Agnostics: Do you believe in god?

pueo wrote:

i want craven at a bush/kerry debate and call them on the carpet when either of them makes a false statement.

i can hear it now, "mr. president/senator kerry, that's bullshit"

Joe would be in the background saying "you all need to get laid!"

0 Replies

True of probably all but the candidates at that moment in time.

0 Replies

fresco, I think we are the ultimate observer (non-observer), and some of us (of those who recognize the non-observer) are agnostic as to whether or not we are divine.

0 Replies

Atheist at heart but sometimes I wonder: Am I just cynical of everything?
I've spent more then half my life at a Catholic school, learning about things that sound ridiculous to me. I could go as far to say I hate catholicism. Although, I do respect the beliefs of others.

0 Replies

truth
Cough. Same here. I describe myself as an atheist, not because I actively believe in a No-God, but because the theistic notion of a God is meaningless to me. I should have said it is ridiculous. Like trying to accept as literal truth the story of Alice in Wonderland.

0 Replies

truth
Cough. Same here. I describe myself as an atheist, not because I actively believe in a No-God, but because the theistic notion of a God is meaningless to me. I should have said it is ridiculous. Like trying to accept as literal truth the story of Alice in Wonderland.

0 Replies

twyvel,

Right !...but "divine" has been bent a bit !.

0 Replies

ossobuco wrote:

I said I had no proof, Portal. What I have is memories of experiments I ran based on some expectations from lengthy past data, with results that not only didn't meet expectations at all, but sparked many new questions that sparked more experimentation which resulted in new understanding. What is given in an experiment may turn out not to be given.

I admit I jumped from 'constant' to 'given' but the phenomenon of counting on something in one's theorizing being occasionally problematic would seem to me to hold true.

that's true - a lot of times, scientists end up in a completely different direction than where they started from. But that finding is a new constant.
Abstract data is not constant - for example, on the 28th of March at 5:00 pm the temperature of the tank of water is 34 degrees celcius at 55 feet under the artic circle. That itself is not a constant - it is a singular piece of data. But if that data supports your theory about the thermocline in water - you are making assumptions about water that you will use as predictions about future water - constants. A theory is a constant.

0 Replies

ossobuco wrote:

I said I had no proof, Portal. What I have is memories of experiments I ran based on some expectations from lengthy past data, with results that not only didn't meet expectations at all, but sparked many new questions that sparked more experimentation which resulted in new understanding. What is given in an experiment may turn out not to be given.

I admit I jumped from 'constant' to 'given' but the phenomenon of counting on something in one's theorizing being occasionally problematic would seem to me to hold true.

that's true - a lot of times, scientists end up in a completely different direction than where they started from. But that finding is a new constant.
Abstract data is not constant - for example, on the 28th of March at 5:00 pm the temperature of the tank of water is 34 degrees celcius at 55 feet under the artic circle. That itself is not a constant - it is a singular piece of data. But if that data supports your theory about the thermocline in water - you are making assumptions about water that you will use as predictions about future water - constants. A theory is a constant.

0 Replies

I liked your example statement about the sex and looking like a horse it was funny.

I understand that you would only debate points you disagree with, but sometimes the ones you don't disagree are steps in helping support the ones you agree with. I feel like in your disagreements you haven't taken note of those other points. Maybe we view the manner of talking on the thread differently - I am not trying to win so much as trying to have an intelligent discussion. Winning is good, but if you are trying to win like a court laywer it is different than trying to win like a scientist.

Craven, while I do not have enough time in the day to elaborate on all of the points you feel have not been supported, I will try to explain (you will see a discussion with someone else about constancies in this thread.)

You can set up circular logic - like Dwarfy, but that logic does not hinge on the world in which we live. My logic does, and it is falsifiable if there is counter-evidence (or theoretical counter-evidence) in this world we habit. Because I don't sense (and I'm going to assume cannot theoretically detect) the infuence of dwarfy on this world in which I live, I conclude Dwarfy does not exist. In order to be ambivalent about whether Dwarfy exists I would need evidence of physical impact, or he would have to (by definition) have no physical impact.

I am limiting the rules - to the rules of the observable world which you and I and all the great philosophers and scientists live on.

If you want a more extensive look at this view (immaterialism vs. materialism) look at descartes (dualism),or any basic philosophy of mind/body text [ex: matter and conciousness by Churchland, Philosophy of Mind by Jacquette.] Also books by Michael Tye, or some of the short philisophical converstaion series on mind/body. You can also look at the importance of definition in debate, and the formation of scientific theories.

0 Replies

Portal Star wrote:

I feel like in your disagreements you haven't taken note of those other points. Maybe we view the manner of talking on the thread differently - I am not trying to win so much as trying to have an intelligent discussion. Winning is good, but if you are trying to win like a court laywer it is different than trying to win like a scientist.

I don't view any message board discussions and wins or losses. There is no objective criteria for delaration of victory and I'm no fan of subjective criteria for competition (e.g. figure skating vs. chess).

Quote:

You can set up circular logic - like Dwarfy, but that logic does not hinge on the world in which we live.

I agree with what you are trying to say. But if you allow yourself to declare arbitrary rules like this one (that I happen to agree with) you are taking a liberty that is not compatible with absolute disproof.

Quote:

Because I don't sense (and I'm going to assume cannot theoretically detect) the infuence of dwarfy on this world in which I live, I conclude Dwarfy does not exist.

But this is a conclusion based on an assumpion that the Dwarfy theory simply takes into account.

Quoth the Dwarf: "Have faith and you will feel it. Be a true believer for faith can move molehills. "

Quote:

I am limiting the rules - to the rules of the observable world which you and I and all the great philosophers and scientists live on.

Then the theory simply places itself once removed from disproof. Your limitation and declaration of rules to exclude Dwarfy are legitimately questioned.

What you get is the standard drek about trying to impose man's rules on a diety.

A much easier way is to understand the burden of proof. The facility with which one can create a Dwarfy is a big reason that burden of proof is used.

Quote:

If you want a more extensive look at this view (immaterialism vs. materialism) look at descartes (dualism),or any basic philosophy of mind/body text [ex: matter and conciousness by Churchland, Philosophy of Mind by Jacquette.] Also books by Michael Tye, or some of the short philisophical converstaion series on mind/body. You can also look at the importance of definition in debate, and the formation of scientific theories.

I am familiar with this Portal. So? For example, the importance of definition in debate is to not have definitional incompatibility. It does not mean any and all meanings that can be found in a dictionary are operative in each discussion.

If that were the case, the wordplay with "bad" that we spoke of earlier would be typical of debate.

0 Replies

"Quote:
You can set up circular logic - like Dwarfy, but that logic does not hinge on the world in which we live.

I agree with what you are trying to say. But if you allow yourself to declare arbitrary rules like this one (that I happen to agree with) you are taking a liberty that is not compatible with absolute disproof.

Quote:
Because I don't sense (and I'm going to assume cannot theoretically detect) the infuence of dwarfy on this world in which I live, I conclude Dwarfy does not exist.

But this is a conclusion based on an assumpion that the Dwarfy theory simply takes into account.

Quoth the Dwarf: "Have faith and you will feel it. Be a true believer for faith can move molehills. " "

You are right that it is not absolute (because nothing is absolute) but as collective creatures in a physical world we must operate in that world. As a result, we can detect things that influence our world.

I could observe someone who has faith (or someone who has faith could do research) and see if the molehills have been moved.

Also, having faith in somthing (experimentally) makes no difference in our physical world.

I am arguing with our physical world because if you leave it behind, there is no evidence. Like you said, the argument is circular - but I think circular arguments can be diproven. I don't think things which have no bearing on our physical world whatever are disprovable, but things which are said to and don't are.

With no evidence, there can be no argument. Dwarfy has no proof, and the way I see it, I have proof against the existance of dwarfy (because my argument is physical and I am allowed to use proof.)

0 Replies

If Dwarfy has no proof you need to call him on that. Because as you state, your proof can't be absolute. And Dwarfy advocates will then only need obdurate skeptisim to your arguments. Skepticism that was not applied to the introduction of Dwarfy.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

If Dwarfy has no proof you need to call him on that. Because as you state, your proof can't be absolute. And Dwarfy advocates will then only need obdurate skeptisim to your arguments. Skepticism that was not applied to the introduction of Dwarfy.

So, before I started arguing, I should have simply called you on Dwarfy's burden of proof?

(by the way, if Dwarfy is still interested he can send me money. I'm a believer in that.)

So, who's your new patron?

A dwarf created in an agnostic argument.

Whatever works.

0 Replies

Portal Star wrote:

So, before I started arguing, I should have simply called you on Dwarfy's burden of proof?

Yes, otherwise you create a situation in which all the burden is on you. And you'll have to both argue against it AND explain why you cut corners with absolutism.

You can take it as far as logic can go and it's still beyond reach because it doesn't play by any rules and employs unprovens like magic, omipotence etc.

So use burden of proof, and then Dwarfy doesn't get to hide behind impossible certainty.

Anywho, I gotta go.

0 Replies

truth
I call myself an atheist because I consider the Abrahamic theory of God to be untenable, and, in fact, ridiculous. Nevetheless, what if I just thought that the Christian notion of God was wrong, but that I did believe in, say, the God, Dwarfy. Christians would still consider me an atheist because I would have to believe in THEIR God if I were avoid the stigma of atheist, a believer in a false God. It's their God or no God. We shall put no god before their God!

0 Replies

Is the gnomish Dwarfy a gnostic grim-faced gargoyle? Maybe not, I posit that Dwarfy giggles when he or she gets a chance.

I posit, but can't prove.

0 Replies

truth

Osso, obviously the Dwarfy is made in the image of His prophet, Craven. By the way, congratulations on your driver's license. Very Happy

0 Replies

Belief is fickle, changing on a whim
When those who can attempt to rationalize a differnece between "belief" and "knowledge," they "believe" that they "know" the true answer. When in fact, they know very little about belief in and of itself. And then again, there is the question of faith. If believing means you accept the idea, then faith means acceptance without absolute belief. It truly is the perfect form of worship, faith, because it requires no effort, but rather only asks that the practitioner blindly do what they "believe" is meant for them. Blindness is the key, however, meaning that only the blind can have faith. If God were to step into your living room right now and tell you "I am God, praise be to me," then faith would not be an issue, because you would have absolute proof that God exists. (Accepting that it actually WAS God, and not an hallucenation brought on by too much Cronic and Vodka.) You would not need faith because you had proof, meaning that you could believe in the knowledge of the fact. However, those who say they have faith will also say that they "know" that what they believe in exists. Granted, they have no proof save for ancient texts written by a few men who left the vagueness of a tabloid horoscope when writing the descriptions of what was to come to pass in our times. So, simply put, an Agnostic feels that there is no use in faith, because claiming faith is accepting in the possibility that your belief is not, in fact, based on fact. Quite frankly, if God is twisted enough to put us through the test of having to believe in Him, yet giving us no proof that he does exist, I don't really trust him about the Heaven/Hell thing either.

0 Replies

truth
Xeoro, no doubt the Christian God is absurdly conceived. If such a God came into my room and demands praise, I would laugh at his immaturity, insecurity and megalomania. I would tell him, "You're no God."

0 Replies

Agnostics: Do you believe in god?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know