Why agnosticism?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-09-2015, 12:36 PM
RE: Why agnosticism?
(08-09-2015 12:31 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(08-09-2015 12:26 PM)Free Wrote:  Let me explain something to you once and for all.

His position is "I don't know whether it is possible that god exists or not."

Right?

Wrong.

Really? Here are his words:

"Nobody can know whether or not there is a god"

This implies a lack of available knowledge, and also implies a possibility either way.

Quote:
Quote:Okay, what he is actually saying is, "I know that I don't know whether it's possible that god exists or it's possible that God does not exist."

Right?

Wrong. No one is saying that.

See above.

Quote:
Quote:Question: How does one arrive at the conclusion that he doesn't know if its possible that a god exists or not without acknowledging the possibility either way?

Please answer that.

That has nothing to do with rejecting the theist's claim that a god exists.

My conversation with him has nothing to do with that. It has to do with him stating possibilities.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2015, 12:37 PM
RE: Why agnosticism?
(08-09-2015 12:26 PM)Free Wrote:  
(08-09-2015 12:00 PM)Chas Wrote:  Not this again.

No one is claiming a god is possible by rejecting the claim that a god exists.

Let me explain something to you once and for all.

His position is "I don't know whether it is possible that god exists or not."

Right?

Okay, what he is actually saying is, "I know that I don't know whether it's possible that god exists or it's possible that God does not exist."

Right?

Question: How does one arrive at the conclusion that he doesn't know if its possible that a god exists or not without acknowledging the possibility either way?

Please answer that.

It's possibles all the way down Rolleyes

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like morondog's post
08-09-2015, 12:42 PM
RE: Why agnosticism?
Free gets wound up over the strangest shit. Big Grin

(07-09-2015 08:06 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(01-09-2015 05:41 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  It's really not about superiority at all though. It's that the bs meter pegs to full scale when 0's and 7's (dawkins scale) start talking about their knowledge of god. Knowledge I'm certain they don't have.....Cool

Theists try to define god into existence, while atheists try to define god out of existence, while agnostics claim that both sides don't know Jack Schitt. Tongue

No. Atheists reject the claims of theists. It's not up to me to define the god the theist claims exists.

Why not 7 then? Hmmn?

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
08-09-2015, 03:28 PM
RE: Why agnosticism?
(08-09-2015 12:36 PM)Free Wrote:  
(08-09-2015 12:31 PM)Chas Wrote:  Wrong.

Really? Here are his words:

"Nobody can know whether or not there is a god"

This implies a lack of available knowledge, and also implies a possibility either way.

Quote:Wrong. No one is saying that.

See above.

Quote:That has nothing to do with rejecting the theist's claim that a god exists.

My conversation with him has nothing to do with that. It has to do with him stating possibilities.

He doesn't - you introduced this straw man. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2015, 04:55 PM
RE: Why agnosticism?
(08-09-2015 03:28 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(08-09-2015 12:36 PM)Free Wrote:  Really? Here are his words:

"Nobody can know whether or not there is a god"

This implies a lack of available knowledge, and also implies a possibility either way.


See above.


My conversation with him has nothing to do with that. It has to do with him stating possibilities.

He doesn't - you introduced this straw man. Drinking Beverage

Dude, what part of his following statement to me does not imply the possibility of God existing:

Quote:Nobody can know whether or not there is a god

He is clearly stating his opinion that nobody can know whether or not there is a god.

His statement is implying two possibilities:

1. God may exist.
2. God may not exist.

So here is my question to you:

Is he, or is he not, making a positive claim that we cannot know as true neither of the two possibilities that God may exist, or God may not exist?

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2015, 05:34 PM
RE: Why agnosticism?
(08-09-2015 09:29 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  
(08-09-2015 08:12 AM)daniel1948 Wrote:  Wrong. There is a very distinct middle position:

Theist: I believe there is a god. (Or gods.)
Atheist: I believe there is not a god. (Or, there are no gods.)
Agnostic: I hold no belief regarding whether or not there is a god. (Or gods.)

Exactly how many atheists do you met that have said that they're believing in nonexsitence of god?

All of them, myself included. I believe there is no such thing as a god (or gods). I also believe there are no such things as angels, demons, orishas, sprites, etc., etc.

(08-09-2015 11:33 AM)Free Wrote:  
(08-09-2015 08:12 AM)daniel1948 Wrote:  Nobody can know whether or not there is a god because god is defined in such a way as to be non-falsifiable, and also non-verifiable. God is defined (by mainstream Christianity, anyway) as existing outside of time and space, unaffected by any physical laws, without physical substance, and able to circumvent all physical laws and even logic itself. Therefore any sort of knowledge about god is impossible. There is only belief.

Therefore, here you are claiming the "possible" existence of such a god, without demonstrating with any evidence or supported reasoning as to how and why it is possible?

