Agnosticism is not Athiesm

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

A point I have made several times is that dismissal of the Abrahamic God does not somehow invalidate the very notion of god(s).

But what is the "very notion of god(s)". I think that is the problem we are having here. If that isn't defined properly then how can you know you do or do not believe that such a concept is valid

Scofflaw wrote:

The conceptualisation of gods varies enormously from culture to culture, and from person to person. I know you don't like that, but that's the way it is

It is not that I don't like it, it is to me simply evidence that the concept itself is fundamentally nonsense.

For example if some culture in America believes that a concept "bob" is a big flying bird that lives in the mountains and breaths fire, and another culture in Africa believes that "bob" is a small mountain lizard that lives in swamps and sometimes drives a 4x4, to me that is evidence that "bob" is actually a pretty meaningless concept for applying to real world definitions. "Bob" is simply a term that these human cultures can give to anything.

So again it comes down to what is meant by "god"

Scofflaw wrote:

That being the case, the only actual way to atheism per se is a positive assertion of the non-existence of gods, which I would imagine you would have little emotional difficulty making.

You are right

I would state that "god" is simply a fuzzy made up human concept (like "hero"), that has little bearing on any proper classification of the real world. And if anything in the real world does happen to resemble the description of one particular human concept of god then this is more a coincidence than anything else.

Zombrex

nesf wrote:

Oh and Wicknight, it's perfectly possible to hold most of existence to be unknowable and still get along fine in life. Just because I can't hold the existence of gravity as being objectively true I can conjecture it to be so and act accordingly.

But then you are judging it to be true, at least so far as the basis for further judgements based on this initial judgement.

It would be, scientifically speaking, silly for you to assert you know anything for certain, including gravity. But as you say that doesn't stop you making a judgement on something, and then basing further judgements on this.

I am perfectly open to the idea that I might be wrong about God. I think it very unlikely, but I recognise that I cannot know the answer to that question. That doesn't stop me being an atheist. I reject bonkey's idea that someone who judges that there is no god but who is open to the possibility that they might be wrong is actually an agnostic. I am open to the possibility that I might be wrong about everything I believe, as everyone should be. That doesn't stop me believing these things and taking actions accordingly. It comes down to judgements and the rational behind these judgements. Really there is no truth, simply degrees of assessment and the logic behind these assessments.

To me an atheist is someone who judges that God does not exist. A theist is someone who judges that God does exist. And an agnostic is someone who, for what ever reason, has not made that initial judgement. No matter what judgement is made all should recognise, as simply a default state, that they can be wrong, not only about God but about anything.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

But what is the "very notion of god(s)". I think that is the problem we are having here. If that isn't defined properly then how can you know you do or do not believe that such a concept is valid

Virtually any "definition" we can come up with will be a straw man.

Wicknight wrote:

It is not that I don't like it, it is to me simply evidence that the concept itself is fundamentally nonsense.

For example if some culture in America believes that a concept "bob" is a big flying bird that lives in the mountains and breaths fire, and another culture in Africa believes that "bob" is a small mountain lizard that lives in swamps and sometimes drives a 4x4, to me that is evidence that "bob" is actually a pretty meaningless concept for applying to real world definitions. "Bob" is simply a term that these human cultures can give to anything.

So again it comes down to what is meant by "god"

I would state that "god" is simply a fuzzy made up human concept (like "hero"), that has little bearing on any proper classification of the real world. And if anything in the real world does happen to resemble the description of one particular human concept of god then this is more a coincidence than anything else.

Well, again, how does this not apply to morality? I know you've pointed out that morality is a human invention, but that does not mean it is not real. you are hiding a definition of God in what you're saying - that god must be independent of human beings, and cannot be invented by them.

In addition, it would be perfectly possible for someone to say that because virtually every culture has something that is recognisable as a god (the differences are not as big as you pretend, with your straw lizards), that is proof that all these cultures are trying to describe something real, but poorly understood.

Take the process of reproduction. At different times and places, the maddest ideas have been accepted - but there is a real process that all these peoples were trying to describe. They just did it badly. Would you, simply because they described it badly in different ways, claim that "reproduction" is simply a made-up concept that can apply to anything? If so, what about weather? Death?

Again, your claim fails basic tests. I understand what you mean, but you cannot simply dismiss God as "an invention" simply because the concept of God so evidently is - because everything human is a human concept.

cordially,
Scofflaw

pH

nesf wrote:

I believe you are guilty of committing a catagory error in your analogy tbh. The question of God or a gods existence is a very different question. Existence and action are fundamentally different problems conceptually.

