I disagree. Agnosticism is the position that nothing can be known about god (or whatever). If god exists & he is omnipotent, then there can be evidence of him. If he appears in front of me performing miracles under laboratory conditions, then we can potentially have evidence of him. Given that we have no evidence, then the logical position is to place the god hypothesis into the same box we place all the other things we have no evidence of.
This is not agnosticism as it is defined in my dictionary. If you have no knowledge of something, then how can you be sure that evidence is absolutely unattainable?
A-theism is the only logical choice. There is no evidence of fairies, evidence may come to light that shows they exist, but until then I'm an A-fairyist. In the same way I'm an A-martianist, an A-life-elsewhere-ist.
If people maintain that god does not exist then the onus is on them to provide the evidence. Arguments of ignorance and incredulity are a distraction.
I agree, but then I do have the advantage of 1/ not saying that, & 2/ therefore being consistent.
Mark
Edited by mark24, : No reason given.
Edited by mark24, : No reason given.
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
quote:A friend of mine (creationist) looks at it as we were created according to the image in the mind of god: his image with a different perspective. In this way he sees god having imagined all of existence from start to finish, and somewhere in there are humans (as well as other species, possibly other life). Not knowing the actual original words and their meanings I cannot vouch for the accuracy of this idea, but find it interesting. One thing I have always had trouble with is that if we are in the exact image of god how come we are not god-like ourselves? Not even Adam had any supernatural powers as far as I can see.
We equate with the information we have, and supernatural powers are of our imagination and hollywoodian. Adam had eternal life, but was created a little lower than the angels, that's why he could not bend space (etc) the way they can or is done for them. Adam was meant to do what he did and no more.
quote:That would explain taking out the rib to make females .... but it is an interesting perspective. I take it you don't have any trouble with time scales and the first evidence of life on earth being from over 3.5 billion years ago.
I assume this is data developed with the measurements developed by people who need time scales and have done so?
The wider perspective is limited by our ability to understand and who says we understand anything at all, but hope we are right?
And back to our favourite final question of Dinosaurs living in a vastly different environment, also in a very distant time with a World that itself evolves and changes. Like the seasons Dinosaurs experienced the winter of our planet extinction through the ice age.
This is grammatically a little vague, but if you're saying that the dinosaurs were wiped out by the ice ages that ended about 10,000 years ago, the current widely accepted scientific view is that dinosaurs were wiped out (except for birds) by climate change about 65 million years ago, and that the climate change could likely have been brought about by a comet or asteroid impact.
Noah and his ark experienced spring, the warming and eventual flood of the earth (also a time of birth). Could it be that were coming into a nice hot summer with global warming and possibly another flood (better get those arks ready).
If all the world's ice were to melt (we only have to worry about Greenland and Antarctica ice, since Arctic ice is already floating, and the rest isn't enough to make a significant contribution), one estimate I've seen says sea levels would rise about 215 feet. That's catastropic, except that sea levels are rising at less than a centimeter per year, so there will be plenty of time for coastal regions to adjust, about 7000 years. And for all the world's ice to melt is thought to require a total increase in global average temperature of more than 30oF, so rising sea levels wouldn't be our only problem.
The way you stated your views earlier did not seem consistent with a literal interpretaion of Genesis, in other words, did not seem consistent with a 6000 year old earth and a global flood 4500 years ago.
If people maintain that god does not exist then the onus is on them to provide the evidence. Arguments of ignorance and incredulity are a distraction.
You can't prove a negative. If I want to prove that the immaterial pink unicorn doesn't exist, I have to look under every rock in the universe. That's not possible. The burden of proof is always on the side that claims the positive, in this case the existence of god (aka immaterial pink unicorn).
We are BOG. Resistance is voltage over current.
Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
The real contention is not between science and religion but between religion and religion.
While there's certainly plenty of religious conflict, I think you've missed the main conflict - religion vs. reality. There is much that the world's religions hold to be so that just isn't.
It wasn’t really that long ago when Science itself was condemned as being magic and evil could you imagine how a message of evolution, genetics etc would have been received.
Probably the same way the early Christian message was received - viewed as heresy by many, but viewed as truthful by others.
Christianity survived. The early Christians certainly weren't telling people what they wanted to hear, or pulling punches to avoid persecution.
So I still find it pretty specious to suggest that they had to "cover up" what they knew (or what God knew) about genetics and evolution - the reason that the Bible doesn't describe evolution and genetics is because those things were unknown at the time, because men had not discovered them yet.
As mentioned before the creation of Eve by taking part of one person to create another, back then could only be applied to the donation of organs (if that) with a miracle thrown in, if you were told this now you would almost immediately assume genetic engineering, the immaculate conception of Mary can only be a miracle of the time yet we now have many immaculate conceptions through fertility research.
