Why agnosticism?

[slimshady2357]

There are lots and lots of different kinds of science, they all work soundly with one another. With them, you can easily see how the world could have come the way it has without any aid from God.

Also, usually the best way to prove somethings nonexistence is to prove that it cannot logically exist. There are other ways to go about this, but just for the purposes of time, I'll use the famous Arguement from Evil (copied and pasted from the internet, it can be found pretty much all over the place):
1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
5. Evil exists.
6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil.
7. Therefore, God doesn't exist.

Premise 5 is what makes the contradiction. Premises 1 through 6 do logically (and validly) imply Conclusion 7.

Of course, the usual way people try to go about "refuting" the Arguement from Evil is by claiming that Evil doesnt exist objectively... no ◊◊◊◊, but evil exists when someone's actions conflict with the teachings of Jesus Christ (refusing to turn the other cheek by hauling off and coldcocking someone would be evil). Another way is to suggest that "evil is relative to the observer, what is evil to me might not be evil to you", of course use the same Teaching's of Jesus counter and the Evil is Relative remark becomes irrelevant.

As brought up in another thread, if we "started from scratch" and began science all over again, we would have the the same science as we did before, now try that with religion.

There you go, the world of science sees no need for god, God cannot logically exist using the Arguement from Evil, and the nature of Christianity is as best on shaky grounds. It is perfectly reasonable to say "I know God does not exist".

The arguement from evil at best invalidates an omnibenevolent god and really can't even do that. There is no logical argument that is going to show the nonexistence of God. Read Leibniz, this is the best of all possible worlds

And the fact that science would evolve the same way means nothing, especially to an agnostic.

He already believes that the existence (and I would say nature) of God is unknowable, so not having religion pin it down means not much at all.

And it is perfectly reasonable to not believe in any God, however it is not perfectly reasonable to say "I know God does not exist", as you do not have the facts to support 'know' in that sentence.

Adam

 

[Yahweh]

The arguement from evil at best invalidates an omnibenevolent god and really can't even do that. There is no logical argument that is going to show the nonexistence of God. Read Leibniz, this is the best of all possible worlds

There are other Arguements from Whatever, the point was what I stated earlier: The easiest way to prove something does not exist is to show how it cannot logically exist.

And the fact that science would evolve the same way means nothing, especially to an agnostic.

"That's quite a claim, can you back that up with evidence. I mean, you're certainly making a positive claim here, a claim to have facts that show" science evolving the same means nothing to an agnostic. "Please present them."

(Sorry to be patronizing...)

He already believes that the existence (and I would say nature) of God is unknowable, so not having religion pin it down means not much at all.

And it is perfectly reasonable to not believe in any God, however it is not perfectly reasonable to say "I know God does not exist", as you do not have the facts to support 'know' in that sentence.[/B]

Just semantics, it depends on how you define "know".

 

[Titus Rivas]

By definition

Reasonable Doubt,

Nor is it the "kind of being whose existence would be in principle knowable".

Well, my point is precisely that a creator is the one thing which would have to in principle be more knowable than anything else. If anythings is knowable, then certainly a creator is. That follows from the definition of a creator.

Titus

 

[ReasonableDoubt]

In principle more knowable? What/whose principle is that?

Well, my point is precisely that a creator is the one thing which would have to in principle be more knowable than anything else. If anythings is knowable, then certainly a creator is. That follows from the definition of a creator.

Absolute rubbish. I understand that this is your point. I also understand that, despite your near religious insistence, you've offered absolutely no basis for it.

There exists a method, methodological naturalism, by which we come to "know" more and more about our surroundings. I know of no methodological supernaturalism, no method by which we may come to "know" more and more about the supernatural save one, and that 'method' is revelation: the claim that my guru/fantasy is better than your guru/fantasy because my guru/fantasy says so.

So, rather than telling us how something is "in principle ... more knowable than anything else" (whatever the hell that means), why not simply tell is what protocols you would employ to gain verifiable knowledge about it.

 

[hammegk]

There exists a method, methodological naturalism, by which we come to "know" more and more about our surroundings. I know of no methodological supernaturalism...

The same problem an idealist has with dualism; i.e. nothing can exist "supernaturally".

However, a question, basically with regards to "psi" claims -- to date 100% anecdotal SFAIK -- yet in significant number.

If the sum total of, say, electrons available for study had never exceded a few billion, would qm/qed/etc have had the statistics necessary to be formulated? I make no claim one way or the other, but note that for individual "wavicles" no predicability exists in the sense, once it happened, p=1. Hmm, does that make sense?

