Franc28
Seasoned Citizen
Posts: 144
|
Post by Franc28 on May 7, 2004 16:08:30 GMT -5
Well, a predicament for you. Not for me !
Empirical ? What observations lead to the concept "god" ? I have to read this.
So "god" is a hypothetical mental exercise ? All right, but how does that support your position ? It is perfectly compatible with strong-atheism.
Thank you for admitting that you are committed to irrationality ! But "god" still makes no sense, and neither does agnosticism. Thanks for the refreshing frankness, though.
|
|
Kaiouss Khalizad
Maverick's Chew Toy
Anthropic Coincidences: What a coincidence!
Posts: 38
|
Post by Kaiouss Khalizad on May 9, 2004 20:25:20 GMT -5
I'm not saying strong-atheism is bad. You are expecting me to take the position that I do what I do because it is logical and that is why your search will only turn up your results. Evidence is subjective to the searcher and this is a perfect reason why. You see, I'm not unable to change, my beliefs have changed often, but (as was mentioned in another thread) agnosticism is not a religion as theism is not a religion. It is simply a way you categorize your beliefs in their most esoteric form. Our conceptions of a 'won' debate are simply a debate where one side has demonstrated superior intellectual abilities that contradict the other. This does not mean that the other side was disproven, or is wrong, simply that it was beaten by its opposition. Of course, there are debates that end (except for those who enjoy philosophy like myself, in which case nothing is ever 'over'), but a debate about after death can never be answered because there is no way to collect objective evidence. This is a prime reason for people to categorize their responses to this. You can--admit you don't know and concentrate on what you CAN know perhaps hoping you prove or disprove the theories later and in this instance you would be agnostic. "He who is wisest among us, knows he is not wise" --Socrates Or perhaps you can claim to know and either say that there is a life after death and it is dominated by a single God (Theism) or say that you know and that there is nothing afterwards (Atheism). There is also Polytheism and Pantheism and others, but these are the terms we are mainly concerning ourselves with (being Agnosticism, Atheism, and Theism). You see, this is not something that you make an offensive against. The notion is tantamount to speculating how many trees lie at the bottom of a ravine and then yelling at others for speculating and reaching a different conclusion. Of course, you may have spotted a few and tediously averaged the numbers or perhaps you went about it the same way, but using arithmetic. You standing up and 'challenging' us with the question 'How can you not know how many trees lie at the bottom of this ravine?' is silly, for I would simply reply 'How can you know?' And that is where a dichotomy is formed that cannot be gapped by any single question such as this. I, myself, choose to not know how many trees there are at the bottom of the ravine, but speculate for fun. I pick a side and defend it, for if I constantly switched sides, I wouldn't learn something intricately enough to actually understand WHAT, exactly, I was speculating. As for the Empirical evidence, that evidence was that we did not need a reason to do something. You may need a reason for everything, but I don't and that is empirical because I am me and I know that I really don't care what's there after death because I care about life. What observations lead to the concept of nonessence? I, myself, will have to read this. Tell me what you have seen that makes a ball, well, not a ball. It is simply pressureless atoms, right? What makes it different from the rest. Better yet, have you seen the earth circle the sun? No one has, so does that mean that because we have not observed it it is invalid? Thank you for showing me you are committed to biased objectivism. I never supported God. I simply supported that people enjoy worshipping something that may or may not exist. This does not indicate it exists. How is that invalid? I like to bake cookies. I don't know exactly what happens when they're in the oven. Does it matter? Do I really care? Does that invalidate me making them? Why does it not make sense to you that there are people who admit that they do not know? Perhaps your insatiable lust for knowledge makes you incapable of understanding philosophy and what it means to respect the mystery. (Or replace mystery with question if you wish.)
