Originally posted by Bardock42i did the same thing as digi 😮
That's alright.Anyways, I read it here again and I keep reading the "You can't prove a negative" line...but that's not actually true. Obviously there are multiple ways one could sufficiently prove a negative statement. There certainly is in mathematics. Maybe a "negative" has to be defined more exactly though.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Alliance and Mindship. grr.I debate my ass off for 4 pages, but it's Alliance and Mindship.
Assholes.
Originally posted by DigiMark007I prefer the term, Wiggle-Room Philosophy 😎 .
Nothing can be proven in absolutist terms...our existence and everything we experience is subjective so there is no objectively definable way to prove something. This can be used as a cheap "hiding spot"
Personally, I see no harm to WRPs (and arguably some gain), as long as it is fashioned rationally. For example, it is rational--if not imperative--that a WRP incorporate the findings of empirical science.
agnostics with atheistis inclinations seem the most logical to me. its the same thing russel found hard to endorse his entire life. am i an agnostic or an atheist. the problem with being agnostic is that you give out a SENSE of giving BOTH{the theistis and the atheistic} arguments equal preference. saying that neither one can disprove the other. however, that is misleading because, unlike atheism{complete absence of diety} THEISM has many types however it doesnt have any true arguments on its side other than the argument from negetive evidence{i.e. no1 can actually DISPROVE the presence of a characteristic diety}. this however, is not reason enough to give it as much relevance than the beleif in the lack of a diety{all observations point to such} which is actually based on direct evidence. people might be just as likely to beleive in the existance of the invisible purple unicorn, and yet, no1 wud put that beleif on PAR with the non beleif in god. so basically, you shud say, im an agnostic {since we ULTIMATELY cant disprove with absolute certainty, the existance of a diety} with athistic inclinations{ buit we admit that it is EXCEEDINGLY improbable that such a diety exists on account of evidence}. thats what i do at times anyway.
Originally posted by Mindship
Understood. If I were to simplify...1. As far as [B]empirical evidence
goes, there is no proof of God's existence; indeed, operationally defined as a nonempirical entity, there can never be proof of God's existence.
This is not good for Theism.Or as I would rephrase it: Agnosticism is, intellectually, the most honest position. [/B]
That is not necessarily true. The Idea of a superior being may fall outside of the realm of empiricism, but once certain attributes are attached to the god it becomes possible to test. The idea that god answers prayers, has facilitated miracles, or interferes at all in the lives of humans can be tested. As a nonempirical entity it remains outside of logical proofs, but when it interacts with the universe it becomes testable.
Originally posted by Jbill311
That is not necessarily true. The Idea of a superior being may fall outside of the realm of empiricism, but once certain attributes are attached to the god it becomes possible to test. The idea that god answers prayers, has facilitated miracles, or interferes at all in the lives of humans can be tested. As a nonempirical entity it remains outside of logical proofs, but when it interacts with the universe it becomes testable.
First of all, what attributes do we assign? Are we going to give God traits that we know ahead of time can be tested for and indeed will be found? Ie, how do we know what traits to assign which wouldn't automatically guarantee success? For example, if God is an Intelligent Designer, does that mean the organization we see in the world is proof?
Secondly, how do we eliminate other contaminating variables, other factors which could account for the phenomenon? To continue with the above example, how do we know the organization we see in the world isn't due to evolution?
Third: At best, empirical tests can still only hint of what a transempircal entity might be like, just as a circular shadow may be hinting of a sphere, but it may also be hinting of a cylinder or cone. It might indeed offer compelling evidence, but not convincing.
The above aside, this is not to say that "God" is necessarily beyond science, not if we extend the definition of scientific proof to any immediately perceived phenomena, not just empirical. In this manner, scientific method may still prove viable: we can still apply careful observation, honesty of effort and intersubjective agreement to "meditative insight." Once we have this transcendent verification, then we can infer--from those direct, contemplative observations--Godly traits we may wish to test for, traits as they would translate into empirical phenomena.
Originally posted by Mindship
The above aside, this is not to say that "God" is necessarily beyond science, not if we extend the definition of scientific proof to any immediately perceived phenomena, not just empirical. In this manner, scientific method may still prove viable: we can still apply careful observation, honesty of effort and intersubjective agreement to "meditative insight." Once we have this transcendent verification, then we can infer--from those direct, contemplative observations--Godly traits we may wish to test for, traits as they would translate into empirical phenomena.
