quote:

Originally posted by Sand Leaper a·the·ist Audio pronunciation of "atheist" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-st) n. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods. Going by this definition, an atheist is one who believes that there is no god. Not believing IN a god does not necessarily mean believing there is no god. So which definition are we going by exactly?

I think that that is a far too simplistic misrepresentation of what atheism actually is. I think a far more accurate definition is defined by the absence of the belief in a God. Inifidels has a good article defining the varying degrees and definiitons of atheism.

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I think that that is a far too simplistic misrepresentation of what atheism actually is. I think a far more accurate definition is defined by the absence of the belief in a God. Inifidels has a good article defining the varying degrees and definiitons of atheism. http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html

Cheers Occ, great article.

___________________
"Wenn du dich zum Untergrund zählst, reicht es nicht, es nur zu sagen. Du musst auch viel graben, um es zu werden."

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Apologies for the late response. Also apologies for the quote / reply format, but it's the easiest way to keep things organised:

I prefer the quote reply format. No need to apologize.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Heh, nah I think you're okay in that regard. There aren't many on this forum who classify themselves as "atheists" from memory.

Well, I guess occrider just disproved that hypothesis. Further, I seem to recall that both Drug_Tito and arctic are humanists, and therefore and by definition atheists. Fortunately it seems that they are staying out of this thread.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Here's the definition from "Webster's 3rd New International Dictionary Unabridged": 1a) would correspond to weak atheism (lack of belief) 1b) would correspond to strong atheism (the positive belief that there is "neither god nor any other deity").

Ok. I've always considered "disbelief in A" to be synonymous with "belief in not A", but it's your language, so I'll adopt this semantics.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade I've never thought of you as a weak atheist before, but you obviously know your own beliefs better than me, so I'm happy to run with it.

Well, as a weak agnostic is just a kind of weak atheist, you must have seen me as a strong agnostic? Well, I guess I can come across as that, when I'm frustrated by my failures to convey my ideas clearly.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade That's more or less my point though. In previous debates on this board and elsewhere, there appears to a certain arrogance on the side of the agnostics who believe that atheism and theism are both articles of faith, neither of which are positions that can be held by those with an open, rational mind. My point was that, prior to adhering to the agnostic belief system, all agnostics must - by the definitions above, at least - be "without God" prior to developing an agnostic system of belief. To put it another way, in the same way that I was a member of the human race first and foremost before being granted an Australian citizenship, so to are agnostics weak atheists first and foremost, before trying to rationalise God back into existence again. It is impossible, for instance, to be a Christian agnostic or a deistic agnostic, because you're already professing a belief in existence of the very object you're supposed to be deferring belief in. Therefore, a position of weak atheism is necessary before one can begin to consider the ways in which it is "possible" for God to exist and subsequently defer judgement either way. Agnosticism is, basically, a post hoc method of willing a "possible" God back into existence when every presented instance of God has already been rejected in the mind of the agnostic. Hopefully I'm making some sense here. I've only just woken up and my mind is still kinda cloudy.

You're making your point quite clear, but I do not agree that weak atheism is a position you need to take (temporally) before that you can take on the weak agnostic position. I used to be a theist, but became an agnostic the moment I became a weak atheist. I didn't consider myself an atheist, and then "opened up" to the possibility of a god existing.
To restate my position in the Earthling-setting, you are an Earthling, but you are also a member of the subgroup known as human beings among themselves. You did not enter the category Earthling prior to becoming a human being - it happened instantanously. The same can be true of taking on the position of the weak agnostic and weak atheist.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Etymologically, atheism means, literally, "without God". As it is logically impossible for an agnostic to believe in a God, regardless of how hesitant the agnostic may be to admit this to himself, in what sense is he not a literal atheist (or, in my terms, a "weak atheist")?

Using the definitions we do in this thread, you're perfectly right. However, these definitions are not used by your average Joe or Joanne. When I meet new people and the conversation turns to belief systems, I introduce myself as an agnostic, because stating that I'm an atheist is likely to produce the wrong impression in the other person. Same way with introducing my political stance to US citizens: I don't call myself "liberal", even though that *is* the correct term for what I am, but rather use "libertarian".

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade I'm not saying it's unjustified to believe that the existence of God is "possible" - in fact, it's this very "theoretical" possibility of God existing that makes strong agnosticism, in a strictly logical sense (the improvability of non-existence), untenable as a belief system. However, there is a distinct leap from the position that God is, strictly theoretically, "possible" (which is a position that can quite happily be held by the weak atheist) and saying that there is enough evidence for the existence of God to either profess a belief in it (deism / theism) or to defer judgement (weak agnosticism). Put simply, belief in God is a rationally defensible position if there is evidence there to support it. Similarly, weak agnosticism is a logically defensible position if there is enough cause to genuinely defer judgement.