|
|
Franc28
Seasoned Citizen
Posts: 144
|
Post by Franc28 on May 10, 2004 3:01:36 GMT -5
Evidence is subjective to the searcher and this is a perfect reason why. I don't know what that means. Evidence is objective or subjective. Why would I admit to a lie ? Why ? Agnosticism is meaningless. The agnostics on this board have been unable to justify their position so far. Why should I believe you, when you cannot answer a simple question ? More positions of ignorance. You are setting up a very limited context of information and saying that is what thinking is like. Sounds very anti-scientific and anti-progressive to me. Using an obviously meaningless concept is very different from making assumptions about a non-visible context. The former is contradictory, anti-empirical and absurd, and the latter is supposition. Do not try to support your position by using such an analogy. So you are content with holding beliefs, hoping that the universe will be pliable to your whims ? Everyone is biased. You are biased towards ignorance. I am biased towards finding knowledge to the best of our abilities. You have chosen stagnation and the suppression of man. I have chosen progress and the elevation of man. So you do agree that you worship ignorance ? At least you are honest enough to admit it.
|
|
|
Post by Maverick on May 10, 2004 9:51:15 GMT -5
For a while now, I have been thinking about the issue Franc28 has brought up in this thread. Though I identify myself as an agnostic atheist, I’ve done so only because that is the position I am most familiar with. I didn’t want to commit myself to an explicit atheist position until I felt that I had adequate time to investigate it.
Franc28 raises a good point. If we call ourselves agnostics, we are committing ourselves to a position that states that we cannot know whether or not a god exists. Yet, by calling ourselves atheists, we admit that we do not believe in a god. If we cannot meaningfully define that which we don’t believe in, the agnostic atheist position becomes one where we don’t know whether a meaningless concept exists, but we don’t believe in the meaningless concept.
If we define “god” in Judeo-Christian terms, many of us are willing to commit to explicit atheism. We see the contradictory attributes of the Judeo-Christian God (omni4) and we determine that a being with these characteristics cannot exist. But when the god concept hasn’t been defined, it has no meaning. I think Franc28 is asking us why most of us are hesitant to being explicitly atheistic toward meaningless god concepts.
Demonstrating the meaninglessness of the god-concept seems to satisfy the explicit atheist’s burden of proof, doesn’t it?
|
|
Kaiouss Khalizad
Maverick's Chew Toy
Anthropic Coincidences: What a coincidence!
Posts: 38
|
Post by Kaiouss Khalizad on May 10, 2004 13:26:48 GMT -5
You see, his fault (in my opinion) is that he believes that everything must be justified scientifically for it to be valid. I'm not saying that it's true, rather, that it is not disproven. Because it is not proven does not make it DISproven. And that is why I am agnostic. Regardless of what God is, so long as the meaning relates to something that we can never directly observe, we can never prove it's existence nor disprove it any more than we can prove the existence of trees on the bottom of a pitch black ravine. There is no reason WHY Agnosticism IS meaningless, rather that it is not meaningful. I am not Agnostic for the reason that it lies at the core of all of my beliefs, but I am Agnostic for it lies at the core of the entirety of existence. Existence is proven from within the system. As we have observed in single body experiments as opposed to many bodied experiments, the entire system must be observed to reach a valid conclusion. In matters involving the afterlife, we can clearly not observe the whole universe (and every other universe) and collect data at the same time. Everything beyond our local world, no matter how specific it may get thus far (being in that quantum protocol calls for the observation of an entire system of often a single particle or something to that extent) is unknowable and that is the agnostic position. Science is for a scientific world and is not meant to cross the threshold into philosophy. Anything beyond directly observable experimentation is either theoretical or metaphysics. Science has yet to disprove essence because essence is not what it deals with. In the same way, philosophy has yet to disprove reductionism because it deals with conceptual approaches to conceptual problems. For you, science is black and white. Equations dictate science unquestionably and there is only one possible way things can go. Yet almost every aspect of physics is hotly debated, so in being atheist you are, for all intensive purposes, an agnostic, but with a biased goal. For instance, the questions regarding pre-big bang time, ontology of the quantum wave function, nonlocality, nondeterministic probability equations, and hundreds more issues none of which you adequately touch in any college physics course. As a scientist, you assume the world is set in stone and governed by math, when math itself is an inventive concept elaborated to fill in the gaps. It is the same as religion, only