An Exploration Into"Agnosticism"

Theists/deists presumably do know what it is they believe in. Otherwise how can they believe in it? Have you ever seen a theist or deist accept a definition of god that meets the criteria of ceasing to exist if there is nobody to contemplate the concept?And it isn't a "hypothetical world" is it? There was necessarily a point in the history of the universe where there were no conscious beings in the material universe. Did god exist then? Did Harry Potter?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Nothing is wrong with saying that where that is the case. Nothing where there is an absence of sufficient evidence in any direction. "Need" to decide? I no more "need" to decide than you "need" to decide. What does "need" have to do with the price of fish? I am simply saying that there is sufficient evidence favouring human invention to warrant considering this conclusion as superior. No - If I really want to understand the brand of fundamentalist agnosticism you have espoused I need to understand what compels you to insist that no amount of evidence favouring human invention will ever suffice and that we must prove that gods "do not or cannot exist" before being justifiably skeptical.Until you can explain why some "unknowable" concepts must be disproved whilst others can simply be dismissed as human inventions I will never understand your brand of agnosticism. It seems inconsistent and incoherent.

I think Bluegenes point is that we have all decided. Including you. Many believe that if we do not submit ourselves to a particular unknowable god concept that we will burn in hell for all eternity. For this reason they submit themselves to this god.I have not. Nor has Bluegenes. Nor have you. Despite all being aware of this belief and this god conceptThus (unless you are particularly concerned about burning in hell for all eternity which I assume you are not) you are as atheitsic about this god concept as I or Bluegenes. I would say it is because we have evidence of human invention that we do not need to worry. On what basis do conclude that you will probably not burn in hell for all eternity?

But to conclude other than this is to deny the empirical evidence is it not? Which you described as a "problem". A very fair point. Where no definition of the term "god" is supplied I strongly advocate Ignosticism rather than atheism. As per Message 453But to progress this conversation I will supply you with a smattering of of RAZD's definitions to consider: Personally I find the definition above as quite funny. But that may just be me. Alternatively we have RAZD's insistence that we all know what "god" means anyway. As per Message 530So - You see - I am not the one insisting on or imposing a concept of god here. I am taking the definitions of others and taking issue with those.So where do you stand on the "gods" defined above?

An agnostic fundamentalist is one who insists on agnosticism on the assumption (or baseless assertion) that the concept in question is so inherently and absolutely unknowable as to make any evidence favouring any alternative conclusion (e.g. human invention) irrelevant and unworthy of consideration. Also characterised by an over-enthusiasm (bordering on desperation) to elicit the phrase I don’t know from others in the misguided belief that the mere utterance of this phrase is indicative of agreement. Because it is an objectively evidenced conclusion. But if your only issue is with the quantity and/or quality of evidence favouring the concept of god as a product of human invention then that is fair enough. We disagree only on evidential details. Not on principles. No big deal. If however your position is that scepticism towards the existence of gods can never be legitimately justified on the basis of evidence indicating the concept of god as a human invention then your position is fraught with problems. You are in effect taking a position of agnostic fundamentalism on the entirely baseless and contradictory assertion that you know that gods are so unknowable as to be immune from any such evidence at all. This is incoherent and unjustifiable. But to add insult to injury you are not even applying this ill conceived idea consistently. As Bluegenes has demonstrated you are entirely defacto-atheist towards all of the equally irrefutable unknowable god concepts that demand your belief in order to avoid the horrific consequences claimed by their followers. You are also wholly atheistic towards concepts such as Santa and the Easter Bunny no matter how irrefutable these are envisaged or claimed to be. In these cases you do not demand evidence that such concepts "do not or cannot exist". Instead you accept evidence favouring human invention. This is utterly inconsistent. How can you claim not to have made a decision? You are a deist are you not?Had you forgotten?

The empirical evidence regarding the evolution of the universe does not imply that complex material beings capable of consciousness were unlikely to be able to exist at some point in time prior to now? Minutes after the Big Bang for example? Hence my link to the definition. If you are interested in neither those concepts which have been defined by others or those which you are willing to define yourself one has to ask oneself on what basis you are even bothering to participate in this thread?

Catholic Scientist has stated that it is rationally unjustifiable to treat with scepticism the idea that I was placed here by the magically unkowable Easter bunny to annoy you in an omphamistic universe created 2 months ago with the intention that you would find that claim ridiculous. He also says that the idea that ethereal telepathic flying pilchards are responsible for aeroplanes flying is no more or less likely to be correct than the empirical laws of aerodynamics.Choose you allies wisely is my advice....

"Know" in the sense of certainty? No. Quarks may have consciousness. Who knows? Everything we empirically know about material consciousness suggests not. Aside from the acknowledgement of the possibility you are basically wrong. Let's admit that and then drop it?

If your "relevant observation" is that you and CS are on the same wavelength then I can only continue to advise that you exercise discretion.To put it politely.....

