On Agnosticism

[AtheistWorld.Com]

Our friend AtheistWorld.Com’s actions are like that of many conservative Christians attacking with anger and ego ( fear) anyone who will not believe as they do or may disagree with them.

When you idiots do not have even basic descency and intentionally take thread off topic one can hardly be respectful.

 

[Upchurch]

When you idiots do not have even basic descency and intentionally take thread off topic one can hardly be respectful.

We're skeptics. When we see a claim, we like to challenge it. Your claim was:

My position is simple. The concept of god is simply a logical impossibility, pure and simple. Therefore, agnostics should study the principles of logic and then try to apply the scientific method and logic to any definition of god.

Before we can address the second part of the claim (agnosticism is illogical) we must first address the first part fo the claim (the concept of god is simply a logical impossibility).

If you could prove the first part, you would be much further along in prove the second part.

And is there really any need for name calling? This is an honest discussion and I've done my best to answer all your questions concerning defining a God who might be logically consistant. Can you find a flaw?

 

[Sundog]

Greetings Sundog.

While I fully agree with the first statement the second

I do not believe is true. Just what I believe.

Hi Pahansiri!

Without meaning to sidetrack the thread, what I really mean by that is more like: No one is capable of a truly skeptical attitude at all times, and those who are sure they are being completely skeptical are very often failing to examine themselves and their own arguments skeptically.

We have graphic examples of this here, all the time. AW is just the latest one.

 

[arcticpenguin]

We're skeptics. When we see a claim, we like to challenge it. Your claim was:Before we can address the second part of the claim (agnosticism is illogical) we must first address the first part fo the claim (the concept of god is simply a logical impossibility).

If you could prove the first part, you would be much further along in prove the second part.

And is there really any need for name calling? This is an honest discussion and I've done my best to answer all your questions concerning defining a God who might be logically consistant. Can you find a flaw?

Whazzup? Didn't he promise to put you on Ignore yesterday?

 

[metacristi]

AtheistWorld.com

I once put forth an argument that agnostics are simply weak people for whom logic is not of concern.

Agnosticism is a much more complex position than seems at first sight.I agree that it is primarily concerned with knowledge [usually defined as meaning 'scientific,objective,knowledge' for which we have arguments beyond all reasonable doubt] however this is not enough to engulf the whole domain of agnosticism.Indeed those who say that 'God cannot be known [forever]','hard agnostics' in my acception,are rather in a minority among agnostics.The majority of them simply say that we do not have,for the moment,evidence beyond all reasonable doubt pro/con God therefore they cannot make a rational decision to believe or to disbelieve prefering neither to believe nor to disbelieve ['suspend judgement regarding belief/disbelief' but only for the moment]-'weak' agnosticism in my acception.

Under the generic umbrella of 'weak' agnosticism there are two main subtypes:for some agnostics only scientific arguments proving/disproving the existence of God beyond all reasonable doubt are accepted when dealing with the belief/disbelief problem whilst for some others 'sufficient reasons to believe/disbelieve do not mean only 'objective' (scientific) knowledge but also enough evidence [different from proof,arguments beyond all reasonable doubt or certitudes!] that can be interpreted (subjectively varying from person to person-there is no unique,rigid standard) as supporting belief/disbelief.

For example in the latter case of 'weak' agnosticism the agnostic conlcudes that there is also enough mysterious 'subjective evidence' that might be taken into account,that in spite of the 'successes' of naturalism this is still not an argument beyond all reasonable doubt against God's existence [naturalism is still a conjecture indeed] and moreover that there are still enough ontological questions where 'God hypothesis' is still on equal foot in absolute with scientific hypotheses [the apparition of the universe,why should the laws of nature remain basically the same for long periods of time and so on].Based on all these facts a 'weak' agnostic of the second type [the first type 'weak' agnostic take into account only objective,scientific data] arrive also at the personal conclusion that it is impossible to have a definite stance in the problem of belief/disbelief preffering to neither believe nor disbelieve.