more specific. I bet not many people who learn physics know that there is a philosophy of math or any conceptual debate thereof. I am still waiting for your offense to what I am saying. In the same way that you are waiting for me to give you scientific proof that we can't prove anything, I'm waiting for you to give me a philosophical reason why we should prefer scientific evidence over personal conviction. You say we should lust for knowledge and understanding in everything we do. I say, "Why?" You say that science is the end-all-be-all. I say, "Why?" You say that logic outweighs emotion and again I say, "Why?" Because your convictions are just as closed minded as theirs and theirs as mine and the agnostics are those who just as closed minded in their personal convictions, yet their reasoning for knowledge is simply different. Agnostics will always give the best analysis about what the question actually is. I admit, not that I cannot know the answer, but that I cannot know the question. And you, yourself, are saying the same thing as I. You say I must know what I define as 'God' to state my beliefs and I say, "Exactly." Do you know every single aspect of science? I highly doubt it. Which science? Parapsychology and physics are extremely different things. Your simply 'pro-science' belief system is just as unfounded as my position. I do not say you cannot be an atheist if you don't understand science and in the same way I should not be expected to know God to say that I don't know whether or not there's a higher power. I cannot see why this is not satisfactory for you. You want to see everything proven objectively and I'm telling you that your approach is presumptuous and incompatible with a conceptual approach. Perhaps you could tell me how the universe began or where we go after death? You may say that objectively, quantum effects caused enough spacetime curvature to gather energy into one spot and disrupt the zero energy, creating matter and antimatter until the pinpoint reached a state of the highest entropy given the size and, because in a black hole the roles of space and time switch roles, there was a big bang that created a sealed off universe and we were created by pure chance as it was highly probable that SOME life emerged and that that life would just die and there is no 'after'. Someone else might say theologically that God created everything. And to both people I would ask the same questions. Have you ever witnessed a big bang? Macroevolution? God? Microevolution? Time? Gravity? Abscence of a God? Abscence of evolution? If your answer to any of those questions is no, then perhaps you are beginning to understand what agnosticism is. You must know God to know whether there is a God. How can you know something that it is supposedly that far beyond the realm of human experience? Does this mean that God exists? No. Does it give that God certain attributes? Certainly not. Does it mean that there is no God? No. The notion that because we can't comprehend something means it doesn't exist is as ridiculous as the notion that because we can't comprehend it, it does exist. The assertion that because we can't comprehend something, we can never know whether or not it exists is much more likely. Is God meaningless? I say probably so. Does this mean that no power beyond that of humans and physics exists? I say possibly no. I say that in all probability, there being a God is like the chances of winning the French lottery in Hungary on a day when neither government is holding the lottery. Does this mean it can't happen? No. I am not theist. I believe in no God. But I do not reject anything that is not science because it is not science. Most New Age books are riddled with science, if not only a rudimentary understanding of that science, but all of these go ignored by scientists and the few that know disregard them. I do not advocate that a Consciousness has anything to do with the world, but I do think that a human (when conscious) may be able to act as a Measurement Apparatus (meaning that no act of will can change reality) and perhaps the waves that we emit may have an effect on the system as the waves are electromagnetic. What you are asking me to do something that no one CAN do. Not even science has proven everything and I believe that it is science that has yielded the most progress and results. (Specifically Physics and all its branches).
|
|
Franc28
Seasoned Citizen
Posts: 144
|
Post by Franc28 on May 10, 2004 15:31:07 GMT -5
Please have some respect and cut the straw men. I never said *scientific* evidence was needed to justify everything.
The beginning of your post discredits your whole post : if you had any intention of discussing this issue, you would simply answer my question and stop these straw men and assumptions.
It's funny how no agnostic that I've asked this question so far has been able to discuss rationally with me and honestly say "I don't know". They either get very angry, or straw man my position to hell and back. All I want is being able to talk rationally about this, can we or not ?
|
|
|
Post by Griffey on May 10, 2004 19:50:53 GMT -5
*hack* Tonsilitis sucks. Sorry this is a little late. And if I say something stupid its because I'm dizzy and not thinking straight.