 

[ReasonableDoubt]

... nothing can exist "supernaturally".

Unknown.

However, a question, ...

I sure hope that you're not asking me, because I haven't a clue what you're talking about. Sorry.

 

[Yahweh]

If the sum total of, say, electrons available for study had never exceded a few billion, would qm/qed/etc have had the statistics necessary to be formulated? I make no claim one way or the other, but note that for individual "wavicles" no predicability exists in the sense, once it happened, p=1. Hmm, does that make sense?

[Yahweh smiles, shakes head "No"]

 

[espritch]

To traditional theists (Christians, Islamists, etc.) it doesn't really matter wether you are an atheist or an agnostic: you're still going to hell.

On the other hand, atheists aren't going to conduct their lives in an appreciably different way from agnostics (neither group is likely to spend much time in church). So if it doesn't make any difference, what really is the point of debating the distinction?

 

[hammegk]

[Yahweh smiles, shakes head "No"]

At least you didn't provide an irrelevant link or 2.

BTW, Yahweh the original might understand the question -- or at least ask for clarification -- before the answer. Somehow I don't have you in that league.

 

[Yahweh]

To traditional theists (Christians, Islamists, etc.) it doesn't really matter wether you are an atheist or an agnostic: you're still going to hell.

On the other hand, atheists aren't going to conduct their lives in an appreciably different way from agnostic (neither group is likely to spend much time in church). So if it doesn't make any difference, what really is the point of debating the distinction?

Its the same distinction we use when we debate the difference between a Democrat and a Republican. Both will run the country just fine, none any better than the other, yada yada yada.

Its important to debate the distinction because an Atheism is not the same as Agnosticism.

Atheism: I have no religious beliefs.
Agnosticism: I dont know, I cant decide if god exists or not.

I know I certainly dont like it when Christians tell me something like "There is either a God, or there isnt, why should we debate about it". I've never been one to leave over-reduced conclusions "as is"...

 

[Titus Rivas]

Never mind

Reasonable Doubt,

You've completely missed my point.
Never mind.

Titus

 

[Templar]

What I believe we need for this argument are some definitions.

The Unknowable: It is, of course possible to know that something is unknowable maybe adding... "under current, existing circumstances." We can simply put it this way: "We currently have neither the knowledge or technology to prove or disprove the existence of something we might define as a god." If a satellite landed in the midst of a group of Masai tribesmen (previous to their introduction to Western civilization) they would not know what it was or have the capacity to learn what it was.

Perception: I do feel that there probably is more going on than we've managed to hammer out so far with our laws of physics and biology but I also believe that it can be proven by preponderance of the evidence that all of the world's religions are mythology. I would be defined as an agnostic but instead I choose to call myself an atheist for the following reasons. The term "agnostic" seems wishy-washy and undecided whereas "atheist" immediately presents a strong point of view. Also when Christians hear the term "agnostic" they assume that you haven't made up your mind about Jehovah; I have, he doesn't exist.

God: Is God Unknowable? Well I guess the question is - "What is God?" If our civilization manages to bump into a civilization thousands of years in advance of ours could we call them gods? How about a God like Azathoth who simply sits at the center of the universe mindlessly spitting out the fundamentals of life? I contend that it is only pertinent to prove the existence of a known God - it is really irrelevant (right now) whether Azathoth, Superalien or the Star Trek Voyager Probe is real. I believe that if you define "God" as Jehovah, the God of the Hebrews than I think it is possible to disprove its existence.

Theists: One quick side note - when an atheist debates a theist invariably the theist will point to our enormous universe asking "You can't possibly believe that in this great expanse of billions of light years there isn't something greater than us." My answer is - "I don't know but, oh... Jehovah certainly doesn't exist!"

Well - that's my 2 cents worth.

John Templar - Agn... Atheist.

 

[uruk]

Gods of religion are easy to disprove because they are man made
and self contradictory.

but on the other hand a god doesn't have to obey our preconcieved notions.

on the other hand (the third hand)

God is perfection
there is no such thing as perfection.
therefore there is no such thing as god.

on the forth hand look at the second hand.

 

[ReasonableDoubt]

Re: Never mind

Reasonable Doubt, You've completely missed my point.

No. You wrote: "Well, my point is precisely that a creator is the one thing which would have to in principle be more knowable than anything else." What I "completely missed" was any justification for the claim.

Never mind.

As you wish.

 

[slimshady2357]

"That's quite a claim, can you back that up with evidence. I mean, you're certainly making a positive claim here, a claim to have facts that show" science evolving the same means nothing to an agnostic. "Please present them."

