|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Agnosticism vs. Atheism | |||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Mr Jack,
I'm an Atheist, I believe it is possible to know whether there is or isn't a god. I also think the evidence from the world around us renders the existence of god very, very unlikely but not yet totally disproven. How do you propose to come by the knowledge that God doesn't exist? Most agnostics & atheists, like myself, propose that the scientific method is the best way of getting closer to the "truth". But like intelligent design, if you can't propose a testable hypothesis, & that means positive evidence, the hypothesis that God doesn't exist isn't worth a bean. I'm sorry you feel my inability to uphold a theory that is an untestable argument from ignorance is a position of intellectual cowardice, but from where I'm standing, it's the only possible logical position I can place myself in. Interestingly, you put yourself in exactly the same position of an Intellectual Design-ist. They don't have a testable, falsifiable theory, either, yet they maintain their position sans evidence, too! If that's not faith, what is?
Atheism is not a faith position. Gnostic atheism is, if you can't answer the question above. Mark ------------------"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6." [This message has been edited by mark24, 09-22-2003] [This message has been edited by mark24, 09-22-2003] [This message has been edited by mark24, 09-22-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
There is a third option-- "insufficient evidence." But what evidence would be sufficient? Since it is possible for something to fail to exist, it must be possible to determine non-existence. How is this to be done if not by reaching the conclusion that there's way less evidence - none, in fact - than we would expect if the thing existed?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
That is correct, but then you just defined your concept of God in a way that enters our limits of knowledge. What about a God that is non-interventionist, just a creator God that croaked or walked away once he saw the mess he made? Who cares about that god? He gets trimmed away by Occam's Razor soon enough, anyway. I guess, as an (agnostic) atheist, I only care to know that the consequential gods don't exist, which they don't. I couldn't care less if a hands-off, non-involved god exists. There's nothing I could know about such a god that would lead me to change my life in any way.
I am an atheist, subset agnostic. And I will then continue to argue with atheists, subset gnostic, as to whether they really know God exists, rather than JUST ANY other atheist as to whether I exist. Hey, I'll be right there with you. Gnostic atheists take it too far. They need to come sit on my fence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Crashfrog,
Since it is possible for something to fail to exist, it must be possible to determine non-existence. How would you determine the non-existence of a God?
How is this to be done if not by reaching the conclusion that there's way less evidence - none, in fact - than we would expect if the thing existed? So you believe there is no transitional taxa between bats & non-flying mammals based on the fact that there is no evidence of one? I doubt it, such arguments are logically flawed, & you can't have it both ways. There is one type of evidence, & it is positive, everything else is a logically flawed argument from ignorance, or a compositional/divisional fallacy. You have positive evidence that something doesn't exist, or you don't, & are therefore unable to say anything about it's non-existence. I think I understand where you are coming from, however (I may be wrong). Consider that you have two theories, only one can be right, & the confirmation of one will falsify the other. In science this happens all the time, but with the concept of God, what would falsify it? Nothing. There is no such competing theory. It IS unfalsifiable. There is no fact you can be in possession of that will falsify Gods. Mark
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 09-22-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
How would you determine the non-existence of a God? By demonstrating that any significant god would leave more evidence of its existence than we find. And I don't particularly care about insignificant gods.
So you believe there is no transitional taxa between bats & non-flying mammals based on the fact that there is no evidence of one? No, because I don't expect much evidence of transitional forms. The difference between what we find and what we expect is therefore relatively low, and so the lack of evidence is insignificant. A significant god would leave significant evidence. That this is not so is enough reason for reasonable people to reject that a significant god exists. [This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-22-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Obi-Dan Pironi Inactive Junior Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
Your open mind does you credit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
However, let us take the case of an individual who is born blind and never in their life experiences light and color. An interesting idea, let's play around with it. If a group of blind scientists wanted to know if there was anything to this "sight" that some people keep talking about, they might construct an experiment where they would show (well, hand) the same object to people who claimed to be able to "see". Now, they know that people who "see" claim that objects have "color", some kind of quality that only they can detect. If "color" really exists, and is not in their mind, they might expect different "viewers" to report the same color when shown the same object. Now, take it back to god. Do the persons who claim to have knowledge about god - who might be said to have this god-sense you're talking about - tend to agree on the qualities of that god? 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DC85 Member (Idle past 380 days) Posts: 876 From: Richmond, Virginia USA Joined: |
I am also agnostic. I do not have faith in anything for sure.
I do not believe Evolution to be true I see it as the best answer so far with the most evidence. I do't Believe there isn't a god and I don't believe there is. I to am offened when I am called an athiest. I do not have faith in anything 100%. that is an agnostic to me
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
So you believe there is no transitional taxa between bats & non-flying mammals based on the fact that there is no evidence of one? I don't think the two cases are the same. In the case of transitionals above, we have the bats, we have other mammels, we have many examples of similar transitions, we have genetic evidence. There are good reasons to believe the transitionals existed even without finding one yet if only by comparing the end points with other transitions. In the case of the existance or non-existance of god(s) we have nothing that suggests there needs to be a god or that there is on. There is no connection between this god and anything else. In fact, if we try to connect the idea to anything else (as in the bat transitions) to make a reasoned judgement about the existance of a god we find that many other cases of the god-idea also have no hint of their existance. Additionally, a number of these gods are described in contradictory ways suggesting that many (most, all?) are wrong just through logic without evidence. With a track record like that the god-concept isn't something that you would bet on while you might place a big bet that the bat transitionals existed and maybe a small one that they will be found sometime.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Obi-Dan Pironi Inactive Junior Member |
quote: 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Up until mere decades ago, we had no idea that the ultra-violet spectrum even existed. But it was predicted by our understanding of the electromagnetic spectrum. 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Obi-Dan Pironi Inactive Junior Member |
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5153 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
crashfrog writes: Now, if you don't believe something exists, it means you believe it doesn't exist, because things either exist or they don't. While I agree that things either exist or they don't, I dissagree with the first part of this. There are two categories with a total of three options: Positive or begative belief (god exists or he doesn't) and the third option (second category) a lack of belief either way. SO while existance is an either/or, belief is not. ------------------He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife. - Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024