I don't believe I am, surely Newcomb's Paradox shows the equivalence of existence and action when Free Will and determinism are taken into account in non- euclidean curved space-time? Or are you saying that the existence of Schrödinger's cat, is not dependent on any temporal actions (or vice versa - does the existence or otherwise of the cat influence the actions available to it?)

Oh, is my utter disdain for philosophy showing? ... and anyway ...
He started it! (*points at Scofflaw*)

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Virtually any "definition" we can come up with will be a straw man.

Does that not demonstrate that fundamentally the concept of "god" is nonsense and not worth believing in?

Scofflaw wrote:

Well, again, how does this not apply to morality?

It does apply to morality. Morality is a fuzzy made up concept. Whether or not something is moral or not has little meaning outside of the human judgement that something is or is not moral.

The difference between the concept of morality and the concept of god is that with the concept of god humans are attempting to describe something that exists in the natural world, or at least is supposed to exist.

"God", while really being an abstract human construct like "hero" or "beautiful" is pretending to be a real world description, like "chair" or "blue" As such it is really a nonsense concept.

Scofflaw wrote:

you are hiding a definition of God in what you're saying - that god must be independent of human beings, and cannot be invented by them.

I'm not hiding that at all, I thought it was a given. If not then the discussion of what is "god" has taken an even further turn into the absurd, because "god" can then be anything that humans bestow the title onto, from an alien life to my ball point pen.

Scofflaw wrote:

In addition, it would be perfectly possible for someone to say that because virtually every culture has something that is recognisable as a god that is proof that all these cultures are trying to describe something real, but poorly understood.

It would be prefectly possible for someone to say that but I see little reason to believe it is true, and quite a lot to believe that it isn't. We don't seem to be able to even tie down a common thread connectioning these concepts, beyond the choice to use the word "god" to describe them.

Scofflaw wrote:

(the differences are not as big as you pretend, with your straw lizards),

You yourself pointed out that the differences between "gods" in different cultures were quite large -

There are Gods no-one worships ... There are Gods who did not communicate or intervene ... gods who decided nothing, gods who created nothing, etc etc - if we dig, we will find examples of almost all. There are even Gods that were recognised as being somehow extinct - Kronos and the rest that the Olympians displaced. The Lares and Penates - Roman Gods of the household - were insignificant outside the particular house.

Scofflaw wrote:

Take the process of reproduction. At different times and places, the maddest ideas have been accepted - but there is a real process that all these peoples were trying to describe.

That is because you have picked a process you already know is real. If we picked a process that turned out not to be real or have any basis in reality we would find centuries of humans speculating about something that could and can never actually happen. Turning lead to gold for example.

I mean if someone said that for hundreds of years humans tried to turn lead to gold suggests that there was some basis in reality for this practice this would not true. It is explained far better by saying that gold was a valuable metal and these people simply wanted to get rich.

SonOfPerdition

"It must be remembered that all of these positions are relative to a given definition of "God." Someone may be one type of agnostic relative to one definition but a different type of agnostic (or a theist or an atheist or a noncognitivist) relative to another definition. I leave the reader with these questions: Are there definitions of "God" with regard to which you are an atheist or agnostic on the matter of God's existence? If so, can you locate yourself on the above lists with regard to each of those definitions? And are there definitions of "God" with regard to which you are a theist and perhaps even ones with regard to which you are a noncognitivist? If you are a rational person, then I think you should be willing to say yes to all of these questions."

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/definition.html

An interesting read.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

Does that not demonstrate that fundamentally the concept of "god" is nonsense and not worth believing in?

Not really. It indicates that we have to do what you want to do, which is limit the concept of god to some specific agreed definition, which is almost certain to fail to include everything human beings have called a god.

Wicknight wrote:

It does apply to morality. Morality is a fuzzy made up concept. Whether or not something is moral or not has little meaning outside of the human judgement that something is or is not moral.

The difference between the concept of morality and the concept of god is that with the concept of god humans are attempting to describe something that exists in the natural world, or at least is supposed to exist.

"God", while really being an abstract human construct like "hero" or "beautiful" is pretending to be a real world description, like "chair" or "blue".

Agreed.

Wicknight wrote:

As such it is really a nonsense concept.