This was exactly my point. It bothers me that the idea of god resides outside of science. We can investigate the things that suggest a god, and rationally decide whether or not they add up to a deity. I have looked at all the evidence I could find, and the arguments seem to favor atheism, or a least agnosticism with a stronger possibility of no god than of an extant one.
Originally posted by Jbill311
This was exactly my point. It bothers me that the idea of god resides outside of science. We can investigate the things that suggest a god, and rationally decide whether or not they add up to a deity. I have looked at all the evidence I could find, and the arguments seem to favor atheism, or a least agnosticism with a stronger possibility of no god than of an extant one.
Right.
It also depends on the type of God you're speaking of. The Christian God is a testable hypothesis, since He is a deity who regularly intervenes on the Earth and in human affairs. Such interaction would require a physcial presence that defies normal causality. Thus, testable. Not falsifiable, perhaps, but proveable. So far, nothing resembling such evidence has surfaced.
But if we're talking about ANY God, which would include non-intervening forces that created the universe but don't affect it, then it goes beyond science. But in that case, it's clearly not the god of any theistic tradition here on earth, so it makes theism as we understand it just as pointless.
Originally posted by DigiMark007true. if we found out there was a god like that or gods like that i would be satisfied. at least it would make sense why horrible things happen, because they created everything then stepped back
Right.It also depends on the type of God you're speaking of. The Christian God is a testable hypothesis, since He is a deity who regularly intervenes on the Earth and in human affairs. Such interaction would require a physcial presence that defies normal causality. Thus, testable. Not falsifiable, perhaps, but proveable. So far, nothing resembling such evidence has surfaced.
But if we're talking about ANY God, which would include non-intervening forces that created the universe but don't affect it, then it goes beyond science. But in that case, it's clearly not the god of any theistic tradition here on earth, so it makes theism as we understand it just as pointless.
Originally posted by Jbill311
This was exactly my point. It bothers me that the idea of god resides outside of science. We can investigate the things that suggest a god, and rationally decide whether or not they add up to a deity. I have looked at all the evidence I could find, and the arguments seem to favor atheism, or a least agnosticism with a stronger possibility of no god than of an extant one.
Religion is blatent lies and is based on fiction. This is reason enough not to believe it, like atheists do...like I do. Agnostics however, do not understand religion is lies, their argument is you can't know the answer. They miss out the fact that the religious argument was made up, and when it comes to science, something made up, is wrong. So, religion is wrong and agnosticism is wrong.
However, if you're talking philisophically, I would take the agnostic argument, by the fact that no one knows everything.
Originally posted by lord xyz
Religion is blatent lies and is based on fiction. This is reason enough not to believe it, like atheists do...like I do. Agnostics however, do not understand religion is lies, their argument is you can't know the answer. They miss out the fact that the religious argument was made up, and when it comes to science, something made up, is wrong. So, religion is wrong and agnosticism is wrong.However, if you're talking philisophically, I would take the agnostic argument, by the fact that no one knows everything.
I feel that you have a flawed understanding of Agnosticism. Don't take that as an insult because I have learned a few things while posting the religion forum. You seem to think that agnostics are trying to subscribe to both common theistic ideals while also subscribing to atheistic ideals. This is simply not the case. Their perspective is neither based on common theisms nor atheisms: they don't share the common ideals from either. Theirs is a unique perspective that is ALMOST mutually exclusive to both poles. They hold that there IS a possibility of deity but it is currently impossible to know.
This is some good reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
I have already stated that Agnosticism is the most logical choice in another thread. You, indeed, are correct that it is the best philosophical choice as well.
People seem caught between atheist/agnostic in such matters. I prefer to call myself non-theist, which is probably just as logical as agnosticism because in it you don't believe in a God but don't outright deny the existence of one. It's the difference between "I don't believe in God" (non-theist) and "There is no God," which is traditionally what atheism is associated with. Subtle, but important from a logical standpoint.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
People seem caught between atheist/agnostic in such matters. I prefer to call myself non-theist, which is probably just as logical as agnosticism because in it you don't believe in a God but don't outright deny the existence of one. It's the difference between "I don't believe in God" (non-theist) and "There is no God," which is traditionally what atheism is associated with. Subtle, but important from a logical standpoint.