An agnostic atheist [also of two kinds depending on the data accepted: only objective data or more] for example would arrive at the personal conclusion that God hypothesis is inferior to naturalism preffering to disbelieve whilst an agnostic theist [like me] would conlcude that God hypothesis is more probable to be true in the light of the known data available.

Because we arrived until here I think it's interesting to define 'strong' atheism also.Well in my acception it is of two types: there are some 'strong atheists' who claim that science has already proved with arguments beyond all reasonable doubt that God hypothesis is 'objectively' inferior to naturalism and therefore all would be rational person is forced to disbelieve ['fundametalist 'strong atheism'] and some others who merely say that all known objective facts provide a sufficient basis for disbelief [no claim that belief is nonrational or irrational however,also no direct mention of the fact that we do not have yet sufficient knowledge to settle the problem of God existence/nonexistence as do agnostic atheists].My categories do not inlcude the so called 'weak atheism',clearly an artificial position anyway in no case 'atheistic' [see some of my former posts where I've explained in detail why],since simple 'lack of belief' is only a form of 'weak agnosticism' of the second type...

Returning at your objection against what I name 'strong' agnosticism the most common answer I received from such people was that 'we cannot prove or disprove God with arguments beyond all reasonable doubt'.I do not agree with this,future can be full of surprises,moreover I think there can be established standards even today.

For example here is the standard I propose [taken from a post of mine on another site-it is from an argument against the common mith that 'you cannot prove a negative'-implying all possible cases] that will make 'God hypothesis' less probable 'objectively' [making belief nonrational also]:


"1.A 'theory of everything'.This in itself does not give sufficient arguments because there is no reason to suppose that this theory is unique and infallible (it represents merely a fallible objective truth-there is no good reason to think otherwise) and moreover does not make 'God hypothesis' less probable but corroborated with:

2.The computational approach of consciousness (using boolean algebra) is proved beyond all reasonable doubt as being correct.
Here by arguments beyond all reasonable doubt I mean a detailed,'working',description of the dynamics of the brain,a 'holistic' view (even if we had the proof that all mental states correlate with physical states-anyway far from being achieved now-this would,simply,be not enough).Another chance is to emulate a human mind using technology:an android whose consciousness is indistinguishable from that of a human being for example.

3.'Confirming' repeatedly abiogenesis (in intersubjective experiments).

4.A multiverse hypothesis,fully compatible with alll observed facts,consistently 'confirmed' therefore,whose ontology is confirmed also experimentally (even indirectly).For example the discovery that the so called 'false vacuum' (the main theoretical 'entity' posited as existing ontologically by Guth's multiverse hypothesis) is a reality would be enough.


This approach is totally compatible with the scientific method,the God hypothesis would be proved [in case that the above requirements will be 'confirmed' experimentally] as being less probable in a sound,scientific,manner,exactly how,for example,the aether was rendered less probable 'objectively' by the Michelson-Morley experiment.

Still this does not imply certitudes,the aether or God could still exist in spite of that 'sufficient evidence',however this would entitle naturalism to 'graduate' from the status of simple conjecture to that of 'fallible scientific truth'.Which would make belief in God nonrational [according with the requirements of logic] exactly how belief in a flat Earth or in aether [as it was conceived in the 19-th century at least] is nonrational.
Anyway what counts,and this is what I wanted to underline,is that till then the naturalist approach is only a conjecture,the claims that science and logic compel all rational people to be skeptical or to disbelieve in God are [still] totally unfounded."

 

[arcticpenguin]

Without meaning to sidetrack the thread, what I really mean by that is more like: No one is capable of a truly skeptical attitude at all times, and those who are sure they are being completely skeptical are very often failing to examine themselves and their own arguments skeptically.

Are you sure about that?

 

[Pahansiri]

When you idiots do not have even basic descency and intentionally take thread off topic one can hardly be respectful.

My friend in each post we find along with poor spelling much anger and hypocrisy.

Here we find 2 cases of hypocrisy.

