Agnostics: Do you believe in god?

Portal Star wrote:

for somthing immaterial to become material it must either become temporarily material (which would be physically observable and have impact on the earth) or have some interaction point where it becomes material.

So in order for it to talk to you (who are physical), it has to create sound waves or physically implant the message into your brain. That means it was/is physical. That also means we can disprove the existance of your dwarf.

That's not true, you just have to have faith to hear the dwarf. With faith you can move mountains.

Plus, the dwarf's spirit speaks to my spirit, no physical interaction is required.

Sheesh, you don't know much about the spirit world do you? Well, that's common you need to believe it to understand it.

The dwarf says you should pay tribute to me if you want to go to Utopia. I'll pay tribute from that amount to Frank of course. If you sign someone up they will pay tribute to you. All you need is faith.
Plus you can't eat mustard because it's an abomination (dwarfy lost a close family member to mustard).

0 Replies

0 Replies

twyvel,

My usage of the term "atheism" is antithetical to conventional usage of the term "theism" in which "God is a supreme being". I hold to this on the grounds that "being" or "existence" involves a mutual interaction of at least two "states" which for the sake of argument we can label "inner" and "outer". As soon as we evoke a "subject" e.g. like the "we" of this communication we can validly talk about the "existence" of that subject (inner) within a complementary world (outer) involving a mutual interaction between the two. I therefore understand the nondualist position as a recognition of this "mutuality" and of its arbitrary and temporary status.

But as I understand it you want this flux of shifting mutualities to have "presence" in its own right. I cannot accept this without recourse to an anthropomorhic observer (or god) who stands outside the system. "Presence" for me is a relative term like "being".

It may be significant that "spontaneous appearance of structure" without recourse to "causality" is now accepted by theoretical physicists, and therefore theistic scientists no longer require "God" as a " prime mover". Polkinghorne ( celebrated Cambridge physicist and theologian) for example said recently in a TV programme that "God was required to account for a sense of morality, not as an explanation of existence" (Paraphrased).

I don't have that problem !

0 Replies

Dieties do not exist as g-ds or g-desses.

Define this g-d that you don't believe in. Define g-d.

I do not believe in personal or impersonal gods, either as mechanism of universe and evolution or white haired old manfigure.

0 Replies

truth
Twyvel, I still haven't figured out the meaning of your earlier post, but for me--as I've stated before--atheism is not a claim to the absence of a presence (God); it is a response to the meaninglessness of a notion: God--for "me."

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

I do not believe in personal or impersonal gods, either as mechanism of universe and evolution or white haired old manfigure.

Yet, you still shrink away from spelling the full word.....why?

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

IronLionZion wrote:

Quote:
Agnostics recognize that knowing whether or not God exists is impossible.

No.

Agnostics affirm that knowledge of god(s) existence or non existence appears to not be available (to them), and therefore whether god exists or not is an unknown (to them). Meaning that it's possible that god exists and it's equally(?) possible that god does not exist, but that god does exist or does not exist is unknown.

"I do not know", leaves the door open..that's the beauty

It certainly does leave the door open - to non-rational idiocy.

Acknowledging that knowing whether or not God exists is impossible, and then decid9ing to believe one or the other anyway, is, by definition, non-rational. So, again, an agnostic cannot rationally believe or disbelive in God's existence.

0 Replies

Knowing whether or not you will be alive tomorrow is impossible.

Deciding to set your alarm clock to go to work based on the guess that you will be alive is not irrational.

Certainty is impossible, degrees of probability govern our choices. This is not irrational, it is simply to work within our limitations.

0 Replies

I do not believe in any Gods. I do however reserve the right to change my mind if proof is provided...
Hence, I consider myself Agnostic.

0 Replies

truth
Twyvel, I'm not sure I understand your position about existence (presence and absence), but I'm working on it. I wonder if the Heart Sutra's principle that form is emptiness and emptiness is form, that each is exactly the other has any bearing on your position. The unobserved/unobservable witness (Atman in the Upanishads) that is our life experience is not a presence, in the sense of a thing. To me the Atman is everything which makes it also nothing (no particular thing). Which is your (and my) true nature. Here we may have a kind of transcendence of the existence/non-existence, being/non-being, presence/absence dichotomy.
But, on a more common sense level, let me ask you and all agnostics if you believe me when I tell you that I have experienced a three headed talking dragon who said to me from his burning forest that he is the creator of the universe and will someday come to judge us all. Are you a believer, unbeliever or an agnostic, despite your inability to prove my assertion true or false?

0 Replies

I bet that dragon could kick that little dwarf's ass!

0 Replies

pffft!

Dwarfy's all powerful.

