On Agnosticism

AtheistWorld.Com said:
Kullervo, we are not interested in childish reasonings... on this thread. We are speaking of the accepted forms of "gods" relevant to the nature of existance creation, evolution etc. etc.
Click to expand...
You quite clearly asked what god is. I told you. It's not my problem if you don't like my answer.

Now, you say what god is. Please give a logically coherent answer - then say why his existence is impossible.

All you've apparantly said is that:

God is self-contradictory
Contradictions do not exist.
therefore god does not exist.

You've merely defined him out of existence. I'm underwhelmed.
 
Kullervo, don't play stupid here. I am not interested in rants.

You know full well at what level this thread is so please don't drag it into your stupidity level.
 
AtheistWorld.Com said:
Define this god?
Click to expand...
Funny. I thought I just did. Excuse me for repeating myself, the "God who kicked things off and then stood back to just let things happen as they may"
By what logical conclusion do deists conclude that such a beast did in fact do as they claim?
Click to expand...
No logic, just gut feeling.
and what is the nature of this god's character and person and/or characteristics?
Click to expand...
Extremely passive.

Now having defined this god, how is it self contradictory?
 
AtheistWorld.Com said:
I am not interested in rants.
Click to expand...
And yet, that is what you are doing. How ironic.
You know full well at what level this thread is so please don't drag it into your stupidity level.
Click to expand...
Unfamiliar with the Socratic method, eh? Max, this is a skeptics' board. You couldn't have come on here and thought that no one would question your premises, surely?
 
AtheistWorld.Com said:
Kullervo, don't play stupid here. I am not interested in rants.

You know full well at what level this thread is so please don't drag it into your stupidity level.
Click to expand...

You argue like a child youself. If you have points to make, make them with logic and reason, not with insults. You won't make ANY points around here by simply calling people names, or disparaging their arguments. This isn't your typical Internet forum, there are a lot of very smart people here, as you'd discover if you tried to communicate instead of instruct.

And if you're not here to convince us of your points, what are you doing here?
 
You keep using that word "god". I do not believe you have a meaning for it.

Do you believe the word to be meaningless? If you do, why not simply say so?

If you believe it to have a meaning, please define it and we can discuss it.

I'm quite serious by the way. What are you trying to accomplish here?

Until you tell us, I'll assume that you're merely trolling. I have a good definition of that activity.

Now feel free to put me on ignore.
 
No logic, just gut feeling.
Click to expand...

I'm not interested in talking about irrational issues.

You have not defined this god you merely defined your claim of this god.

Let me come down to your level for a bit:

1. Is this god a he/she?
2. Is this god omnipotent?
3. Does this god exist outside space and time? if yes, what is outside space and time and how do you know?
4. Does this god need nurishment?
5. Can this god become less than god and then return to being god again?
6. By what logical process was this god conceived?
8. Where did this god come from and how do you know?
9. What else do you know about this god besides merely a claim?
10. Do you recognize the scientific method as authoritive?

Max
 
Upchurch said:
Unfamiliar with the Socratic method, eh?
Click to expand...
At least someone's paying attention here.

Thanks, man. That wedding must be coming up pretty soon, right?
 
I can't speak for anyone else, but this is simply disturbing evidence to me that atheists can be as irrational as anyone else.

There is no such thing as a true skeptic.
 
I can't speak for anyone else, but this is simply disturbing evidence to me that atheists can be as irrational as anyone else.
Click to expand...

Yes, most atheists are in fact irrational but it is all relative.

On the other hand you have shown to have no knowledge of what logic and reason means yet you have the audacity to acuse others of same. How pathetic.
 
I do not know if god exists. I see no evidence that there is a god. The universe as it appears to exist does quite nicely without one.

One big problem. Why is there a universe at all? The IPU analogy does not address this. The existence of a god could explain it.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

So how does one reach the conclusion that there is no god?
 
AtheistWorld.Com said:


Yes, most atheists are in fact irrational but it is all relative.