It is my experience that things are only possible when the possibility can be demonstrated to be true. Can you provide any evidence to support your proposed possibility as being true?

I repeat: The classical definition of god is formulated in such a way that it is not falsifiable. Since it is not falsifiable, it is not possible to prove its non-existence. Therefore nobody can know whether or not there is a god, and it becomes a matter of belief. I believe there is not.

Further, your premise, based on your 'experience" is nonsensical. "What is possible" deals with facts of the real world. What "can be demonstrated" deals with the current state of experimental technology. We have no way of knowing either whether there is a god, or of knowing whether a god is possible. Again, this is because God is defined in such a way as to be non-falsifiable. But since every single argument for the existence of a god is so flawed a three-year-old with half a brain could see through it, I arrive at the belief that there is not a god. This is a belief, because the thing is defined in such a way that knowledge is impossible. It's all part of the idiocy of religion, and the cleverness of priests in inventing a cloth of lies with which to cover the eyes of idiots so they can take their money.

(08-09-2015 11:54 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(08-09-2015 08:12 AM)daniel1948 Wrote:  Nobody can know whether or not there is a god because god is defined in such a way as to be non-falsifiable, and also non-verifiable. God is defined (by mainstream Christianity, anyway) as existing outside of time and space, unaffected by any physical laws, without physical substance, and able to circumvent all physical laws and even logic itself. Therefore any sort of knowledge about god is impossible.

Then what is the difference between this god and no god at all?

The putative Christian God can and supposedly does exert influences over the material world, and supposedly actually controls the material world, but cannot be detected from the material world. It is obvious bullshit, but there is a logical distinction between the way Christians describe God, and no god at all. Read the Book of Job to see why that God is different from no God. Without a God, Job would not have had to endure all that suffering.

"El mar se mide por olas,
el cielo por alas,
nosotros por lágrimas."
-- Jaime Sabines
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2015, 06:06 PM (This post was last modified: 08-09-2015 06:10 PM by Free.)
RE: Why agnosticism?
(08-09-2015 05:34 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  
(08-09-2015 09:29 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  Exactly how many atheists do you met that have said that they're believing in nonexsitence of god?

All of them, myself included. I believe there is no such thing as a god (or gods). I also believe there are no such things as angels, demons, orishas, sprites, etc., etc.

(08-09-2015 11:33 AM)Free Wrote:  Therefore, here you are claiming the "possible" existence of such a god, without demonstrating with any evidence or supported reasoning as to how and why it is possible?

It is my experience that things are only possible when the possibility can be demonstrated to be true. Can you provide any evidence to support your proposed possibility as being true?

I repeat: The classical definition of god is formulated in such a way that it is not falsifiable. Since it is not falsifiable, it is not possible to prove its non-existence. Therefore nobody can know whether or not there is a god, and it becomes a matter of belief. I believe there is not.

Actually, the classical and most common definition of "god" is determined to be one supposed as being supernatural, and this is completely falsifiable.

Actually we can demonstrate non existence of this, and any supernatural god.

Actually, we can know whether or not there is a supernatural god. We can actually prove non existence insomuch as to meet the exact same burden of proof and standards that are universally accepted in science.

It's all been done.

Quote:
Unbeliever Wrote:Then what is the difference between this god and no god at all?

The putative Christian God can and supposedly does exert influences over the material world, and supposedly actually controls the material world, but cannot be detected from the material world. It is obvious bullshit, but there is a logical distinction between the way Christians describe God, and no god at all. Read the Book of Job to see why that God is different from no God. Without a God, Job would not have had to endure all that suffering.

That does not answer his question, and your response above definitely shows strong signs of cognitive dissonance.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free's post
08-09-2015, 06:18 PM
RE: Why agnosticism?
(08-09-2015 05:34 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  
(08-09-2015 11:54 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Then what is the difference between this god and no god at all?

The putative Christian God can and supposedly does exert influences over the material world, and supposedly actually controls the material world, but cannot be detected from the material world. It is obvious bullshit, but there is a logical distinction between the way Christians describe God, and no god at all. Read the Book of Job to see why that God is different from no God. Without a God, Job would not have had to endure all that suffering.

Yes, but that isn't what I asked.

You said that mainstream Christianity defines their god in such a way that it is, by definition, impossible to have knowledge of them. I am aware that God, as a character depicted in the Bible, did these things - but if we accept that the character did those things, it is by definition possible to have knowledge of him, so I assumed that we were putting that aside.

I ask again, slightly clarified:

What is the definition of a god that exists outside time and space, is not affected by physical laws, can circumvent physical laws and logic, and is otherwise utterly undetectable and no god at all?

In order to keep this from running about in circles, I refer you to the last thread we had on the subject. A god that is defined as being absolutely undetectable is a garage dragon.