0 Replies

JL, your dragon is exactly as likely as God. And this too, I'll believe if you can furnish proof. :wink:

0 Replies

i believe in craven's all powerful dwarf

0 Replies

JLN

Allow me suggest an issue which makes your question above problematic...that of "example out of context". For example in conventional philosophical seminars the teacher puts on the board two "statements" for contrastive analysis like:

I know John is in pain.
I believe John is in pain

What follows is supposed to "clarify" aspects of the terms "knowledge" and "belief", but in fact ends up as a mere exercise because the two words have been taken out of normal communicative interaction mode. In "real life" situations of "handling John" the choice of terms may be either irrelevent, or significant to what happens next
This is the point that Wittgenstein might have made in his "anti philosophy mode"

Thus conventional declarations of "agnosticism" etc can only be understood wthin the totality of the social context in which they are made. Examples of Dwarfs and Dragons can be put on the board for "consideration" but what matters in declarations of "religious position" is how they affect your life.

0 Replies

pueo wrote:

i believe in craven's all powerful dwarf

Then pay tribute if you want to go to Utopia. Those who don't spend eternity in a womb.

Dwarfy says so himself.

0 Replies

I was gonna pay tribute, but that womb idea sounds better.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

pueo wrote:
i believe in craven's all powerful dwarf

Then pay tribute if you want to go to Utopia. Those who don't spend eternity in a womb.

Dwarfy says so himself.

i dunno, utopia sound like a scam utopia?

i think i'll go along with kicky's idea.

0 Replies

Monger wrote:

Portal Star wrote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
Portal Star wrote:
(the next question being, how does Craven know it is a dwarf?)

It talks to me. Says if I give Frank a tribute (10% of my income) I will go to utopia when I die.

for something immaterial to become material it must either become temporarily material (which would be physically observable and have impact on the earth) or have some interaction point where it becomes material.

So in order for it to talk to you (who are physical), it has to create sound waves or physically implant the message into your brain. That means it was/is physical. That also means we can disprove the existence of your dwarf.

By the way, I have nothing wrong with you giving money to Frank, but get your facts straight first.

Nonsense.

While we're entertaining ridiculous ideas such as gods & invisible dwarves, there are plenty of ways to make it "work." What if the dwarf chooses to only be heard by Craven (and only while Craven isn't trying to prove its existence)? What if this dwarf implants things into your brain in a way that isn't detectable by any instrument? What if it can only be heard by people who truly have faith in it & regularly tithe to Frank? What if it doesn't operate within the realm of our current understanding of the physical universe, or if it operates in a "spiritual" realm that is completely beyond human comprehension? What if it purchased technology from magical singing cows that makes it possible for the dwarf to cloak itself in a forcefield that blocks any attempt to prove its existence? and so on and on...

Do you maintain your agnosticism about the ability of magical singing cows to create dwarf-cloaking technology?

We live in a physical world, and I am talking philosophy here. We may not have the instruments yet, but theoretically, anything physical can only be impacted by somthing else that is physical. When somthing is physical it is effecting other physical things (theoretically - assume we are all knowing of the physical world and have all physical sensing devices available to us.) Therefore, we could prove whether or not the dwarf existed by studying whether or not there were changes in the physical world in Craven's brain, ears, etc.

Whereas if the dwarf were wholly immaterial, and remained immaterial, it could never be sensed by physical devices. Somthing wholly immaterial that stays immaterial cannot impact the physical world.

0 Replies

Portal Star wrote:

We live in a physical world, and I am talking philosophy here. We may not have the instruments yet, but theoretically, anything physical can only be impacted by somthing else that is physical.

Sez you. Dwarfy says that this is typical of people who do not understand the spirit world and other dimentions.

Opeeeen your mind duuuuude.... <psychedelic waves>

Quote:

When somthing is physical it is effecting other physical things (theoretically - assume we are all knowing of the physical world and have all physical sensing devices available to us.) Therefore, we could prove whether or not the dwarf existed by studying whether or not there were changes in the physical world in Craven's brain, ears, etc.

Yeah, you can "disprove" it based on the following assumptions that you can't prove and can only guess at:

1) Only things physical can impact the physical world
2) All things physical can be quantified

In short, no you can't "prove" anything about Dwarfy without first assuming key factors to declare yourself right.

This is similar to doing this:

1) Assume I am right about everything.
2) I declare X.

I am therefore right about X.

Quote:

Whereas if the dwarf were wholly immaterial, and remained immaterial, it could never be sensed by physical devices.

Sez you. Dwarfy sez you smell funny.

<end satire>

You can't prove any of the above Portal. Not without using unproven assumptions.

Now I happen to think your assumpttions are sound but remember, the point here is to illustrate that the concept just has to be a wee bit more abstract and inclusive to defy disproof.

You say only the physical world can impact the physical world. You can't proove this (I happen to agree).

So what happens to the Dwarfy theory? He survives this by challenging the axiom:

You can't prove that only the physical realm can impact the physical realm.

Of course Dwarfy can't prove that any other realm exists but he says to have faith (and not to eat mustard).

0 Replies

Agnostics: Do you believe in god?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know