1- You call all who will not do as you tell them to idiots yet speak of being respectful.
2- You also call all who will not do as you tell them to idiots yet spell “descency” wrong. Is that not like calling some one stupid and spelling it “stuiped”?

This is a board and from what I have come to know of you the little I do you post to many, there are boards to hear what people think and exchange ideas yet this bothers you.

Back to the conservative Christian analogy it seems your idea of freedom of speech is we are free to say what you allow and as to freedom of belief we are free to believe what you wish us to.

Just what I believe.

Oh yes a closing note, the crux of your statement was that is was us that “Made” you be rude that is silliness, no one can make you do, think, believe anything.

No one has that power over anyone without their allowing it.

May you be well and happy

 

[Sundog]

Are you sure about that?

Daisy, daisy.. give me.. your answer.. do...

BOOM

 

[Upchurch]

Whazzup? Didn't he promise to put you on Ignore yesterday?

Promise, nothing. He flat out put me on his Ignore list.

Perhaps he figured out, like I said, that putting everyone who disagreed with you on Ignore will make you a very lonely poster...

Give him time, he's a newbie and still learning his netiquette. We all made mistakes early on.

 

[Sundog]

Promise, nothing. He flat out put me on his Ignore list.

Perhaps he figured out, like I said, that putting everyone who disagreed with you on Ignore will make you a very lonely poster...

Particularly when that's, at last count, everyone.

 

[Upchurch]

http://atheistworld.com/view_articles.php?&articleid=4

Omnipotence is old hat. Only die hard true believers still buy into the concept of omnipotence.

However, not all gods are defined as omnipotent, now are they? Even Franko never went so far as to claim omnipotence for his Goddess and Franko made a lot of wild claims.

 

[no one in particular]

Give him time, he's a newbie and still learning his netiquette. We all made mistakes early on.

Yes, but this is at least his second go at being a newbie. I think his other account is still active too, making this one a sock.

 

[Upchurch]

Yes, but this is at least his second go at being a newbie. I think his other account is still active too, making this one a sock.

What other account?

 

[AtheistWorld.Com]

1. Is this god a he/she? Yes or, maybe, neither. One could argue that gender might be transcended by such a thing.

So you admit that you have no knowledge of a basic atribute of such a beast yet you want to claim knowledge of its existence? Hmmm does circular logic ring a bell.

2. Is this god omnipotent? Hm... Tricky word, "omnipotent". Why don't we say that this god has the ability to start the universe and step back to watch.

Stand back into where? What place?

3. Does this god exist outside space and time? if yes, what is outside space and time and how do you know? Well, logically, spacetime is a function of the universe and doesn't exist independently from it. Since such a god must exist prior to the existance of the universe (and therefore spacetime), I'd say that this god must exist outside spacetime, or at least, doesn't need to exist in spacetime.

So then, how would such a being interact with the physical matter which requires space/time without being inside space/time?

4. Does this god need nurishment? I honestly wouldn't know.

Again you claim knowledge of a being whose basic atributes you do not know.

5. Can this god become less than god and then return to being god again? Interesting question. Since this is an extremely passive god, let's say that it doesn't, whether or not it has the ability to.

How do you know it is a pasive god?

6. By what logical process was this god conceived? Okay, gut feeling aside, let's take an ID approach with this god, shall we? There is too much order to the world for there not to be an intelligence behind it. However, this god just set the initial conditions and rules and let the chips fall where they may with no further intervention.

I do not see any evidence for any order in the world aside from that which man has made (limitted as it may be) so what order are you speaking of?

8. Where did this god come from and how do you know? I don't know and I don't, but there are many things about the universe I don't know and it hasn't stopped me from investigating them.

There are many things which are impossible. Are you aware of this? If yes, are you aware that making a claim without substantiation is merely a claim? If that which you claim cannot be defined or its atributes be defined the it is a logical impossibility to the extent we understand nature, logic and the laws there of.

9. What else do you know about this god besides merely a claim? Nothing other than it's a possibility that doesn't interfere with current understanding of science.