Garage dragons, by definition, do not exist.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
08-09-2015, 06:26 PM
RE: Why agnosticism?
(08-09-2015 04:55 PM)Free Wrote:  
(08-09-2015 03:28 PM)Chas Wrote:  He doesn't - you introduced this straw man. Drinking Beverage

Dude, what part of his following statement to me does not imply the possibility of God existing:

Quote:Nobody can know whether or not there is a god

He is clearly stating his opinion that nobody can know whether or not there is a god.

His statement is implying two possibilities:

1. God may exist.
2. God may not exist.

So here is my question to you:

Is he, or is he not, making a positive claim that we cannot know as true neither of the two possibilities that God may exist, or God may not exist?

No, he is saying we have no knowledge. It says absolutely nothing about what is or is not possible.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2015, 06:30 PM (This post was last modified: 08-09-2015 09:12 PM by Free.)
RE: Why agnosticism?
(08-09-2015 06:26 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(08-09-2015 04:55 PM)Free Wrote:  Dude, what part of his following statement to me does not imply the possibility of God existing:


He is clearly stating his opinion that nobody can know whether or not there is a god.

His statement is implying two possibilities:

1. God may exist.
2. God may not exist.

So here is my question to you:

Is he, or is he not, making a positive claim that we cannot know as true neither of the two possibilities that God may exist, or God may not exist?

No, he is saying we have no knowledge.

No knowledge about what?

No knowledge of Option 1: God may not exist?
No knowledge of Option 2: God may exist?

Pick one, or both. What's he saying Chas?

If he says "I don't know if it is possible or not," then it isn't possible as far as he's concerned. He just doesn't understand the contradiction, and neither do you apparently.

Get it?

Is the existence of any supernatural god possible?

1. Yes.
2. No.
3. I do not know.

Determining whether or not the existence of a supernatural god is possible requires knowledge. Whenever anyone says "I don't know" they have no knowledge, but it is implicit that they have acknowledged that both "yes" and "no" as being possible.

So let's look closely at "I don't know."

Question 1: Is it possible God exists?
Answer 1: I don't know.

Question 2: Is it possible that God doesn't exist?
Answer 2: I don't know.

Answer 1 demonstrates a lack of knowledge on the possible existence of God. This means that there is no evidence brought to knowledge to qualify an answer of "yes or no." With no evidence, there can be no existence (garage dragons?), and therefore "I don't know" contradicts the correct answer of "No."

Answer 2 demonstrates a lack of knowledge on the possible non existence of God. This means that there is no evidence brought to knowledge to qualify an answer of "yes or no." But since the burden of proof is only upon the claim of the possible existence of God, and that burden of proof has not been met, then the "I don't know" answer contradicts the correct answer of Yes.

Whenever an agnostic makes a claim of "I don't know" in regards to the existence or non existence of God, he is making a positive claim of, "I know that I do not know whether or not the existence of God is possible or not possible."

Since they are claiming knowledge of a lack of knowledge in regards to the possible existence or non existence of God, well then ... from whence doeth this knowledge cometh hither?

Let's find out ...

If they know that they do not know if God exists, then it only stands to reason that they have no evidence of the existence of God to warrant a "Yes" answer to the question of the possible existence of God, and therefore the burden of proof to support possible existence has not been met. Hence, there simply is no evidence to warrant the possibility as far as they are concerned, and since there is no evidence to warrant a "Yes," then they do KNOW something.

They know that there is no evidence to warrant an answer of "Yes."

Now, if they know that they do not know if God doesn't exist, then it only stands to reason that they also have no evidence of no existence of God- which is a double negative denoting a positive, which leads directly to the positive Evidence of Absence.

Hence, they KNOW that there is no evidence of existence to warrant an answer of "I don't know," and that is exactly where the contradiction is.

They cannot make the claim of "I don't know" based upon the very evidence or lack thereof concerning the existence or non existence of God for the simple reason that they profess knowledge of what they claim they do not know.

So what do they know?

1. They know that they do not have the knowledge- due to a lack of evidence regarding the existence of God- to warrant a "Yes," for the simple reason that there is no evidence, and they know there is no evidence. If there was evidence, then they could say "Yes," so thereby when there is no evidence, then they can equally say "No." Since there is no evidence, and they know it, then saying "I don't know" is a contradiction.

They know something.

2. They know that they do not have the knowledge- due to a lack of evidence regarding the non existence of God - to warrant an "I don't know," for the simple reason that when there is no evidence, you know there is no evidence.

They know something.

Therefore, in the face of the evidence or lack thereof, when they claim they "Don't know" is pure bullshit, since it can be demonstrated that they do indeed, by necessity, know something, and it isn't "I don't know."

So ponder this one very important question:

Why do they not know?

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: