Agnosticism vs. Atheism

Hi, I'm new to this forum. I've been browsing around for quite a bit, getting a feel for the goings on and I've finally decided to put my two cents in.The argument I have seen evolving thus far deals with the lack of evidence to prove the existence of a divine entity. At this moment I wish to pose the following thought.We have, what are considered five sense: sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell.It is with these senses that we perceive the universe, and the existence of a divine entity is apparently undetectable through these sense. (Never heard of anyone TASTING God - then again, there is confirmation) So, obviously, one could easily dispute that since their senses do not show them a divine entity, one must not exist, or rather, they have no reason to believe in one, because our senses provide us what is an apparently complete view of the universe lacking in supernatural activity.However, let us take the case of an individual who is born blind and never in their life experiences light and color. Only through the warmth of the sun can they have any indication that it even exists, and then they must believe the claims of those who are sighted that there is such a thing as color and so forth. They still have a complete universe, as far as they concerned, for from their perspective there is no need for light.Those of us who are fortunate enough to be able to detect and respond to light KNOW that it exists. However, the one who has never experienced light must trust beyond the limits of their perceptions that it exists.We have evolved the sense we need to adequately survive in this physical plane and on this particular planet. I am simply entertaining the possibility that there are other manners of perception that we lack, much like the one who has been born blind, and knows no other existence.Peace

quote:

---

The vast, vast scope of religous experience by humanity implies that no, they do not. If the people who could be said to be experiencing god can't agree on their experience, why is it fruitful to assume that they're not just making it up?

---

At the same time, everyone responds to colors in different ways. Not everyone has the same favorite color for instance, therefore the emotional interpretation of color varies. Since the belief in an omni(fill in the blank) entity is closely tied with an individual's emotional condition, their interpretations of the god-sense can be expected to vary as well.Now... you can provide convincing evidence of the existence of color by translating different light frequencies into a medium that can be experienced by the blind scinentist, say distinct sounds produced by mathematical signal processing. After all, this is how we deal with the ultra-violet spectrum. We never actually SEE ultra-violet light because we have no organs to directly sense it's frequencies. Yet we know it exists because we have instruments that translate the frequencies into colors we can distinguish.Now, you may say that I have squashed the thought I had just posted before. But let us consider the facts. Up until mere decades ago, we had no idea that the ultra-violet spectrum even existed. There was no evidence for its existence, we didn't even know where to look. Now, the sensors that 'see' ultra-violet light for us are a vital tool in perceiving our universe.Just food for thought. [This message has been edited by Daniel P, 09-22-2003]

quote:

---

From what scientific theory do you predict the existence of God? What data can only be explained by the existence of a creator god? What hypothesis do you propose on the existence of god, and what tests can we perform to confirm or reject it?

---

That's a very good and valid question, and at this point in time there is no way I can possibly answer you because I lack the faculties of perception that, hypothetically, would allow me to produce viable grounds for experimentation and testing of this sort. See, I would need a device that doesn't exist, in order to properly detect something that might not exist. The issue at hand is proving whether there is some 'spiritual other-realm' that can be likened to the mythos that has sprung up in every culture for as long as humanity has existed. These legends and myths probably even go back to our immediate hominid predecessors and their perceptions of reality. Obviously the very concept of a 'spiritual other-realm' is a product of the human conciousness trying to fill in the blanks and make sense of the universe it sits in. This notion, however, does not disprove the possibility of the existence of such a 'realm'.If one looks up at the stars on a clear night, away from city lights, it is easy to come to believe that the Earth is sitting underneath a dome that has holes punched into it, and that there is some etheral source of brilliance on the other side of this dome. This concept has obviously been disproven.What if science comes upon some evidence for the existence of what seems strikingly similar to a 'spiritual-plane' based on instruments and data that cannot be disputed. Would it be safe to assume such a thing has been detected? Or would some other explantion be mandatory? I'm sure that it would spark some tremendous discussions on this board.Take it with ease