Disagreed.

Wicknight wrote:

I'm not hiding that at all, I thought it was a given. If not then the discussion of what is "god" has taken an even further turn into the absurd, because "god" can then be anything that humans bestow the title onto, from an alien life to my ball point pen.

Well, life is like that - untidy(!). You are using the Abrahamic concept of God, - virtually no atheist on this board will have any issues in dismissing such a god-concept.

Wicknight wrote:

It would be prefectly possible for someone to say that but I see little reason to believe it is true, and quite a lot to believe that it isn't. We don't seem to be able to even tie down a common thread connectioning these concepts, beyond the choice to use the word "god" to describe them.

You yourself pointed out that the differences between "gods" in different cultures were quite large -

There are Gods no-one worships ... There are Gods who did not communicate or intervene ... gods who decided nothing, gods who created nothing, etc etc - if we dig, we will find examples of almost all. There are even Gods that were recognised as being somehow extinct - Kronos and the rest that the Olympians displaced. The Lares and Penates - Roman Gods of the household - were insignificant outside the particular house.

Clearly there is an element of agreement, since all use the English translation "god". There must, therefore, be something recognisable to an English speaker about all of them, despite the various cultures involved - we simply haven't established what it is.

Wicknight wrote:

That is because you have picked a process you already know is real. If we picked a process that turned out not to be real or have any basis in reality we would find centuries of humans speculating about something that could and can never actually happen. Turning lead to gold for example.

That's right - and that's why we cannot use your criteria of cultural variation to distinguish between the real and the unreal.

Wicknight wrote:

I mean if someone said that for hundreds of years humans tried to turn lead to gold suggests that there was some basis in reality for this practice this would not true. It is explained far better by saying that gold was a valuable metal and these people simply wanted to get rich.

I accept the point - but it still does not aid us in distinguishing between the real and the unreal using the criterion of human invention. Also, we can transmute lead into gold!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Not really. It indicates that we have to do what you want to do, which is limit the concept of god to some specific agreed definition, which is almost certain to fail to include everything human beings have called a god.

But is that not the point of lanugage, limiting a word or concept to an agreed definition so as it can be understood as the same thing by multiple parties. If "god" can mean anything that humans wish to bestow it upon then does it actually mean anything? How can it relate to something specific if what it relates to can be quite different with no common thread or theme. As I said, the concept becomes nonsense. And if there is a common thread or theme between the different definitions of a "god" then what is it?

Scofflaw wrote:

Disagreed.

Well it makes it a nonsense concept for defining or classifying something that is supposed to exist in reality. As I said a few posts ago, if something does exist out there, then a far better concept that "god" is needed to classify this entity.

Scofflaw wrote:

Well, life is like that - untidy(!). You are using the Abrahamic concept of God, - virtually no atheist on this board will have any issues in dismissing such a god-concept.

Ok, but then what concept of "god" do people have trouble dismissing?

And does it really make much sense to classify both the abrahamic god as a "god" and these other concepts as they can be quite dissimilar? It goes back to what the hell we are talking about when we say "god"

Scofflaw wrote:

Clearly there is an element of agreement, since all use the English translation "god". There must, therefore, be something recognisable to an English speaker about all of them, despite the various cultures involved - we simply haven't established what it is.

Well that is a rather unfounded assumption working on the idea that this choice was logical, ie that the term god was considered and then picked.

Judging by the way "god" seems to be used for the most wishy-washy definitions on this forum and others, particularly by new-age spiritual hippy types, it seems that the word "god" is picked initially because of its historical importance as a powerful concept, and then tried to fit around what ever concept is being discussed, no matter how irrelivent the concept to previous definitions of "god".

So you end up with "god" being applied to things like the "life-force that flows between us all"? I mean what the hell does that have to do with any of the previous traditional definitions of the word "god" found in other religions?

It seems that the term "god" is just picked because it sounds good. If you ask the person why is such and such a "god" you will end up with a lot of humming and hawing until eventually the argument comes around to why these idea cannot use the term "god", conversations I've found myself in many a time. Its like people get offended when you say "should you really use the term 'god'", which again in my view supports the idea that they are using the term not because it accurately fits what they are talking about, but because it is a powerful term and they wish to give importance to their concept by associating it with the term 'god'

Scofflaw wrote:

That's right - and that's why we cannot use your criteria of cultural variation to distinguish between the real and the unreal.

Well you can't use it to prove that something is definately unreal. But equally it isn't support, as lots claim, that there is something fundamentally real about the concept of "god". That isn't necessary for a wide range of cultures to come up with the idea, even independently. Just as the lead-to-gold searchers were motivate by the common idea of greed, it is possible (and in my view far more plausable) that a common human trait produces the need to create the concept of gods in culture.

The idea that because lots of cultures have come up with the idea of a "god" that there must be something fundamentally real behind the concept is bogus, wishful thinking on the part of theists looking to find evidence for their particular god.

Scofflaw wrote:

but it still does not aid us in distinguishing between the real and the unreal using the criterion of human invention.

True, but there are interesting parrallels (in my opinion). The reason so many people, throughout history and often independently of each other, came up with the idea of turing worthless material into valuable material is not because there was some truth behind the process, but because they wanted there to be some truth behind the process. This is the common link, the greed of humanity, the wish to become rich quickly and easily.

To me (and I know you will probably disagree or say that such a theory is unprovable) cultures developed the concepts of "gods" for similar human reasons, formed not because they were actually attempting to understand something real, but because they wanted something like a god to exist, to give some better understand of the world, and to make it easier for them (the reasons for religion are long and complicated). Just as the lead-to-gold alchamests wanted it to be possible because they wanted to get rich.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

But is that not the point of lanugage, limiting a word or concept to an agreed definition so as it can be understood as the same thing by multiple parties. If "god" can mean anything that humans wish to bestow it upon then does it actually mean anything? How can it relate to something specific if what it relates to can be quite different with no common thread or theme. As I said, the concept becomes nonsense. And if there is a common thread or theme between the different definitions of a "god" then what is it?

As said, we probably need to discuss that - although previous attempts at definition foundered, I seem to recall.

Wicknight wrote:

Well it makes it a nonsense concept for defining or classifying something that is supposed to exist in reality. As I said a few posts ago, if something does exist out there, then a far better concept that "god" is needed to classify this entity.

Except that as observed, humans can be very bad at classifying reality, particularly when it is not being done scientifically.

Wicknight wrote:

Ok, but then what concept of "god" do people have trouble dismissing?

Well, no-one was able to put a hole in my deist god-concept, despite its reasonable worshipability.

Wicknight wrote:

And does it really make much sense to classify both the abrahamic god as a "god" and these other concepts as they can be quite dissimilar? It goes back to what the hell we are talking about when we say "god"

Well, people do classify them all that way. Of course, we can claim they're simply wrong to do so, because such-and-such a god doesn't fit our definition, but then all we're doing is dismissing our own conception of a god - that's why I said all our definitions are likely to be straw men (also, as atheists, we are likely to introduce flaws).

Wicknight wrote:

Well that is a rather unfounded assumption working on the idea that this choice was logical, ie that the term god was considered and then picked.

Judging by the way "god" seems to be used for the most wishy-washy definitions on this forum and others, particularly by new-age spiritual hippy types, it seems that the word "god" is picked initially because of its historical importance as a powerful concept, and then tried to fit around what ever concept is being discussed, no matter how irrelivent the concept to previous definitions of "god".

So you end up with "god" being applied to things like the "life-force that flows between us all"? I mean what the hell does that have to do with any of the previous traditional definitions of the word "god" found in other religions?

It seems that the term "god" is just picked because it sounds good. If you ask the person why is such and such a "god" you will end up with a lot of humming and hawing until eventually the argument comes around to why these idea cannot use the term "god", conversations I've found myself in many a time. Its like people get offended when you say "should you really use the term 'god'", which again in my view supports the idea that they are using the term not because it accurately fits what they are talking about, but because it is a powerful term and they wish to give importance to their concept by associating it with the term 'god'

Er, I didn't drag in the New Age "wishy-washy" stuff - I was only considering traditional deities. Having said that, most New Agers are pretty much deists, with a double helping of codswallop.

Wicknight wrote:

Well you can't use it to prove that something is definately unreal. But equally it isn't support, as lots claim, that there is something fundamentally real about the concept of "god". That isn't necessary for a wide range of cultures to come up with the idea, even independently. Just as the lead-to-gold searchers were motivate by the common idea of greed, it is possible (and in my view far more plausable) that a common human trait produces the need to create the concept of gods in culture.

The idea that because lots of cultures have come up with the idea of a "god" that there must be something fundamentally real behind the concept is bogus, wishful thinking on the part of theists looking to find evidence for their particular god.

True, but there are interesting parrallels (in my opinion). The reason so many people, throughout history and often independently of each other, came up with the idea of turing worthless material into valuable material is not because there was some truth behind the process, but because they wanted there to be some truth behind the process. This is the common link, the greed of humanity, the wish to become rich quickly and easily.

To me (and I know you will probably disagree or say that such a theory is unprovable) cultures developed the concepts of "gods" for similar human reasons, formed not because they were actually attempting to understand something real, but because they wanted something like a god to exist, to give some better understand of the world, and to make it easier for them (the reasons for religion are long and complicated). Just as the lead-to-gold alchamests wanted it to be possible because they wanted to get rich.

The problem with this analogy is that gods are an explanatory concept, which lead-to-gold isn't. People wanted to explain life the universe and everything, and came up with the concept of gods based on a poor understanding of causation. Lead-to-gold doesn't come about by the same route, so it isn't really a good parallel - those of reproduction, or, say, spontaneous generation, or phlogiston, would be better.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

As said, we probably need to discuss that - although previous attempts at definition foundered, I seem to recall.

Agreed, we will end up in circles until god or deity is defined enough that we can say we do or do not believe sure an entity exists (or we are agnostic about it). I'm perfectly happy to accept definitions that are external, so long as some universal definition can be arrived at.

As it stands I reject as being highly unlikely to the point of certainty the idea that humans have ever managed to define a deity that actually exists, though I accept that this is rather unknowable statement.

Scofflaw wrote:

Er, I didn't drag in the New Age "wishy-washy" stuff

I know, I was just using that as a point. You are anything but wishy-washy Scofflaw

Scofflaw wrote:

The problem with this analogy is that gods are an explanatory concept

Yes I see the point you are making. But at the same time this has become less and less the way the concept of god is used these days as science, or at least a scientific frame of mind, as come to replace religion for explaining the natural world. The question of god has become quite abstract to the point there it is far beyond testing.

If it was simply a question of saying "God makes it rain by snapping his fingers in the clouds, but if we figure out another process that can do this we have shown god doesn't exist" it would be easy. We can easily show that a certain type of god doesn't exist, or at least that this statement that he makes it rain is not true. But as this has happened time and time again over the last 1000 years or so, the concept of god has retreated back into areas that are largely untestable. From being an entity that constantly controls and interacts with the world causing weather and diease and various other things in clear obvious fashion (like say the Viking gods), modern ideas of gods are very abstract. God can now exists outside our universe, outside or space time, and it is therefore untestable if he actually does do this. God can still interact with our universe, but does so in such a way that he uses his own laws of nature, and as such we cannot tell the difference between that and a natural process.

"God" is being narrowed down and down and pushed further and further into the untestable. It is obvious to us that the older gods don't actually exist, because if they did based on their descriptions, it would be clear to us they did.

To be honest this again is more reason (to me at least) to reject the idea all together. If god as to be defined as being untestable to still be taken seriously then that is, in my view, changing the goal posts a bit too much.

It all makes you want to throw up your hands, claim this is all nonsense, and become an atheists

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

Agreed, we will end up in circles until god or deity is defined enough that we can say we do or do not believe sure an entity exists (or we are agnostic about it). I'm perfectly happy to accept definitions that are external, so long as some universal definition can be arrived at.

The problem is, I think, that the whole point of defining "god" as a universal concept is to make it easier to reject all possible gods in one fell swoop without being accused of "belief".

I don't think such a definition is possible without it being so all-embracing as to be impossible to reject. That's why I use the term "alatrist" - I can accept/reject/refuse to judge the reality of gods on a case by case basis, but can also definitively say sod the lot of them.

Wicknight wrote:

As it stands I reject as being highly unlikely to the point of certainty the idea that humans have ever managed to define a deity that actually exists, though I accept that this is rather unknowable statement.

Somewhat of an assertion, even!

Wicknight wrote:

I know, I was just using that as a point. You are anything but wishy-washy Scofflaw

Good Lord! Is that a compliment?

Wicknight wrote:

Yes I see the point you are making. But at the same time this has become less and less the way the concept of god is used these days as science, or at least a scientific frame of mind, as come to replace religion for explaining the natural world. The question of god has become quite abstract to the point there it is far beyond testing.

If it was simply a question of saying "God makes it rain by snapping his fingers in the clouds, but if we figure out another process that can do this we have shown god doesn't exist" it would be easy. We can easily show that a certain type of god doesn't exist, or at least that this statement that he makes it rain is not true. But as this has happened time and time again over the last 1000 years or so, the concept of god has retreated back into areas that are largely untestable. From being an entity that constantly controls and interacts with the world causing weather and diease and various other things in clear obvious fashion (like say the Viking gods), modern ideas of gods are very abstract. God can now exists outside our universe, outside or space time, and it is therefore untestable if he actually does do this. God can still interact with our universe, but does so in such a way that he uses his own laws of nature, and as such we cannot tell the difference between that and a natural process.

"God" is being narrowed down and down and pushed further and further into the untestable. It is obvious to us that the older gods don't actually exist, because if they did based on their descriptions, it would be clear to us they did.

To be honest this again is more reason (to me at least) to reject the idea all together. If god as to be defined as being untestable to still be taken seriously then that is, in my view, changing the goal posts a bit too much.

It all makes you want to throw up your hands, claim this is all nonsense, and become an atheists

Well, to be fair to the theists, if God actually did "power" the universe and make it tick, we'd never know, since we would never be able to run a "god-free" comparative test. That's not really a fault in the definition, but a problem of methodology.

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Well, to be fair to the theists, if God actually did "power" the universe and make it tick, we'd never know, since we would never be able to run a "god-free" comparative test.

Thats true, but my point was that applies more to modern definitions of "god", rather than older ones. If God is something that should actually be inside a rain cloud, visible to all and observably making rain appear, it would be pretty easy to confirm that this is or is not happening using modern technology, and as such give much stronger weight to an argument for or against God ("yes we did see God in the rain cloud last week, and yes he was snapping his fingers")

The problem is that as science has slowly explained things that used to be attributed to the direct intervention of god, the definition of god has retreated back to a safe position where if god exist he works in ways that don't make it obvious he exists to most people. You end up with a situation where the observed universe appears to work exactly the same either with or without a god.

Is change from definitions of gods that should be observably interacting with us all the time to ones that apparently never or rarely interact with us is just more of a reason (for myself at least) to think the idea is nonsense in the first place

Dades

Wicknight wrote:

The problem is that as science has slowly explained things that used to be attributed to the direct intervention of god, the definition of god has retreated back to a safe position where if god exist he works in ways that don't make it obvious he exists to most people. You end up with a situation where the observed universe appears to work exactly the same either with or without a god.

And you also end up with the situation where both the religious, and the agnostic are basically telling the atheist that they can't show god doesn't exist.

As you say, the goalposts haven't so much shifted - as ran out of the grounds altogether.

Scofflaw

The Atheist wrote:

Wicknight wrote:

The problem is that as science has slowly explained things that used to be attributed to the direct intervention of god, the definition of god has retreated back to a safe position where if god exist he works in ways that don't make it obvious he exists to most people. You end up with a situation where the observed universe appears to work exactly the same either with or without a god.

And you also end up with the situation where both the religious, and the agnostic are basically telling the atheist that they can't show god doesn't exist.

As you say, the goalposts haven't so much shifted - as ran out of the grounds altogether.

Sure. Now if only that proved something! Other than that primitive peoples claimed things for their god(s) that couldn't possibly be correct....(and still do!).

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Sure. Now if only that proved something!

Can you prove that it doesn't prove something. And if you can prove that it doesn't prove something can I prove that you did actually prove that this does not prove something :eek:

Dades

I think it proves we're all wasting our time.
But we already know that I guess (though I can't prove it).

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

Can you prove that it doesn't prove something. And if you can prove that it doesn't prove something can I prove that you did actually prove that this does not prove something :eek:

Oh come one - I already gave you the one thing it proves. Other than that we're in "walks like a duck, quacks like a duck" territory.

cordially,
Scofflaw

SonOfPerdition

The problem is that as science has slowly explained things that used to be attributed to the direct intervention of god, the definition of god has retreated back to a safe position where if god exist he works in ways that don't make it obvious he exists to most people. You end up with a situation where the observed universe appears to work exactly the same either with or without a god.

The Atheist wrote:

And you also end up with the situation where both the religious, and the agnostic are basically telling the atheist that they can't show god doesn't exist.

As you say, the goalposts haven't so much shifted - as ran out of the grounds altogether.