And why doesn't the rejection of the belief in God require any cause/evidence? (Bear in mind that I am not currently accepting your assumption that weak atheism is a position that must be held prior to some shift in belief to agnosticism.) It seems to me that your argument somehow assumes that weak atheism is the natural/default belief.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade (For instance, with regards to the existence of an Historical Jesus, I would - if it were a theological issue - be an agnostic. While there is not enough evidence to suggest, unequivocally, that Jesus existed, there is enough evidence for me to rationally defer judgement on the issue. In this sense, I neither believe that Jesus existed or did not exist, I believe that on the one hand there is too much evidence to dismiss the likelihood of his existence, on the other that there is not enough to say with any confidence that he did not exist. I would also, according to this logic, be an agnostic with regards to global warming - not enough evidence to believe, too much to dismiss. Does this make sense?)

Yes, it does. I don't agree, though, because I don't like to mix vague concepts such as "enough" and "sufficient" with a classification of shifts in the ontology of the individual into "rational" and "irrational". Say, there are loads of reported instances of divine/supernatural events in history books and modern day tabloids. These can all be drawn into doubt and explained away. The same goes for all the evidence for global warming taking place, and the same was true for the evidence that Iraq had WMDs. It seems rather arbitrary to me that the some piles of shaky evidence is "enough" to justify suspension of belief as being "rational" and others are not.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade This does not, however, mean that it is "rational" - that is, "consistent with or based on reason" (link) - to claim that "judgement on the ontological status of that for which no evidence exists" can be deferred.

Why is "postponing judgment on the ontological status of that for which no evidence exists" not "consistent with reason"? It is (trivially) consistent with the evidence and standard logical inference rules?

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Once again, if we agree that agnosticism, as a system of belief, can only be developed from the starting point of "weak atheism" (do we?)

No, so I skipped commenting the rest of this paragraph for the moment.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Actually, both involve a leap of faith. The first stance (of strong atheism) presumes that one is privy enough to the exact state of the universe, to declare unequivically that there is no possibility for God to exist. The second stance (of weak agnosticism) presumes that, in the absense of any evidence, one can still mentally shift from the position of non-belief to that of deferral of belief. Once again, if there is no good reason for this shift in belief, it is not "rational" or "logical": it's a leap of faith, simple as that.

At this point I'm wondering if all you have written so far doesn't apply equally well to strong atheism (which you claim to lean towards yourself)? I know that it does not relate to the current debate, I'm just curious to know if you see any problem with applying your guns to that target?

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade It's not necessarily "wrong" in the strictest sense of the word, it's just not a logical position, rather it is a faith-based position. Of course, by pure, dumb luck this faith-based position may be correct, but there is no way of objectively verifying this (to the extent that anything can actually be objectively verified, that is) and there is no rational reason - again other than faith - to commit oneself to such a stance.

If we assume that the starting point is weak atheims and some sort of (possibly flawed) reasoning process takes you to the faith determined belief system, then yes. However, if the starting point *is* the belief determined by faith, then there's nothing irrational about holding onto it in absense of detrimentary evidence.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade What's the difference between an incomprehensible God and an undetectable God? What's the difference between either of these and - even if only in a pragmatic sense - no God at all?

"2001: A Space Odyssey" is incomprehensible to me. However, it is a film, and I can certainly detect its existence. Maybe I'm using the word "incomprehensible" in the wrong manner here (I'm not a native English speaker), but I think that "comprehensible" means that something can be understood completely. If something is not "comprehensible", then it is "incomprehensible". If this is the correct interpretation of "incomprehensible" then I think that the difference between undetectable and incomprehensible is quite clear?

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Okay, so point blank: do you believe that the limitations of the senses preclude us, to a degree at least, from detecting any Gods that may exist?