As a former Catholic, I'd like to point out your error here. "Immaculate conception" refers to Mary's conception by her parents, not her gestation of Jesus. (That's the "virgin birth".) Modern fertility research doesn't provide for "immaculate conception"; Mary was conceived the usual way, according to the dogma, but the Holy Spirit intervened so that Original Sin was not passed onto her, rendering her a sinless vessel for the eventual birth of Jesus.
Modern fertility treatments probably don't provide for virgin birth, either, actually. If a couple appeared at a fertility clinic before they'd even attempted intercourse they'd be laughed out of the office.
Unfortunately I cannot give you the universal message, but from religion we see a sense of morals and a beginning for all.
Not universally. Hindu and Buddhist theology hold that the world and universe are essentially eternal, and existence is a vast unending cycle of karmic rebirth. And, of course, it's impossible to find any universal concordance on any moral issue among the world's religions. Any conceivable moral question has been answered both ways by religion.
The most obvious characteristic of religion, one that becomes obvious when the world's religions are juxtaposed, is that there's no unifying principle. There's little similarity to the stories. Since it's all make-believe, different religions make up different stuff to believe.
I however was lead to believe to question God is to question something that is beyond our intelligence thereby lifting yourself to a position of equality with God thereby blasphemy.
What makes you think God is beyond our intelligence? Is it possible that the only reason you don't understand what God is, is that you're starting from faulty premises about God? Namely, that he's an actual, existing being?
Understanding cannot proceed from faulty premises. Have you ever considered that that might be your problem all along? Not that God is beyond human understanding, he's just currently beyond yours?
As a final note in my long winded rant, I find it somewhat amusing that an atheist scoffed at the idea of God having DNA, as this is what I am suggesting we are his children or a least great-great etc children. RAZD asked why we are not God-like ourselves if were an exact image, what makes God God, he creates, destroys, controls. We control, we destroy and if it wasn’t for genetic laws then we would create almost anything we desire. Why is it only humans that have this control is it not because we have a little something special in us.
What "genetic laws" are you referring to?
Like the seasons Dinosaurs experienced the winter of our planet extinction through the ice age. Noah and his ark experienced spring, the warming and eventual flood of the earth (also a time of birth).
There has been no such flood of the Earth. Had there been life on Earth would have been completely extinct. There isn't even enough water on the Earth to flood the Earth. This isn't a flood thread, but you should know - it's well-known that the flood is a myth, not something that actually happened to the world.
another atheist vs. agnostic topic (shame on you for rather gratuitously bringing it up)
It seems to me those that respond to the word agnostic more than to the argument are the ones missing the point.
Mark played the atheist card in Message 12, where he also made the arguments from incredulity and ignorance:
quote:But if there is no evidence of god then it's irrelevant. Why not the universe is snot from the galactic goat? Or the Flying Spaghetti monster? Or any other of the potentially millions of evidentially vacuous explanations?
There are many things where we have no evidence yet continue to "believe" that something is there: take dark matter (please).
... a sort of naive cartesianism ("we cannot 'know' anything with 100% certainty"), are not unchallenged.
Nor is that what is being claimed. We can know with certainty that the earth is NOT flat and that it is NOT young. We can eliminate concepts that are falsified. Where it gets uncertain is in defining the exact shape and age at any moment.
We don't have enough information for those kinds of knowledge, but we get closer to it with each advancement in our knowledge.
We also have concepts that cannot be falsified, that are outside the realm of science to answer, and these involve philosophy and religion. God as a concept cannot be falsified, just as no-God as a concept cannot be falsified. That leaves the philosophically logical position somewhere in between, no matter what you believe.
Meanwhile, since these responses were made the title of the thread changed.
I disagree. Agnosticism is the position that nothing can be known about god (or whatever).
That is one definition, but not the only one:
Also review:
And leaving no evidence that is discernable or that is different from natural phenomena. Deists also believe that god is unknowable so this is not exclusive to agnostics and this of itself is not sufficient then as a definition of agnostic.
If god exists & he is omnipotent, then there can be evidence of him.
And the evidence would be everything in the universe, exactly as it is. What you cannot eliminate is the hand behind the process: everything we understand is about the process.
A-theism is the only logical choice. ... but then I do have the advantage of 1/ not saying that, & 2/ therefore being consistent.
It seems to me that you did just inconsistently say exactly what you said you did not say.
Now can we get back to the topic or do we need to open\reopen another thread to continue this discussion?
Re: Supernatural powers? Such as Superman? or Omega Man
quote:A friend of mine (creationist) ...
We equate with the information we have, and supernatural powers are of our imagination and hollywoodian.
This was Jim\Myshkin.
quote:One thing I have always had trouble with is that if we are in the exact image of god how come we are not god-like ourselves? Not even Adam had any supernatural powers as far as I can see.
... that's why he could not bend space (etc) the way they can or is done for them. Adam was meant to do what he did and no more.
So not in the full image eh? Or just not yet?
quote:I take it you don't have any trouble with time scales and the first evidence of life on earth being from over 3.5 billion years ago.
