Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
72 online now:
AZPaul3, jar, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), nwr (4 members, 68 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,149 Year: 4,261/6,534 Month: 475/900 Week: 181/150 Day: 27/8 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   An Exploration Into"Agnosticism"
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 88 of 179 (555197)
04-12-2010 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by nwr
04-12-2010 3:49 PM


Re: Analogy?
quote:

I am not saying that money is a good analogy with God. But I am saying that the reasoning that Straggler uses does not distinguish between money and God.

If you presume that God is essentially a fictional entity with no real existence, then you might have a point. However, that is not the concept of God that Straggler refers to.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by nwr, posted 04-12-2010 3:49 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by nwr, posted 04-12-2010 4:03 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 90 of 179 (555202)
04-12-2010 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by nwr
04-12-2010 4:03 PM


Re: Analogy?
quote:

Many theists and deists presume that God is a real entity with no empirical existence. And Straggler has been arguing about what is empirical.

Straggler is arguing that "God" is more likely the product of human imagination than a real entity. Which is why your comparison with money only works if you insist that God isn't a real entity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by nwr, posted 04-12-2010 4:03 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by nwr, posted 04-12-2010 4:27 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 92 of 179 (555209)
04-12-2010 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by nwr
04-12-2010 4:27 PM


Re: Analogy?
quote:

People certainly talk about money being real.

The physical coins and notes certainly are. The value we assign it is a convention.

quote:

But it seems quite strange to say that what Straggler believes about God should have any relation to whether the agnosticism of person X is rational.

So what is your view ? Is God simply a convention or a physical object manufactured by humans ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by nwr, posted 04-12-2010 4:27 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by nwr, posted 04-12-2010 4:48 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 94 of 179 (555214)
04-12-2010 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by nwr
04-12-2010 4:48 PM


Re: Analogy?
quote:

When I joined this site, I decided to keep my own religious views off the table. I see no need to change that now.

Then you must be talking about someone else's view of God. Whose is it and is it that God is a physical object created by humans or God is a human convention ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by nwr, posted 04-12-2010 4:48 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by nwr, posted 04-12-2010 6:32 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 103 of 179 (555302)
04-13-2010 2:59 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by nwr
04-12-2010 6:32 PM


Re: Analogy?
quote:

No, I am talking about Straggler's apparent view of agnosticism.

And in doing so you claimed that money was analogous to some view of God in a way that refuted Straggler's argument. So what is that view of God ? It should be a simple question to answer if your argument had any merit - because it is implicitly part of that argument.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by nwr, posted 04-12-2010 6:32 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by nwr, posted 04-13-2010 8:45 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 105 of 179 (555362)
04-13-2010 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by nwr
04-13-2010 8:45 AM


Re: Analogy?
quote:

No, there was no analogy intended or implied.

I was responding to Straggler's argument in Message 79, and pointing out that his argument, if correct, would prove too much. For, as worded by Straggler, that argument would also apply to money and to mathematical entities.


So basically you were just making a minor nit-pick that the wording was not absolutely airtight - and that's your only problem with the argument. OK. But if that is what you are doing, you really should make it clear that that is all that it is.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by nwr, posted 04-13-2010 8:45 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by nwr, posted 04-13-2010 9:37 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 107 of 179 (555370)
04-13-2010 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by nwr
04-13-2010 9:37 AM


Re: Analogy?
quote:

I was pointing out a problem with the argument presented, not merely with the choice of words

However, if you understand the argument it is quite clear that it does NOT apply to money or mathematics in any sense that would be problematic. Which is why for there to be a problem you would have to show an analogy. So again, all you are doing is arguing that the argument could be misunderstood, which would be primarily an issue of the wording.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by nwr, posted 04-13-2010 9:37 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by nwr, posted 04-13-2010 9:46 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 109 of 179 (555375)
04-13-2010 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by nwr
04-13-2010 9:46 AM


Re: Analogy?
quote:

Analogies never prove anything. They can be useful as illustrations, but do not constitute proof.

In this case showing a valid analogy would indicate that the argument had a genuine problem.
And since you have changed the subject, I take it that you concede that all you did was point out a minor problem in the wording of Straggler's argument.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by nwr, posted 04-13-2010 9:46 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by nwr, posted 04-13-2010 10:07 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 111 of 179 (555379)
04-13-2010 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by nwr
04-13-2010 10:07 AM


Re: Analogy?
quote:

You do, of course, have the right to jump to unwarranted conclusions.

In this case the conclusion is warranted by your evasiveness and complete failure to offer any reasonable defense of your argument. In fact I would say that it is the most charitable conclusion I could come to.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by nwr, posted 04-13-2010 10:07 AM nwr has seen this message

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022