Let’s put this nonsense to the test. I am going to drop a pen from shoulder height and see what it does.According to you my pen is no more or less likely to simply fall to the floor than it is to do a loop the loop before flying out of the window towards Mars powered by ethereal pilchards because we are unable to refute the possibility that the entire universe was omphamistically created 1 nano-second ago for the sole purpose of making me look like an empirically gullible fool.So CS how much do you want to bet against the likelihood of my pen just falling to the ground? Let's take this to the Omphalism thread to avoid filling this thread up with your irrepressible nonsense. I keep asking you to explain what you are saying and you keep coming back with ever more reasons to think you are talking out of your arse. Message 151All I need to do to show that you are wrong in practise is drop my pen a few times.....Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

My argument has nothing to do with Ravens. It has to do with your denial of the reality in which we all operate all of the time. You have made it the absolute cornerstone of your entire argument that unless something has actually been refuted it cannot be considered unlikely.But at any given point in time we cannot refute the notion that the entire universe has literally just been created with the illusion of empirical age and empirical consistency in order to make us look stupid when we drop a pen (or whatever) and expect it to behave in a certain way.So when I drop my pen on what basis can I reject as unlikley that it will do anything other than that which is empirically consistent?Bearing in mind you position on the unrefuted and likelihood - On what rational basis can I consider it more likley that my pen will simply drop to the floor than zig zag around or loop the loop before shooting off to Mars?Or are you saying it is irrational to expect my pen to just drop to the floor?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I was a bit beered up on Friday. As you seem to have worked out for yourself. As ridiculous as I find your "the unrefuted is immune from any suggestion of unlikelihood" arguments this is no excuse for me being an antagonistic dick.So - Sorry for that.

You are still conflating the (very reasonable) position of genuine agnosticism which says "I don't know based on the evidence available to me" with your agnostic fundamentalist position of "you can never claim to know because you cannot disprove the unknowable".Which you apply inconsistently to the "unknowable" anyway. Dude in that sense our evidence in favour of the second law of thermodynamics is inconclusive because we are incapable of proving that it will apply in any case not yet tested.In that sense our evidence favouring the Easter Bunny or fat jolly undetectable magical Santa as a products of human invention rather than actual entities is insufficient for scepticism because we are incapable of proving that no fat jolly undetectable magical Santa can exist.I could go on.Your position on the absolute and utter intrinsic "unknowability" of gods such that they are immune from anything but actual disproof is a baseless assumption that is both contradictory and incoherent. It is a baseless assertion that lies at the heart of everything you have ever said on these issues. What question?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I still think it is the height of hypocrisy for someone who emblazons the fact that they are a deist across everything they write to be suggesting that others are unjustified in stating any conclusion at all. But then your position on this, like so many other things, is deeply contradictory. You are apparently a faith based deist who is so uncertain about the existence of deities that he is primarily an agnostic. You are a faith based agnostic (with an opinion). Which I do find kinda funny. Those terms are usually considered somewhat incongruent. But hey ho. Each to their own. Anyway to answer your question — Because we can. Why wouldn’t we draw a conclusion if we are in a position to do so? Why do we study philosophy? Why do we go to art galleries? Why send a rocket to the moon? To only ever consider questions that are of life and death relevance would be rather intellectually limiting would it not? Is not asking this sort of question regardless of it’s relevance to survival partly what makes us human? Are you seriously suggesting that the only questions you ever seek to answer are ones on which your survival depends? If so — Poor you. And nor do I. RAZ do we have to disprove every single conceivable perpetual motion machine individually? Or can we discard all such concepts as unlikely based on the (necessarily incomplete) evidence favouring the principle we have found to be wholly reliable? Do you truly not see the comparison here? And what I keep pointing out to you is that the evidential criteria you are demanding are inconsistent and incoherent.Do you agree that no amount of evidence favouring human invention can ever in practise actually disprove the existence of any concept envisaged to be empirically irrefutable? Then on what basis can you consider some concepts to be immune from scepticism based on such evidence whilst simultaneously considering other equally irrefutable concepts to be the products of human invention?

Why do we need to disprove the existence of gods in order to legitimately conclude that the concept of god is most likely a human invention? No amount of evidence favouring human invention can ever in practise actually disprove the existence of any concept envisaged to be empirically irrefutable. No matter how blatantly made-up that concept may be. From gods to the Easter Bunny via the IPU and her infinite army of allies. As such there is no point discussing evidence with you until you accept that disproving things is as unnecessary as it is futile. No. That is not, nor has it ever been, my argument. Why must you attribute such imbecilic arguments to me? Is it some sort of debate tactic on your part?I have tried to discuss the evidence favouring human invention of gods as more likely than their actual existence with you many times previously. But it always falls on deaf ears because you are only interested in "proving that no gods can exist".No evidence can be considered until you remove your fingers from your ears and stop reciting the mantra of fundamentalist agnosticism GODISUNKNOWABLE GODISUNKNOWABLE GODISUNKNOWABLE GODISUNKNOWABLE. God is no more or less knowable in principle than any other concept designed to be empirically irrefutable. Your insistence otherwise is nothing but a baseless presupposition on your part. How can "perpetual" mean anything but "the long run"?Impossible? You know this with 100% certainty do you? It is indeed desperately unlikely that any perpetual motion machine will ever exist and it would revolutionise our thinking if it did. But even this most established of laws is tentative to some tiny degree. Even this is based on the extrapolation of necessarily incomplete empirical evidence. As is the case with every single scientific conclusion. Even the second law of thermodynamics. As such even this cannot be said to have been proven to be true.Now you have made it the absolute cornerstone of your entire position that it is unjustifiable to be highly sceptical of anything that has not been specifically proven to be unable to exist. Bearing this in mind — Do we need to disprove every perpetual motion machine on a case by case basis before scepticism is justified?More generally — Why do you insist that we must disprove some things but not others before scepticism is justified? Might it be that your subjective beliefs and baseless presuppositions about the intrinsic unknowability of gods is causing you to special plead some concepts over others?Edited by Straggler, : Fix quotesEdited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.