I assume this is data developed with the measurements developed by people who need time scales and have done so?
By people who have pieced together the evidence that eliminates younger ages from possibilities. Any belief that excludes reality is delusion.
If I want to prove that the immaterial pink unicorn doesn't exist,...
Another argument from incredulity.
The burden of proof is always on the side that claims the positive, in this case the existence of god (aka immaterial pink unicorn).
Only as long as they claim that proof is possible. Don't confuse science with philosophy and faith.
You don't claim that proof of evolution is possible: it is a scientific theory, it is falsifiable, and the best it can ever be is heavily validated; it can never be proved to the level of logic you are asking here.
Deists believe that god is not necessarily knowable and that all we can really know is how the natural universe operates. Perhaps it is all an experiment, under observation, as our original post proposes. That is not a god that can be proven: it is not a scientific hypothesis, it is not intended to be one. It is based on faith not logic.
Now let the poster argue his concept and see where it leads eh? I'd like to see where he goes as he develops his thesis.
ag·nos·tic -noun 1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. 2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
Either works for me. But I fail to see how this helps your case that agnosticism is the logical choice. We are talking about the god of the bible that is supposedly omnipotent. In which case it is possible to have knowledge of such a being if it allowed you to. In which case both definitions you have provided are untenable. It is possible to have knowledge of an omnipotent being.
I confess that you could define a god that wasn't omnipotent & therefore you could be agnostic and atheist about, but Yahweh isn't it.
The only logical position, therefore, is atheism. Until such time as we have evidence of god, that is.
And the evidence would be everything in the universe, exactly as it is.
That's like saying the dead body is evidence that god killed someone.
The universe isn't evidence of god, it is the observation that requires a hypothesis to explain it. If that explanation is god, then what about the universe supports the god theory? Nothing. As far as you are aware if god created the universe it might be very different. Evidence is data that reduces our tentativity as regards a given hypothesis, the universe doesn't reduce our tentativity & therefore cannot be considered evidence of god any more than an unexplained dead body is evidence that god is a murderer.
RAZD writes:
If people maintain that god does not exist then the onus is on them to provide the evidence. Arguments of ignorance and incredulity are a distraction.
mark writes:
I agree, but then I do have the advantage of 1/ not saying that, & 2/ therefore being consistent.
RAZD writes:
It seems to me that you did just inconsistently say exactly what you said you did not say.
I did not say god didn't exist, I said there is no evidence to support the notion of god & therefore should be put in the same place we put all the other theories we have no evidence of.
Given that I didn't say god doesn't exist, there is no burden of proof on me to prove the non-existence of it. People that do maintain that god exists are required to provide evidence, however.
Now can we get back to the topic or do we need to open\reopen another thread to continue this discussion?
If you still disagree then a new thread is probably in order.
Mark
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
Mark played the atheist card in Message 12, where he also made the arguments from incredulity and ignorance:
mark writes:
But if there is no evidence of god then it's irrelevant. Why not the universe is snot from the galactic goat? Or the Flying Spaghetti monster? Or any other of the potentially millions of evidentially vacuous explanations?
EXCUSE ME?
It is not an incredulous or ignorant statement that there is no evidence of god. It is a fact. Given that that is the case, then neither is it incredulous or ignorant to state that it is irrelevant as a conclusion to the question of existence.
Should we be credulous about the Galactic Goat, the Flying Spaghetti Monster without evidence? Would we be ignorant to point out that we refuse to accept such explanations without evidence? No, of course we wouldn't.
Mark
Edited by mark24, : No reason given.
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
quote:Basically could it be that we are a science experiments to God, created and watched over, prophets could be considered Gods lab technicians. If so then we really could be created in Gods likeness as that seems pretty similar to what we do now.
Finally and just a last stupid question, but could Dinosaurs be considered Gods lab rats, testing the environment before he chose to release a portion of his own DNA upon this world.
Humans have wonderful imaginations, but at some point you have to separate the fact from the fiction.
If you ponder the idea of us being science experiments, you are leaning towards an ancient view that we are "pawns" of the gods. You've just narrowed it down to one god.
Our minds can imagine so much and I think, sometimes, we get lost in it and lose touch with what is real.
IMO, people need to understand what they need from their religion or what they need for inner peace.
"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
It's a position of incredulity; because it's most reasonable to be incredulous of claims that have no credibility.
It's not an argument from incredulity, because the argument is not "I don't believe it; therefore it's not true," the argument is "there's no evidence, therefore I don't believe it." The incredulity here is a conclusion, not a premise. You do know the difference between conclusions and premises, right?
Having incredulity, being incredulous about incredulous claims, is nothing like actually making an argument from incredulity. And it's very telling that you can't seem to see the difference, but I guess it's the sort of mental gymnastics that lead to the agnostic position of special evidentiary rules for a God they don't even believe in (just in case, I guess.)
™ Version 4.2