Agnostics: Do you believe in god?

Hellifino, he works in mysterious ways. Kinda like Sasquatch.

0 Replies

IronLionZion

Quote:

IronLionZion wrote:
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.

Reread what wrote , I am not agreeing with your premise:

" Acknowledging that knowing whether or not God exists is impossible,.."

0 Replies

Big Foot is tapping...

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?

GOD

0 Replies

I'm still waiting for my money!

0 Replies

It's God's money Frank. We humble servants are merely caretakers.

0 Replies

By the way fresco

0 Replies

truth
Twyvel, in my understanding to see/intuit that "That are thou" (Tat tvam asi), that the perceived and the perceiver are one in the OBSERVING process IS enlightenment, the transcendence of dualism. I am not a receiver of impressions and sensations; I AM those impressions and sensations; I AM the world. At the same time, the world is me: THAT (the world) ART (is) THOU (me). I think I'm just paraphrasing your statement(s).

0 Replies

Yes JLNobody, it's beyond theory, no boundary seeing is an experiential fact.

And smelling, hearing, thinking, tasting, etc. There's no boundary between you/I and your/my environment.

0 Replies

ossobuco wrote:

So what about impacting worlds, does the impact have to be first hand? If an immaterial item such as an idea was conveyed, perhaps by radio waves, to a human who then batted baseballs at successive windows as a response to the idea, wouldn't that constitute Impact? If an idea fails Dwarfy and other's tests for Immaterial, one could perhaps provide another item to be transferred to a physical item-hurler.

ideas and radio waves are both material things. They impact the physical world. That makes them material.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

It's God's money Frank. We humble servants are merely caretakers.

Oh, I know...I know.

I'm a hell of a caretaker, though -- so you can send me the dough with a mind at ease. :wink:

0 Replies

Portal Star wrote:

ideas and radio waves are both material things. They impact the physical world. That makes them material.

Dwarfy impacts the physical world (you can find yourself talking about him on this very thread). By your logic he is therefore material.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Portal Star wrote:

My world is still physical. Other people's worlds are still physical. Still no detections of dwarves or dwarf brides on the all-powerful physical world detectors. Tell dwarfy to give me a ticket to hawaii and some cash and then I'll be a believer. Until I run out of cash.

Dwarfy says your self interest is a bigger abomination than mustard. But he pities you for closing your mind to the spirit world.

See, you have no proof that it doesn't exist so you make up rules about how it either can't exist or can't affect you.

Dwarfy says he'd pray for you but people look at him funny when he's talking to himself.

When we talk about science or logic we are talking about constants within the universe. I am referring to those constants when I make my points.

You can make arguments for things that are not based on constants, but then they are not science or logic.

My agnostic view is based on science and logic. My view about your dwarf's non-existence is also based on science and logic (constants.)

This doesn't mean that there are not inconstants (heck, there is chaos in our universe - although you could call that a constant.) But when you are arguing with no basis in observable reality then you really can't make a point at all, in fact, trying to support your point with evidence only destroys it by the admission that there may be evidence. (which implies constancies.)

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Portal Star wrote:
ideas and radio waves are both material things. They impact the physical world. That makes them material.

Dwarfy impacts the physical world (you can find yourself talking about him on this very thread). By your logic he is therefore material.

As a concept in minds, but not as an entity. We can disprove his existance as entity by a. defining him and b. seeing if those definitions are true.

0 Replies

Portal Star wrote:

When we talk about science or logic we are talking about constants within the universe. I am referring to those constants when I make my points.

Indeed, you are referring to those assumptions when making points. As I have said, I agree with said assumptions but they are not proof.

"Constants aren't." Or at least, you can't prove that they are.

Quote:

You can make arguments for things that are not based on constants, but then they are not science or logic.

Sez Portal. Dwarfy's a god and he says otherwise.

Quote:

My agnostic view is based on science and logic. My view about your dwarf's non-existence is also based on science and logic (constants.)

With subjectivity mixed in. The subjective element is that you should be an agnostic about dwarfy too (like Frank). You decided to be an adwarfist against your own criteria as it relates to agnosticism.

Quote:

But when you are arguing with no basis in observable reality then you really can't make a point at all, in fact, trying to support your point with evidence only destroys it by the admission that there may be evidence.

All gods are arguments about something beyond the realm of observable reality.

So why do you remain agnostics about some and diss Dwarfy with adwarfism?

0 Replies

Portal Star wrote:

As a concept in minds, but not as an entity. We can disprove his existance as entity by a. defining him and b. seeing if those definitions are true.

You can declare that humans are 'bolooneans' by A) defining them as such and B) seeking circular validation in your own definition.

In other words, your disproof is contingient on defining it in a way that allows you to "disprove" it through wordplay.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

All gods are arguments about something beyond the realm of observable reality.

So why do you remain agnostics about some and diss Dwarfy with adwarfism?

Because some are said to impact our observable reality. Thor, the g-d of the old testament, allah, and Jesus, for example, were/are said to impact our physical reality.

The general concept of g-d (which changes over time) doesn't necessarily have to ever be material or impact anything material. It could have existed before there was such thing as material. It could be a name for somthing larger that we are a part of. We can't get past point a. definition on the general concept of g-d.

I am not agnostic about the ones that (I call them deities) are definable and we can disprove based on their definition, just like Dwarfy.

0 Replies

Portal Star wrote:

Because some are said to impact our observable reality. Thor, the g-d of the old testament, allah, and Jesus, for example, were said to impact our physical reality.

Just like Dwarfy! Back in the old tome Dwarfy slew a bunch of swine, for example.

Quote:

The general concept of g-d (which changes over time) doesn't necessarily have to ever be material or impact anything material. It could have existed before there was such thing as material. It could be a name for somthing larger that we are a part of. We can't get past point a. definition on the general concept of g-d.

And in all this speculation you could easily add that diety may well be able to break the rules you contructed for them. They they need not restrain them to the playgrounds you delienate for them. There is as much basic to exclude a diety from your rules as there is basis for you to declare these unproven and untested rules.

If you are allowed to make up rules as you go you can justify any conclusion.

Quote:

I am not agnostic about the ones that (I call them deities) are definable and we can disprove based on their definition, just like Dwarfy.

This is way too convenient.

Fine, anything I want to call false I can, simply by defining it as something I define as false. Rolling Eyes

You create and/or employ definitions in support of arguments. You can't disprove it, so you just define it as disprovable in a roundabout way. LOL

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

If you are allowed to make up rules as you go you can justify any conclusion.

One thing I really should mention is that this is precisely how people assert gods. And this is why the impossible certainty factor must be considered in order to contruct burden of proof. Without this there is no meaningful conclusion to anything.

0 Replies

Agnostics: Do you believe in god?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know