (3) : to have experience of
2
a : to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of