Not true. You first need to explain you claim and the atributes if we are to have an intelligent discuasion/debate. Current understanding of science does not allow room for your deist/passive god unless you throw out the laws of physics as understood by science today.

10. Do you recognize the scientific method as authoritive? When it comes to the nature of reality, I do. edited to add: incedently, what does my opinon of science have to do with the definition of this god?

Amazing. On the one hand you claim to adhere to current scientific method and understanding there of yet on the other hand you make a claim of a god whch has no room within the same. As I said, you and your type are irrational and argue in circles.

Can you now show a logical contradiction in this god?

Yes. This god is a fiction of your imagination or the imagination of the originator of this myth. How is this a logical contradiction?

Logic deals with reality not fiction and we either adhere to proven methods such as the scientific methods or we do not.

In lala land anything is possible but I do not smoke crack nor do I use drugs, so in my reality and my world a=a.

You have failed to list the atributes of this god therefore you have presnted nothing of substance to refute.

Is it possible that an unknown exists? Yes. Can we know what this unknow is? No! So how can we make a claim to know that this unknown exists? We cannot. rational people do not take ideological positions based on lack of knowledge.

It is one thing to understand that there are unknown factors and it is another to make a claim that "something" is unknown and this something might be god but since we have yet to define god it is an irrational position to claim lack of knowledge one way or another weathe this god does/can/does not or cannot exist.

For this reason it is a logical falacy and a clearly an irrational position.

and for the last time, if you cling to the belief that this passive god exists you need to tell me what you mean by this "god" such as what is this god and its atributes. You cannot claim that it is possible that this thing exists before defining what this thing is.

Logic can only refute/confirm what is logically definable/not. If it cannot be defined logically it cannot exist.

Max

 

[Sundog]

So you admit that you have no knowledge of a basic atribute of such a beast yet you want to claim knowledge of its existence? Hmmm does circular logic ring a bell.

By what logic do you assume a "supreme being" would have a gender?

 

[slimshady2357]

Is it possible that an unknown exists? Yes. Can we know what this unknow is? No! So how can we make a claim to know that this unknown exists? We cannot. rational people do not take ideological positions based on lack of knowledge.

Max

And yet this is exactly what you do. You claim these same unknown things do not exist, you take an ideological position based on a lack of knowledge.

Way to refute yourself.

Adam

 

[AtheistWorld.Com]

By what logic do you assume a "supreme being" would have a gender?

I do not know what a "supreme being" is! never seen one or proof of such so I have no clue what you are talking about.

 

[whitefork]

Logic deals with reality not fiction and we either adhere to proven methods such as the scientific methods or we do not.

............

Logic can only refute/confirm what is logically definable/not. If it cannot be defined logically it cannot exist.

Max

Logic is purely formal. Logical definitions define the properties of logical operators.

Do logical operators exist? What is the ontological status of "if - then" or "and"?

And now, the big question. What is "reality"?

Is "house" logical, or not? It's not a proposition. How can logic apply to a concept in isolation from an assertion about its properties or relations?

We need to know your definitions of logic and reality before we can evaluate the truth of your assertions.

I believe that the two statements quoted above are contradictory unless you add some qualifications.

For this reason it is a logical falacy and a clearly an irrational position.

Please state the name of this formal fallacy.

 

[AtheistWorld.Com]

You claim these same unknown things do not exist, you take an ideological position based on a lack of knowledge.

Not true at all. I am simply stating that one must define what the hell one is talking about if we are to be able to talk about it.

Agnostics claim that we cannot know if god does or does not exist. That is fine with me. The problem is that agnostics cannot define this god. So how can we even debate/discuss whether god can or cannot exist if we do not even know what this god IS.

In other words agnostics claim that something might or might not exist and let's call this something god. How the hell is that not irrational?

Why is this so hard to understand?

 

[Sundog]

I do not know what a "supreme being" is! never seen one or proof of such so I have no clue what you are talking about.

Therefore, you cannot insist that it be defined as one gender or the other. Is this really an example of your "logic"?

Next.