Eorl wrote:Ray, not a god then just a demi-god?
Momma, I don't think any gods should step in and do anything because there aren't any and they've never stepped in and done anything, so the question isn't relevant.
However, if a god can step in and prevent just one "ill of the world" then he is culpable for all the ills that he chooses not to get involved with.
That would be true were it not for the fact that the world is under the control of Satan until such time as God has elected to release us.
You, of course, have the right to ask why this is the case. The answer is readily available.
Hmm, I was thinking that it's possible for the limit of what a God can do is the absolute limit of what anything else can do. Something like the limit of an asymptote in a graph.
I mean, we seem to think of everything as possible, and it demonstrated itself in questions such as if God can do anything, then can God make a door that He can't open? Well that's an illogicality there, but we seem to think it must be possible for some perfect being out there.
It may just depend on the definition of a God actually. Whatever.
Almost four pages pretty much unrelated to the topic at hand: "Why agnosticism isn't a rational position".
Alas we are back to the gentle ebb and flow of the same 'ol flotsam and jetsam swimmingly regurgitating itself through the intestinal wasteland of able2know.com.
I depart until and/or unless the actual topic rears it's repulsive head once more
neologist wrote:Eorl wrote:Ray, not a god then just a demi-god?
Momma, I don't think any gods should step in and do anything because there aren't any and they've never stepped in and done anything, so the question isn't relevant.
However, if a god can step in and prevent just one "ill of the world" then he is culpable for all the ills that he chooses not to get involved with.
That would be true were it not for the fact that the world is under the control of Satan until such time as God has elected to release us.
You, of course, have the right to ask why this is the case. The answer is readily available.
Yeah, of course, you gotta have a bad god too (even if that kinda breaks the one god rule) to take the blame for all the bad stuff.
LOL
Sorry chumly, we just can't help ourselves !!
Let me just convince everyone I'm right about everything and then we can talk about whatever you like !!!
Eorl wrote:Momma, I didn't say that.
Real life is proposing that if just one of the Tsunami victims had prayed properly and was lucky enough to guess the Tsunami would happen, then it could have been prevented.
This also implies that his god had the power to prevent it, but chose not to...........
And I didn't state or imply either one of the things you are saying here.
Eorl wrote:neologist wrote:Eorl wrote:Ray, not a god then just a demi-god?
Momma, I don't think any gods should step in and do anything because there aren't any and they've never stepped in and done anything, so the question isn't relevant.
However, if a god can step in and prevent just one "ill of the world" then he is culpable for all the ills that he chooses not to get involved with.
That would be true were it not for the fact that the world is under the control of Satan until such time as God has elected to release us.
You, of course, have the right to ask why this is the case. The answer is readily available.
Yeah, of course, you gotta have a bad god too (even if that kinda breaks the one god rule) to take the blame for all the bad stuff.
Unless, of course, you don't care.
Too bad. I thought you might.
Great , my thread got hijacked into yet another dreary conversation about the presumed nature of an imaginary person.
Wonderful
When any religionist sees "god," isn't it curious to find out how each of them describes the physical god?
Doktor S wrote:Great , my thread got hijacked into yet another dreary conversation about the presumed nature of an imaginary person.
Wonderful
When you start a thread with Agnosticism as the topic, is it unusual that folks would discuss and compare the alternatives? Why would that be a big surprise?
I suppose the words 'on topic' mean nothing to you.
What an imaginary man would do, likes, or dislikes is irrelevant to the topic, which is the irrationality of the agnostic position.
Don't worry though, RL, your position is still far more irrational. No need to be alarmed at a potential usurper to your crown!
I have a question for Frank as asked earlier before this thread was disremembered by those of ill repute:
Hi Frank,
As has been said before, (and if you have answered this 1st part then I missed it) if the only rational argument that an agnostic can make is that we do not know enough to make an assessment, that would be an acceptable argument only if the agnostic is willing to give equal or more credence to taro cards, alien abductions, talking to the dead, astrology, witches, zombies, flying saucers, ghosts, Easter bunnies, Santa Claus etc.
As per your position as an agnostic, are willing to give equal or more credence to taro cards, alien abductions, talking to the dead, astrology, witches, zombies, flying saucers, ghosts, Easter bunnies, Santa Claus etc as you are to the presumption of a god?
If so how much credence are you giving all these 'manifestations' inclusive of god?
Have you given any more thought to the skeptical agnostic (timberlandko coined) term?[/quote]
I believe the original statement of this topic itself implied limits to the discussion that precluded any rational answer or discussion. The consideration of competing theologies or mystical belief systems as each representing an independent and distinct view or possibility, among which a believer might choose -- is itself fallacious.
The question of the existence or non-existence of a god creator is quite independent of any of the human constructs or theologies developed by amankind in search of both comfort and understanding.