No. I prefer to suspend belief on this issue. I think that it is possible that the limitations of the senses prevents us from detecting any gods that may exist, but it is also possible that we someday detect the existence of a god through our senses. I *do* believe that humans are incapable of understanding the "values" of any gods that may exist, or to put it in another way, the "why" of existence. John D. Barrow has written a book called "Pi in the Sky", which contains a made up story of human beings creating a super computer, and starting a simulation of the physical laws on it in order to study some phenomenon X experimentally. The simulation runs for a very long time, and eventually sim-structures of sim-molecules are arrived at, which exhibit the defining characteristics of life. This life evolves and finally ends up becoming self-aware. However, as all the input this simulated and self-aware life has access to is other parts of the simulation, there is no way for it to ever be able to know about X (as it is outside the simulation), and hence it can never get to know about the purpose of its existence. Further, imagine that the simulation was constructed to follow other rules than those of the physical laws (or even none at all), and self-aware life emerged nevertheless. Then the concepts the self-aware life uses to reason about its environment wouldn't necessarily correspond to any counterparts in the real world. It would thus not only be unable to guess the purpose of its existence, it would most likely also not know about the concepts "purpose" and "existence", but be philosophising about something different of something else. I believe that we humans, if under the supervision of, created by, or ruled by some god, are bound by the same kind of restrictions, but I do recognize that this is only a belief.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Do you believe that it is this fallibility of the senses that make weak agnosticism a tenable position (i.e. it wouldn't be "rational" to make judgement on the existence of a being that may exist beyond our epistemological frame of reference)?

Eh. I'm not sure I can answer this question, as my answer to the first part of it was "no".

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade If my presumptions are correct, then I again have to ask the question: As evidence of this, I ask you: Is it possible, or reasonable at least, to say that something doesn't exist? If so, given that this non-existence cannot be logically or empirically "proven", how may one demonstrate that something does not exist? Surely the absense of evidence is the only "proof" avaiable to us in this regard? If you suggest that this "proof" is invalid, or at least fallible, in the sense that it cannot be absolutely proven, on what basis can anything be said to not exist?

Even though I do not acknowledge the validity of your presumptions, I'll have a go at answering the last question: If somethings existence would imply some inconsistency with evidence, then it can be disproven to exist. Say, I can definately say that "the God who made Earth explode on April 14th 2005" does not exist.

Last edited by trancaholic on Apr-18-2005 at 13:24

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade 1) All Agnostics are Atheists:

hmmm, it all sounds like a tautology to me.

"Statement X"
Regardless of what statement X is, I have three responses to it. I can believe that
a) Statement X is true at this time.
b) Statement X is false at this time.
c) or there is not enough evidence to choose a or b at this time.

You've then proceeded to present logic that argues that option C (i.e. agnosticism) is in fact b (atheism). Clearly at the level of abstraction there is no reason to move people from the "fence" into atheism.

The only way that you have been able to do that is because you have presented "weak agnosticism" in such a way that it is already collasping. If you had worded it in a more reasonable way then it would easily withstand this attempt to topple it.

For instance if you had worded it:
weak agnosticism, suspend judgement on the question of God's existence.
instead of
"Suspension of belief with regards to the existence of God."

Clearly by substituting the word "judgement" with "belief" you have distorted the position that weak agnostics take in order to facilitate their defeat. I hate to say it, but sounds like a straw man fallacy better not let Kano see this

___________________
Светопресавление
your pearl casting hero

Last edited by Subey on Apr-18-2005 at 22:47

Evolution is a cause to such things as racism, communism/marxism, nazism, humanism, and movements like it.

i ask, how can God(Yahweh) not exist?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: Evolution is a cause to such things as racism, communism/marxism, nazism, humanism, and movements like it. i ask, how can God(Yahweh) not exist?

Congratulations on the most off-topic post of the year!

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Congratulations on the most off-topic post of the year!

welll, seeing as how ive missed most of the debating, really, the posts are uber-long, i decided to just throw in a theist arguement.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Ok. I've always considered "disbelief in A" to be synonymous with "belief in not A", but it's your language, so I'll adopt this semantics.

There is a distinction. From a link I posted in one of my earlier posts:

quote:

"Basic atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of belief. There is a difference between believing there is no god and not believing there is a god--both are atheistic, though popular usage has ignored the latter [...]" - Dan Barker

quote:

"The average theologian (there are exceptions, of course) uses 'atheist' to mean a person who denies the existence of a God. Even an atheist would agree that some atheists (a small minority) would fit this definition. However, most atheists would stongly dispute the adequacy of this definition. Rather, they would hold that an atheist is a person without a belief in God. The distiniction is small but important. Denying something means that you have knowledge of what it is that you are being asked to affirm, but that you have rejected that particular concept. To be without a belief in God merely means that yhe term 'god' has no importance or possibly no meaning to you. Belief in God is not a factor in your life. Surely this is quite different from denying the existence of God. Atheism is not a belief as such. It is the lack of belief." - Gordon Stein

I know it's a bit trite to make these sort of distinctions, but - especially in debates such as this one where we're arguing over small differences in belief (or lack of) - the distinction is important. Strong atheism is taken as a positive belief, an important foundation upon which other beliefs may be built. Weak atheism is merely the lack of a postive set of theistic values.