"I don't believe in God" would be non-<insert the name of the religion to which "God" refers to here>
You can be a theist, atheist, agnostic, apatheistic(thanks to Quiero for informing me about that one), or a nontheist. You may call yourself a nontheist because that is an "ism". Ther's probably some others but I prefer to keep narrowed down to those.
You may, imo, be apatheistic. Search out that religion....you may find that this "label" fits better for what you are looking for.
Originally posted by dadudemonYeah, they believe it is impossible to know. But as I stated, the fact that religion was made up, is evidence enough that it is false (in a scientific context). Therefore, it is possible to know, and agnostics don't realise that.
I feel that you have a flawed understanding of Agnosticism. Don't take that as an insult because I have learned a few things while posting the religion forum. You seem to think that agnostics are trying to subscribe to both common theistic ideals while also subscribing to atheistic ideals. This is simply not the case. Their perspective is neither based on common theisms nor atheisms: they don't share the common ideals from either. Theirs is a unique perspective that is ALMOST mutually exclusive to both poles. They hold that there IS a possibility of deity but it is currently impossible to know.This is some good reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
I have already stated that Agnosticism is the most logical choice in another thread. You, indeed, are correct that it is the best philosophical choice as well.
Originally posted by lord xyz
Yeah, they believe it is impossible to know. But as I stated, the fact that religion was made up, is evidence enough that it is false (in a scientific context). Therefore, it is possible to know, and agnostics don't realise that.
You're still missing it.
Agnosticism does not hinge on the idea that religion was made up. In fact, it is completely independent of that thought or ideal. It is what it is in its own right. Hence my saying "mutually exclusive".
If YOU accept that there is a possibility of a deity of sorts, YOU could be considered agnostic.
Tell me something, do you consider atheists "brights"?
Originally posted by dadudemonWhat do you mean by "hinge"?
You're still missing it.Agnosticism does not hinge on the idea that religion was made up. In fact, it is completely independent of that thought or ideal. It is what it is in its own right. Hence my saying "mutually exclusive".
If YOU accept that there is a possibility of a deity of sorts, YOU could be considered agnostic.
Tell me something, do you consider atheists "brights"?
Originally posted by lord xyz
What do you mean by "hinge"?
As in "not" hinge.
5. to be dependent or contingent on, or as if on, a hinge (usually fol. by on or upon): Everything hinges on his decision.
No.
Atheists recognise religion to be made up and use that as evidence to not believe it, theists instead believe it to be fact, and agnostics believe it's impossible to know whether it's fact or not. When speaking scientifically, something that's made up, isn't true. Since agnostics don't believe religion isn't true, they must not know that it's made up.
Originally posted by lord xyz
No.Atheists recognise religion to be made up and use that as evidence to not believe it, theists instead believe it to be fact, and agnostics believe it's impossible to know whether it's fact or not. When speaking scientifically, something that's made up, isn't true. Since agnostics don't believe religion isn't true, they must not know that it's made up.
You're still getting it wrong.
I don't understand how you could miss it this many times.
"Form of skepticism that holds that the existence of God cannot be logically proved or disproved." Indeed, one could say that agnosticism is a critique of both theism and atheism. One more time.....MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE to either. Did you catch that?
You have the set of theism: 0
You have the set of atheism: 1
And then the set of agnosticism: A
A does not = 0 or 1
0 does not = A or 1
1 does not = 0 or A
The idea of agnosticism is NOT related to the origins of theism. (It could be...remotely due to the illogic of theism...but Agnosticism is NOT theism.)
Originally posted by dadudemonYou don't understand what I'm saying. As a result, you're argument has been against a point I haven't made. I understand Agnosticism is not Theism, and that agnosticism believes god can't be proved or disproved, my point is is that it can be disproved, and agnostics don't realise this. For some reason you mistook that as saying agnostics are thesits, or are a type of theist. I never said that.
You're still getting it wrong.I don't understand how you could miss it this many times.
"Form of skepticism that holds that the existence of God cannot be logically proved or disproved." Indeed, one could say that agnosticism is a critique of both theism and atheism. One more time.....MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE to either. Did you catch that?
You have the set of theism: 0
You have the set of atheism: 1
And then the set of agnosticism: A
A does not = 0 or 1
0 does not = A or 1
1 does not = 0 or A
The idea of agnosticism is NOT related to the origins of theism. (It could be...remotely due to the illogic of theism...but Agnosticism is NOT theism.)