(Sorry to be patronizing...)

I did, did you not read the next line? You said that the fact that science would evolve the same and religion wouldn't mattered. But to an agnostic God is unknowable, therefore you would expect religion to evolve in various ways, because they're talking about something they don't know about. Science is knowable, it should turn out the same.

Just semantics, it depends on how you define "know".

Yes, I agree, if you define 'know' in a trivial manner, you'll be able to 'know' God does not exist

Adam

 

[ReasonableDoubt]

Agnosticism: I dont know, I cant decide if god exists or not.

Did you read the Huxley quote presented earlier in the thread? Certainly your definition of agnosticism is a poor paraphrase/summary of that quote.

 

[Yahweh]

Did you read the Huxley quote presented earlier in the thread? Certainly your definition of agnosticism is a poor paraphrase/summary of that quote.

Sometimes I go through a thread quickly, this time I didnt happen to read the Huxley quote, I just answered a question presenting my opinion (I made no attempt to paraphrase a quote which I did not read).

I'm not the type of person who gets his rocks off by playing Definitions all day, I find it very inconvenient and annoying to nitpick which definition is good/bad/better/poor/etc.

However, I am the type of person who likes to cram things into a nutshell, it usually gets the point across much more quickly and succintly.

It should also be noted that when determining the definition of some words (in this case, words with religious significance), it is very difficult to nail down a single definite all-powerful definition. Its usually easier to think "The word agnostic is defined as, but not limited to, blah blah blah...". As it says in my signature, lets try not to throw common sense out the window.

 

[ReasonableDoubt]

Gods of religion are easy to disprove because they are man made

No. That does not disprove God(s). It simply shows that not all god-constructs can be correct.

God is perfection
there is no such thing as perfection.
therefore there is no such thing as god.

1. God is perfection.
   Who made up that rule? You? In fact, most Gods worshipped throughout the history of our species were not. Your building a strawman/
2. there is no such thing as perfection
   What a remarkable claim. Prove it. You indirectly assert that which is at issue. At best, your 'argument' is reducible to: 'perfection is impossible because there is no possible perfection.' You now have a strawman living in a house of cards.
3. therefore there is no such thing as god
   with all due respect, there is no there in your "therefore".

on the forth hand look at the second hand.

With all those hands, you have shown yourself to be, in this instance, remarkably unhandy at making a case.

 

[ReasonableDoubt]

As it says in my signature, lets try not to throw common sense out the window.

You insist:

1. Its important to debate the distinction because an Atheism is not the same as Agnosticism., and
2. I'm not the type of person who gets his rocks off by playing Definitions all day, I find it very inconvenient.

You then present a caricature of agnosticism when compared to that of the originator of the term. Apparently, your offering is very important, while all responses are preordained as nitpicking. This, you no doubt find 'very convenient'.

Perhaps it would be best if you do not presume to be the arbiter of common sense.

 

[Yahweh]

I see you managed to seperate the things I said into points.

You insist:

1. Its important to debate the distinction because an Atheism is not the same as Agnosticism.,

1. 
   Obviously. I'm sure other people might say the same thing if the words Atheism and Agnosticism were replaced with Christianity and Islam.
   
   

   and

   [*]I'm not the type of person who gets his rocks off by playing Definitions all day, I find it very inconvenient.

You then present a caricature of agnosticism when compared to that of the originator of the term. Apparently, your offering is very important, while all responses are preordained as nitpicking. This, you no doubt find 'very convenient'.

Wow, it almost looks like "contradiction" in what I said. I maintain Atheism and Agnosticism are not the same, yet I dont like nitpick definitions... I'm a scoundrel.

I dont know why I am taking the time out of my day to describe this, but since you appear to be confused, I'll make some time to clarify:
Atheism and Agnosticism are not the same.

I dont like to nitpick definitions. For instance, when I say "I think Agnosticism could be described as 'I dont know if God exists or not', I dont like to have a debate scratching at every possible definition, every possible iteration. "Agnosticism means you are undecided if God exists", "nuh-uh, it means you dont know god exists, thats not the same as 'undecided'", "wrong, it means God might exist, or he might not"...

Nitpicking, its inconvenient. I dont consider making the claim "Atheism is not the same as Agnosticism" as nitpicking.

Does that clear anything up?

Perhaps it would be best if you do not presume to be the arbiter of common sense.

Perhaps it would be best if you closed your eyes, pictured kittens, and calm down.

I am perfectly capable of accepting negative criticism, I'm not one who likes to be insulted.