As a case in point, look at the existentialism of Sartre. He said:

quote:

Existentialism is not atheistic in the sense that it would exhaust itself in demonstrations of the non-existence of God. It declares, rather, that even if God existed that would make no difference from its point of view.

This would be a weak atheistic position as the hypothesis (of existentialism) is not dependant on a demonstration of the non-existence of God. It does generally not accept the hypothesis of God, of course (although Kierkegaard and others are classified as Christian existentialists), but it does not require proof of the non-existence of God to remain a valid hypothesis. If existentialism depended on the non-existence of God to remain a valid hypothesis, then it would be a doctrine of strong atheism.

Hope this makes some sort of sense?

quote:

Well, as a weak agnostic is just a kind of weak atheist, you must have seen me as a strong agnostic? Well, I guess I can come across as that, when I'm frustrated by my failures to convey my ideas clearly.

Well before this debate I always thought you were a deist of some sort for some reason.

But yeah, even if you're hard to classify along this theological spectrum, I do understand your position more clearly now.

quote:

You're making your point quite clear, but I do not agree that weak atheism is a position you need to take (temporally) before that you can take on the weak agnostic position. I used to be a theist, but became an agnostic the moment I became a weak atheist. I didn't consider myself an atheist, and then "opened up" to the possibility of a god existing.

It's not an issue of temporality though. I'm not saying that before becoming an agnostic you have to adopt a solely atheistic position for x amount of time before being permitted to progress towards agnosticism, I'm simply saying that - logically - agnosticism is dependant on the rejection of belief in God.

Think about it: you say that you moved towards agnosticism from a theistic position. Logically, it is impossible to be a theist / deist and an agnostic simultaneously - the former holds a belief in God, the latter doesn't (how can one simultaneously hold and suspend belief?). Ergo agnostics can't be theists, so the position of agnosticism must, at all times, be preceded by a lack of deistic and theistic beliefs which - put simply - represents a position of atheism.

Now your adoption of the agnostic mindset may have been instantaneous upon the rejection of your theistic beliefs, but the fact remains: your agnosticism was dependant on the rejection of said theistic beliefs which, if you accept the definitions I've used (which you aren't obliged to, by the way), is a position of weak atheism. So, in other words, based on what you've told me, your journey towards agnosticism was - logically, if not temporally - preceded by the acceptance of a weak atheistic mindset.

quote:

Using the definitions we do in this thread, you're perfectly right. However, these definitions are not used by your average Joe or Joanne. When I meet new people and the conversation turns to belief systems, I introduce myself as an agnostic, because stating that I'm an atheist is likely to produce the wrong impression in the other person. Same way with introducing my political stance to US citizens: I don't call myself "liberal", even though that *is* the correct term for what I am, but rather use "libertarian".

You're obviously under no obligation to use these technical terms in the "real world". The role of communication is to be understood and if by labelling yourself an "atheist" you're running the risk of people misunderstanding your position, then I see nothing wrong with using "their" definitions to ensure that you are understood. Besides, I never said that you can't be an agnostic as well as an atheist, just that the agnostic mindset is necessarily preceded by an atheistic one and that I don't see any rational reason to progress from a position of weak atheism to weak agnosticism.

(Also, I'm not sure I'd use the term "libertarian" to describe your political position for fear of being associated with Badnarik and all those other loonies. I use the term "classical liberal" to describe my own beliefs, which is like American liberalism but without the psuedo-socialistic overtones and like libertarianism without the neo-liberal economic rationalism. Think Locke, Paine et al.)

quote:

And why doesn't the rejection of the belief in God require any cause/evidence? (Bear in mind that I am not currently accepting your assumption that weak atheism is a position that must be held prior to some shift in belief to agnosticism.) It seems to me that your argument somehow assumes that weak atheism is the natural/default belief.

This is one of the points I'm trying to make though. Weak atheism is the default belief system. It's the complete absence of belief with regard to God and theology, so if it isn't the default position than what is? We aren't born worshipping Gods, nor have we considered the issue of God and opted to suspend belief on the issue. To utilise the tabla rasa theory, all people are born with a blank mental state - they don't (and can't) believe in God any more than they can believe in horses or global warming when they're first born. Of course, as they grow up, they begin to see evidence for horses by reading about them or seeing them on the farm. They begin to read up on scientific papers and develop a belief in global warming. They begin to read the Bible and develop a belief in God. However, until these concepts are first encountered either first hand or through the testimony of others, a "lack" of belief - in all these cases - is the default belief. With regards to theological issues - again, presuming you accept my definitions - this is a position of weak atheism.

quote:

Yes, it does. I don't agree, though, because I don't like to mix vague concepts such as "enough" and "sufficient" with a classification of shifts in the ontology of the individual into "rational" and "irrational".