Science can (and in some areas only promises to) understand the processes by which the observable natural world unfolds. However science offers us nothing at all concerning either the origin of our existence or any reasons for it. At this juncture one either (1) stops thinking about it; or (2) adopts vague quasi scientific notions about quantum multiverses, or an endless unfolding of cause and effect - which answer nothing; or (3) takes the agnostic view that the question is unanswered, but that compelling reasons to accept a god creator don't exist; or (4) makes the leap to the least unlikely conclusion that there is a god creator.
None of this involves any examination of the hundreds of schools of theology at all. The rational mind is confronted with exactly four possibilities - those listed above - and two of them amount to merely avoiding the question. What remains are belief and agnosticism.
george wrote:
The question of the existence or non-existence of a god creator is quite independent of any of the human constructs or theologies developed by amankind in search of both comfort and understanding.
Not true: the relationship between the existence or non-existence of a god creator has "everything" to do with religion. There is no way to separate it; it's the creation of man as a "religious belief."
georgeob1 wrote:At this juncture one either (1) stops thinking about it; or (2) adopts vague quasi scientific notions about quantum multiverses, or an endless unfolding of cause and effect - which answer nothing; or (3) takes the agnostic view that the question is unanswered, but that compelling reasons to accept a god creator don't exist; or (4) makes the leap to the least unlikely conclusion that there is a god creator.
Sotisses, sotisses, sottises . . . it is also entirely possible that a rational, intelligent person can decide that absent sufficient information, the rather idle speculation of cosmic origins, which impinges not at all upon one's existence, is nothing more than a quaint curiousity, fit for after dinner discussions with those sufficiently dull of wit as to be come mightily exercised by questions unanswered and unanswerable.
The leaping to which you refer looks like a jesuitical mascarade for Kierkegaard's fear and loating induced leap to faith--at least have the honesty to credit the source of your over florid language. The contention that your imaginary friend supersition is the "least unlikely" palliative for your sickness unto death is, of course, fallacious in the extreme. Name a preference when you articulate one, rather than expecting intelligent interlocutors to swallow tripe whole before having ascertained if they have a taste for intestines.
Hi Georgeob1, well done as usual:
Your point "(3) takes the agnostic view that the question is unanswered, but that compelling reasons to accept a god creator don't exist" is what I prefer to call either Weak Atheism or Skeptical Agnosticism. That's me more or less.
georgeob1 wrote:I believe the original statement of this topic itself implied limits to the discussion that precluded any rational answer or discussion.
If you are stickler for literalism, I agree, otherwise take is as the gauntlet thrown down by Doc for Frank.
georgeob1 wrote:However science offers us nothing at all concerning either the origin of our existence or any reasons for it.
Depends on the meaning and context of "origin", witness evolution and cosmology.
georgeob1 wrote: Science can (and in some areas only promises to) understand the processesÂ…..
I know of no reputable science making "promises".
georgeob1 wrote:The question of the existence or non-existence of a god creator is quite independent of any of the human constructs or theologies developed by amankind in search of both comfort and understanding.
That may well be true but there is no direct evidence to either support or deny the premise that "a god creator is quite independent of any of the human constructs".
Setanta wrote:it is also entirely possible that a rational, intelligent person can decide that absent sufficient information, the rather idle speculation of cosmic origins, which impinges not at all upon one's existence, is nothing more than a quaint curiousity.......
I sometimes forget about that option: what does it matter or who gives a ****
I argued above that agnosticism is "irrational" because "rationality" implies a "world view" which functions as "framework for social action".
The labels are meaningless except in terms of such action.
We might take this further. The agnostic falls into the same category as the "moderate theist" with respect to the social consequences of "faith". As Harris argues, a "rational" position given todays rise in theistic terrorism would be to actively condemn "faith" which the agnostic fails to do because he is waiting for "more evidence". (Harris's argument is that "tolerance" is no longer a "rational option" when extremists have access to weapons of mass destruction).
I listed one of the four oprions as "one merely stops thinking about it". Setanta has given us a rather lengthy exposition on this possibility.
Chumley,
Cosmology in particular confronts one with the whole problem in microcosm. What does one do with a physical theory of the physics of the universe that leads one back to a singularity? The normal, and often successful, course in science in such cases is to alter or expand the theory to avoid the singularity. In this case we are confronted with possibilities ranging from quantum multiverses, to passages thru black holes and the like. All rather unsatisfyingly imply an infinite regression of cause and effect. What does that mean? One is back where he started.
There may well be a god creator, and he may well be accurately described by one or several of the various theologies or belief systems. However if he exists, his existence is independent of these human constructs. Hence my distinction.
georgeob1
Can you define "existence" except in terms of "human constructs" ?.....every word you might use refers to such a construct !