If the goalposts shift so much to define such an obscure god (in whatever form) then surely that ends up in a benign non interventionist God that demands nothing and expects nothing.
In that case ..... should we care? What does it matter if we can't show that sort of God doesn't exist, it poses no threat to anyone.

I tend to simply nod and accept a personal definition of god which is so obscure that as Zillah said earlier in the thread . . it is just another label of a real thing. It may be another label to me, but it is a personal belief to that person and may be very real to them. I see no point in even discussing it, but i wouldn't 'poo poo' it either.

I really like Scofflaws alatrist definition, it sums me up nicely.

great thread BTW .. giving me lots to ponder over the last week.

edited to add in Wicknight's post to make it clearer what i'm replying to.

Zombrex

The Atheist wrote:

I think it proves we're all wasting our time.
But we already know that I guess (though I can't prove it).

The sooner everyone realises that I'm right and starts worshipping me as a god, the better it will be for everyone in the long run

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

The sooner everyone realises that I'm right and starts worshipping me as a god, the better it will be for everyone in the long run

Do we get intervention?

enquiringly,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Do we get intervention?

enquiringly,
Scofflaw

All night long .... er ... I mean ... yes, yes you do.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

All night long .... er ... I mean ... yes, yes you do.

Omnipotence - beats Viagra!

er,
Scofflaw

nesf

Wicknight wrote:

But then you are judging it to be true, at least so far as the basis for further judgements based on this initial judgement.

Ah but I'm talking about objective truth which means that I'm not talking about "true, at least so far as...". I mean truth in the precise, deductive sense. 1 + 1 = 2 is deductively true. The statement that the sun is a ball of very hot gas isn't. It might approximate "truth" to an acceptable degree, but that doesn't mean it's deductively true.

I'm not trying to change your beliefs here, I'm only trying to clarify that just because someone acts as if something is true it does not mean that either they believe that it is true or that it is objectively true.



Oh and pH,

Playboy

philosophers of epistemology we are!

Zombrex

nesf wrote:

Ah but I'm talking about objective truth which means that I'm not talking about "true, at least so far as...". I mean truth in the precise, deductive sense. 1 + 1 = 2 is deductively true. The statement that the sun is a ball of very hot gas isn't. It might approximate "truth" to an acceptable degree, but that doesn't mean it's deductively true.

I'm not trying to change your beliefs here, I'm only trying to clarify that just because someone acts as if something is true it does not mean that either they believe that it is true or that it is objectively true.



Oh and pH,

But that is the original point. It is impossible to know anything as "true", to do with anything. THat is the point about the train falling on your head. You don't, and cannot know, that a train is not about to fall on your head for absolutely certain.

So with this in mind, why do agnostics make a big deal about this fact in relation to the question of "god". We ignore this fact with so many other things in life, we make judgements about so many other things that we cannot know for certain. Yet when it comes to the question of god some agnostics go "hold on a minute, we cannot know for absolute certain, so its illogical to make a judgement either way", ignoring the fact that we cannot know anything for absolute certain but we still make judgements all the time - "gravity will still be here tomorrow so its ok for me to leave my car not strapped down"

This ignores the fact that there is a lot of reason behind atheism, it is not just a guess. But for some reason it is not enough for an agnostic, even if they themselves are for all purposes atheists as well.

nesf

Wicknight wrote:

But that is the original point. It is impossible to know anything as "true", to do with anything. THat is the point about the train falling on your head. You don't, and cannot know, that a train is not about to fall on your head for absolutely certain.

So with this in mind, why do agnostics make a big deal about this fact in relation to the question of "god". We ignore this fact with so many other things in life, we make judgements about so many other things that we cannot know for certain. Yet when it comes to the question of god some agnostics go "hold on a minute, we cannot know for absolute certain, so its illogical to make a judgement either way", ignoring the fact that we cannot know anything for absolute certain but we still make judgements all the time - "gravity will still be here tomorrow so its ok for me to leave my car not strapped down"

This ignores the fact that there is a lot of reason behind atheism, it is not just a guess. But for some reason it is not enough for an agnostic, even if they themselves are for all purposes atheists as well.

you don't have to take the position of not being able to percieve objective truth in some fashion to be an agnostic. Don't fall into the trap of labelling all agnostics as skeptics or some other group in order to counter the position in general. What you are arguing is a good argument against sollipsist or a naive sceptic but not necessarily an agnostic.