Franc28, going WAY back, I can think about dfsajklas until the cows come home. Just because it's meaningless doesn't mean that it cannot enter your mindset, or that you can't form some kind of meaning for it. Or perhaps dfsajklas has some meaning my brain attached to it and I don;t really know it. Same for god, maybe? Perhaps it can be assigned meaning that might be too abstract to describe or be aware of.
Anyhow, I don't know if that even approached the point you're trying to get at. But I'm still confused as hell what you're trying to ask. Could you please simplify your question or something? Maybe it's because I'm sick and I can't think straight, but I truly and honestly don't understand what you'd like to discuss.
|
|
Franc28
Seasoned Citizen
Posts: 144
|
Post by Franc28 on May 11, 2004 2:52:46 GMT -5
*hack* Tonsilitis sucks. Sorry this is a little late. And if I say something stupid its because I'm dizzy and not thinking straight. Franc28, going WAY back, I can think about dfsajklas until the cows come home. Just because it's meaningless doesn't mean that it cannot enter your mindset, or that you can't form some kind of meaning for it. Or perhaps dfsajklas has some meaning my brain attached to it and I don;t really know it. Same for god, maybe? Perhaps it can be assigned meaning that might be too abstract to describe or be aware of. I don't understand your answer. I don't know what it means to have a meaning that we don't have. It sounds like you are contradicting yourself, but I will assume that you mean something else and maybe you can explain further.
|
|
Kaiouss Khalizad
Maverick's Chew Toy
Anthropic Coincidences: What a coincidence!
Posts: 38
|
Post by Kaiouss Khalizad on May 11, 2004 9:41:50 GMT -5
I think he means the same thing I was saying. Maybe he gave abstract meaning to something he didn't understand. What's your point, Franc? Maybe I don't care what God means. I simply say I can't know what cannot be known. Whether that be God or the color of my grandmother's underpants, the point is that I'm agnostic because I believe I can't know. If you can give me a good reason why I can know, then go ahead, but until then, I remain agnostic.
|
|
|
Post by pieisgood on May 16, 2004 11:52:24 GMT -5
Question for agnostics : "How do you find meaning in a concept that you admit you know nothing about ?" agnostics don't say they know nothing about God, they just find it unlikely for there to be a God. If I told you I had a pink elephant sitting next to me who could talk and who liked to roller-skate and play bridge every tuesday, you would know plenty about said elephant. But would you believe me? agnostics take a term which is not quite so ridiculous, (IMHO) God. Just like the pink elephant, we know about this God. We just don't think anybody can know 100% for sure if He exists. Question for weak-atheists : "Please give me a meaningful definition of 'god'". So far none of them have been able to answer my question. Both are contradictory positions. *points here* -> www.philosophers.co.uk/games/whatisgod.htmI don't think that there are any universal defenitions of God; each person is skewed a little with their beliefs. But since each person can have their own defenition, there are many meaningful definitions of "god". I don't believe in my defenition of God, so I'm an atheist. I know that I could be wrong with my defenition of God, so I'm an agnostic. Hence my position; atheist/agnostic.
|
|
|
Post by Maverick on May 16, 2004 13:28:13 GMT -5
pieisgoodAgnostics do say that they know nothing about god; that's what the word "agnosticism" means. There are two ways the word agnosticism is commonly used. Broadly, it means that one is "without knowledge" of the existence of a god. Many agnostics who refuse to call themselves atheists mistakenly cling onto this position as a middle ground between atheism and theism. Narrowly, the term refers to the theory that human beings can never have the knowledge of whether a god exists or not; that the answer is unknowable. Notice that both the broad and narrow definitions include a lack of knowledge. The broad definition merely leaves open the possibility that the question of a god's existence might be answered someday. (Note: I realize that the definition I provided here is more detailed than the definition I posted on the Terms & Definitions page. I'm still reviewing each page of the website and making changes for the next big update.)
|
|
|
Post by pieisgood on May 16, 2004 13:57:48 GMT -5
whoa. hang on. I said that waaaay wrong.
I meant to say, "agnostics don't know if there is a God or not and don't think it's possible to find out for sure".