On the other hand you have shown to have no knowledge of what logic and reason means yet you have the audacity to acuse others of same. How pathetic.
Click to expand...

Speaking of psychological needs this morning, I suggest if you want to be a skeptic that you examine the kink in your own psychology that feels the need to expand "you're wrong" into "how pathetic".

You know nothing about me, youngster; I cr*p bigger than you.
 
AtheistWorld.Com said:
I'm not interested in talking about irrational issues.
Click to expand...
But you're so good at them.

No. Wait. I'm sorry. You good at being irrational. My bad.
You have not defined this god you merely defined your claim of this god.
Click to expand...
Not my claim, just a claim I've heard. As such, I'll do my best to respond.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

10. Do you recignize 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?

Can you now show a logical contradiction in this god?

<hr>
Originally posted by Kullvero
At least someone's paying attention here.
Click to expand...
I try. :D
Thanks, man. That wedding must be coming up pretty soon, right?
Click to expand...
November 15th. The pressure is on. So many details....
 
AtheistWorld.Com said:
Yes, most atheists are in fact irrational but it is all relative.
Click to expand...
Relative to what, I ask? Logic is not relative - it is in fact quite absolute. Would you care to divulge your definitions of "logic" and "reason" before we decide what is a valid argument for the existence of god?

Here are two exercises for you. Please tell me whether the arguments are valid or not.

Some Muslims are Saudis
Some Saudis are terrorists
Therefore, some Muslims are terrorists.

The sun is shining.
The sun is not shining.
Therefore, my house is pink
 
AtheistWorld.Com said:
This thread is not about the definition of agnosticism. This thread is to debate the irrational position of an agnostic.

Agnostics are the "I don't know"ers of the skeptical world.

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

In other words they claim that god is unknowable or that the existence of god is unknowable.

My position is simple. The concept of god is simply a logical impossibility, pure and simple.
Click to expand...

What god? What is a god? Please provide the exact definition of god you are using here.

Therefore, agnostics should study the principles of logic and then try to apply the scientific method and logic to any definition of god.

The conclusion will be that the agnostic will have graduated to the atheist grade.

To say that god is unknowable begs the question "what god?" and "what is god?" One first needs to explain these questions before one can claim that god is unknowable or that weather god does or does not exist is unknowable.
Max
Click to expand...

Yes, as does one who says the concept of God is a logical impossibility.

Please demonstrate your claim that the concept of God is a logical impossibility using Gods from 3 major religions today.

Then show how this type of proof can be extended to any concept of God.

Adam
 
Nothing other than it's a possibility that doesn't interfere with current understanding of science.
Click to expand...

really? Does current understanding of science have anything to say about things ourside space and time? If not how is the existence of your god a "possibility"?

Max
 
AtheistWorld.Com said:


really? Does current understanding of science have anything to say about things ourside space and time? If not how is the existence of your god a "possibility"?
Click to expand...
Nothing in science says there can't be something outside spacetime. It just isn't defined by science. Thoughout history there have been a lot of things that weren't defined science until later.
 
Sundog said:
I can't speak for anyone else, but this is simply disturbing evidence to me that atheists can be as irrational as anyone else.

There is no such thing as a true skeptic.
Click to expand...

Greetings Sundog.

While I fully agree with the first statement the second
There is no such thing as a true skeptic.
Click to expand...

I do not believe is true. Of course there will be people who act in a silly ego filled way on all “sides” but there also people who can have a logical, respectful decision on all sides without letting emotion an and it’s base ego arise and control their actions.

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.

It is all ego and ego is fear, they feel they just HAVE to be right for if the other is right they would be wrong and this just can not be handled, again.

A true skeptic a person really seeking truth does not fear learning something new or being wrong if they are wrong. Science is about being proven wrong over and over to find the truth.

As is often the case Upchurch if pointing out the hypocrisy in our new friends posts.

We could simply replace there is “ONLY ONE TRUTH and GOD and I HAVE IT” with AtheistWorld.Com’s there is “ is NO GOD and ONLY ONE TRUTH and I HAVE IT”.

Just what I believe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom