Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9071 total)
62 online now:
AZPaul3, jar, nwr, Tanypteryx (4 members, 58 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Upcoming Birthdays: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 893,098 Year: 4,210/6,534 Month: 424/900 Week: 130/150 Day: 23/38 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   An Exploration Into"Agnosticism"
Straggler
Member (Idle past 199 days)
Posts: 10332
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 165 of 179 (557082)
04-22-2010 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by RAZD
04-19-2010 8:32 PM


Disproof and Unknowability - Laying Some Rabbit Holes To Rest
Let us dispel this nonsense about proof and "unknowability" once and for all. Let us put these particular rabbit holes to rest.

RAZD writes:

Curiously, we both know that your evidence is still inconclusive on the issue of whether or not gods exist, because it is incapable of proving that no gods can exist.

Can we prove that the magical and empirically unknowable Easter Bunny can not exist? Does this have any bearing on our conclusion as to whether or not this particular entity actually exists?

Where there is sufficient evidence that a concept is nothing but a human invention we quite rightly follow the evidence. Presumed “unknowability” has no bearing on this. All I ask (all I have ever asked) is that we treat the question of god in a manner consistent with the way we treat every other empirically irrefutable concept. All I ask is that we weigh up the evidence favouring the concept of god as being a human invention against the evidence that gods exist. Baseless assertions of unknowability and ridiculous demands of proof are nothing more than smokescreens and distractions. The asserted unknowability of god is of no more relevance than is the asserted unknowability of the Easter Bunny. Let us instead examine the balance of evidence.

Why do you consider this to be so contentious, unreasonable and worthy of your indignant mockery?

RAZD paraphrased writes:

Curiously, we both know that your evidence is still inconclusive on the issue of whether or not the Easter Bunny exists, because it is incapable of proving that no Easter Bunny can exist.

So RAZ are you prepared to say that the magical Easter Bunny is a product of human invention rather than a real entity? Despite an absence of “proof”. Or not? When a man of your years finds himself unable to denounce the Easter Bunny as a fiction things have gone seriously amiss.

RAZD writes:

The deist believes that god/s is/are essentially unknowable…

You may believe that as a baseless and unjustifiable presupposition. But that does not make your agnostic fundamentalist arguments regarding the intrinsic unknowability of god any more legitimate. The concept of god is as susceptible to sufficient evidence favouring contradictory conclusions as any other concept designed to be empirically irrefutable.

RAZD writes:

And compare this to what you are saying:

Uh oh – This should be good……

RAZD writes:

Some evidence indicates that some concepts of gods are made up,
Therefore there are no god/s.

No. That is an imbecilic argument. Apart from anything else I am not making proclamations of logical certitude. I am instead advocating a position of relative likelihood. And even taking that into account the position that ‘man is the creator of god rather than vice versa’ has much more to do with the general and demonstrable principle that humankind is deeply prone to invoking the unknowable to explain the unknown than it does refuting specific instances of god as “made-up”. How many times need I say this to you?

There is a sever logical fault in that structure, and a logically false structure means logical false conclusion/s. I've pointed this out many times before, yet you keep making this basic logical error, again and again.

The fact that you keep refuting an argument not being made does nothing but highlight the paucity of your own position. Should you ever get past pointlessly demanding proofs and relentlessly asserting that there is an “absence of evidence” or insisting that gods are intrinsically unknowable you might want to consider any one of a number of posts in multiple threads in which I have tried to engage you in actual discussion about the actual evidence in question.

So once again we come down to why you feel that a decision is necessary?

We answer the question both because we are in an evidential position to do so and because it pisses off those fundamentalist agnostics who baselessly presuppose that gods are “unknowable” and relentlessly assert that the question is utterly unanswerable. “Necessity” has bugger all to do with anything.

In fact I personally would say entertainment value plays a larger role.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by RAZD, posted 04-19-2010 8:32 PM RAZD has seen this message

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 199 days)
Posts: 10332
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 168 of 179 (571665)
08-01-2010 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by RAZD
07-31-2010 9:43 PM


Gravitons
Given that the possibility of gravitons is predicted by the logical (i.e. mathematical) extrapolation of our well founded and empirically verified theories - How is the graviton hypothesis "subjective" in any way that is comparable to subjective notions regarding the existence of gods?

You seem to be conflating wholly subjective conclusions with empirically evidenced possibilities.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by RAZD, posted 07-31-2010 9:43 PM RAZD has seen this message

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 199 days)
Posts: 10332
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 171 of 179 (571758)
08-02-2010 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by RAZD
08-01-2010 10:51 PM


Re: Desperate for attention bluegenes?
I see that you continue to relentlessly conflate the statements of logical certitude that you wish to apply to the atheist position with the evidenced based arguments of relative likelihood that are actually being advocated.

Until you learn the difference between the two, and why it is that evidenced based conclusions are necessarily and inherently uncertain to some extent, you are doomed to forever misrepresent and misunderstand.

Betrand Russel writes:

quote:
"To my mind the essential thing is that one should base one's arguments upon the kind of grounds that are accepted in science, and one should not regard anything that one accepts as quite certain, but only as probable in a greater or a less degree. Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by RAZD, posted 08-01-2010 10:51 PM RAZD has seen this message

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 199 days)
Posts: 10332
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 174 of 179 (571973)
08-03-2010 5:26 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by RAZD
08-02-2010 8:08 PM


How Confident Are You In Your Own Argument?
RAZD to Bluegenes writes:

What you have is wishful thinking and confirmation bias coupled to the logical fallacy of Affirming the Consequent.

But how do you know that?
Satan could be manipulating your mind to force you to think this. By the definitions and terms of your own argument you cannot dismiss this unfalsified possibility. You cannot even consider it improbable. By the terms of your own argument you must remain absolutely agnostic towards the possibility that any conviction you have in the validity of your own argument is the result of Satan's influence on your mind. Thus, by the terms and definitions of your own argument, you cannot even have any confidence in the validity of your own argument.

Satan's ongoing influence will of course preclude you from accepting this rather damning and self defeating fact.

I look forward to your Great Debate with Bluegenes. It should be fun.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by RAZD, posted 08-02-2010 8:08 PM RAZD has seen this message

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 199 days)
Posts: 10332
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 176 of 179 (572011)
08-03-2010 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by Phat
08-03-2010 9:19 AM


Re: does knowledge always dictate belief?
You are of course free to believe whatever you want to believe for whatever reasons you want to believe.

But what do you think the evidence says about the actual existence of gods as compared to the concept of god(s) as a product of the human mind?

In the case of gods which are "Unknowable, outside our universe, outside of our perception/s" Message 225 how is it even possible that such a concept can have originated as a result of anything but the internal workings of the human mind?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Phat, posted 08-03-2010 9:19 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Phat, posted 08-03-2010 9:59 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 199 days)
Posts: 10332
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 179 of 179 (572040)
08-03-2010 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Phat
08-03-2010 9:59 AM


Re: does knowledge always dictate belief?
Phat writes:

The evidence is more on the side of a God or gods being entirely products of the human mind.

Then I really don't think you and I have much to debate.

Phat writes:

Some folks prefer to embrace an illogical belief for whatever reasons.

Indeed. And the sort of reasons you mention are the sort of very human reasons for belief which I bring up with those who insist:

A) That their gods are evidenced by virtue of subjective experiences of some sort.

OR

B) That there is not, and can never be, any relevant evidence because gods are unknowable.

It is these people I end up fundamentally disagreeing with.

Phat writes:

Perhaps the question is:

Is it in any way possible?

Of course it is possible. It is possible that those who have religious experiences have some sort of non-empirical god detecting 6th sense that is itself wholly unknowable. It is even possible that by some miracle of co-incidence the specific imperceptible object of someones imagination could actually exist.

But if we start talking about what is possible......... Well do you understand why the discussion inevitably turns to Unicorns, Fairies, dragons, Santa etc. etc. etc? Why it is that the possibility of religious experiences being caused by magic moonbeams is just as valid as the possibility that they are caused by gods? And ultimately why it is that we need to differentiate between that which is philosophically possible and that which is evidentially supported.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Phat, posted 08-03-2010 9:59 AM Phat has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022