The rest of that section was linked to people's personal definitions of God. My argument was that agnostics can find meaning in the term "God" without knowing if there is one or not. Just like we can find meaning in "Santa Claus", even though he doesn't exist.
|
|
Dugald
Broken-in Plebe
Posts: 72
|
Post by Dugald on Jun 3, 2004 18:35:58 GMT -5
If I were to tell you that there is a monster living just behind Jupiter. You might flat out not believe me. Would it not then be meaningless for me to ask you to define the monster, or to describe what colour it is? I might argue that you can't say you don't believe in something unless you can define what it is, but I would be wrong, as this example illustrates. You might also say "I don't think there's a monster living just behind Jupiter, but since manned probes haven't explored that far out, it might be true." The monster is still meaningless to you and you still couldn't tell me what colour it is. However, you are, in essence saying "The monster living just behind Jupiter could exist." /me applauds Bravo SuperHappyJen, I was looking for a way to say exactly that, but couldn't have found better words. Nicely done!
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Jun 7, 2004 16:10:59 GMT -5
Hey dudes. How would you determine whether a monster existed behind jupiter? Well, that's pretty easy. Through science, we would develop technologies (probes perhaps, or fancy radar equipment or such) to detect the presence of such a monster.
Now, how would we determine if a supernatural God exists? Science can't help us there. Science can only teach us about natural things, not supernatural things. The truth is, if the specific God being delt with is coherently defined, we still would have no way of determining that it existed. It would forever be impossible for us to posit that he existed. There would be no reason to posit that it exists.
As we can never say it exists, we can never say that it could exist. It is meaningless to say that it could exist, as we could never come to understand it's nature.
The question left to us is how we know. What constitutes us 'knowing'? Well, we know things through science, through rational evaluating of evidence and through the use of logic. Is there any other method of gaining knowledge? No, there is not. Faith can not provide knowledge.
Following this, when we know something we firstly understand the concept and have processed evidence of it or logically deduced it. Since these faculties can not give us knowledge of a supernatural God, it is then proper to say that we don't know.
But wait a minute. Knowledge is not absolute. Even things we know can sometimes be proved wrong. When we have evaluated sufficient evidence rationally, we 'know'. I know where Finland is, even though I have never been there. I trust that the atlasses I see are reputable sources of information.
There is credible evidence that supports reality being objective. Why is it that Christians (and other religious people) seem to have such a hard time? It is because things don't go their way. All their good faith and high hopes don't help when they are confronted with reality. Dreams come true through hard work and discipline, not 'belief'. The world behaves in a predictable way, and we use reason to comprehend it. Things happen for a reason, effects are caused. The evidence is all around us.
Is there any evidence that would contradict the objectivity of nature? It is impossible for us to ever find credible evidence of a supernatural being or a subjective nature. We learn through science and logic. What science and logic can't teach us, we can't (rationally) learn.
Therefore, the situation we have is that we have plenty credible evidence that reality is objective, and no evidence to the contrary can be found. As we attain knowledge only when there is sufficient credible evidence, it is not only possible for us to posit that we know no God can exist, but it is necessary.
To hold that we don't know implies that we have some method of gaining knowledge of the supernatural. We don't. Faith can not supply knowledge, only suspicion and assumption. Agnosticism is not a rational position to hold. For that matter, neither is weak-atheism.
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Jun 8, 2004 2:40:14 GMT -5
You may be wondering how I can say that. My argument has shown that we can rationally posit that no God exists. Can we then posit that no God can exist?
My thinking here is that if we hold that a God could exist we necessarily imply one might exist. P if and only if Q in this case, where P = "a God can exist" and Q = "a God may exist". If something could be true, it might be true. Now, since we know no God exists, it would be contradictory to then state that a God might exist. How might one exist if we know none exists?
Following this, since we can't rationally hold the position that a God may exist, to my mind we must then necessarily posit that a God can't exist. I hold that as long as knowledge can only be gained through logic and the scientific method, no God can exist. I say that because I know that none exists, as evidenced by the objectivity of reality.
For the agnostic to claim that a God might exist, it is necessary for them not to know that no God exists. This can only be so if there is some method of gaining knowledge of the supernatural. That is an arbitrary claim, and needs to be proved before the agnostic position can be considered viable.
|
|