To be honest, I agree with you here in the sense that the point at which there is a level of evidence "sufficient" enough to make a "rational" shift in belief systems is somewhat arbitrarily defined, but I still make the claim that to make this shift for no reason or for reasons that cannot be justified is "irrational". That is, I do not believe it is "rational" - by any definition of the word - to shift belief systems arbitrarily without any justifiable cause.

quote:

Say, there are loads of reported instances of divine/supernatural events in history books and modern day tabloids. These can all be drawn into doubt and explained away.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you want to claim that there is an omnipotent God that exerts constant influence on the world, that loves each and every one of us and sent his own son down to die for our transgressions, then you're going to require a greater standard of evidence than the testimony of some young girls in the 19th century who say they saw the silluette of the virgin Mary in the kitchen once before you can say that such beliefs are "rational". Again, while the definition is somewhat arbitrary, if we can identify a point at which beliefs cease being rational, then basing an entire world view on the scattered, inconsistent testimonies of people throughout the ages - not one of which can be independantly verified - surely must qualify.

quote:

The same goes for all the evidence for global warming taking place, and the same was true for the evidence that Iraq had WMDs. It seems rather arbitrary to me that the some piles of shaky evidence is "enough" to justify suspension of belief as being "rational" and others are not.

But there is evidence that we can point to that would suggest that global warming is taking place or that there were WMDs in Iraq. While these views may be wrong, and I may have "sufficient" cause to "rationally" disagree with these conclusions, these views are at least "rational" in the sense that they are supported by corroborative evidence. Excepting contrary evidence, these beliefs can be considered "rational" in the sense that they are supported and / or caused by available evidence, not by some arbitrary, unjustified shift that occurred for little other reason than because the holder of said beliefs wanted them to be true.

quote:

Why is "postponing judgment on the ontological status of that for which no evidence exists" not "consistent with reason"? It is (trivially) consistent with the evidence and standard logical inference rules?

The position of "postponing judgment on the ontological status of that for which no evidence exists" is consistent with "standard logical inference rules", again, if there is a justifiable reason (i.e. evidence) to postpone said judgement. That is, there is nothing inherently illogical or irrational about agnosticism in itself, but it does become irrational or illogical if the shift from atheist to agnosticism cannot be justified.

So, to talk in particulars here, what specific reasons can you offer to justify making this shift in belief systems?

quote:

At this point I'm wondering if all you have written so far doesn't apply equally well to strong atheism (which you claim to lean towards yourself)?

Oh absolutely, of course it can. Like I said, strong atheism - in its most literal interpretation - is a leap of faith as strong as that of any theistic belief. While I hesitate to call myself a strong atheist on logical grounds (in the sense that it is impossible to prove positively that God does not exist) in practise I do hold to a fairly strong atheistic position. That is, I feel fairly certain that there is no God.

The difference between me, however, and a lot of other theists I've met, is that my positive claims concerning the non-existence of God can - I feel - be justified logically and empircally, whereas theirs cannot. I know it sounds arrogant, but I'm still waiting for someone to come along to knock me off my perch...

quote:

I know that it does not relate to the current debate, I'm just curious to know if you see any problem with applying your guns to that target?

I'm a Cartesian in the sense that I believe that knowledge - and true confidence in one's own beliefs - can only arise by systematically casting doubt over everything you think you know. Most of my beliefs hold up most of the time (if they didn't I wouldn't retain them as beliefs) but I'd also like to think that my perspectives are mallaeble as soon as evidence is encountered to cast doubt on these perspectives. If you go back through my posting history on these forums, for instance, I think you'll find that my political outlook has changed a fair bit over the past couple of years (although my distaste for the GOP and conservatives still remains ).

With regards to my theological beliefs (or lack thereof) a shift in my position is inevitable as soon as a justifiable cause for a shift in my beliefs is encountered. Suffice to say, such a cause has not yet come about.

quote:

If we assume that the starting point is weak atheims and some sort of (possibly flawed) reasoning process takes you to the faith determined belief system, then yes. However, if the starting point *is* the belief determined by faith, then there's nothing irrational about holding onto it in absense of detrimentary evidence.

Refer to what I said earlier. I do believe that weak atheism is the default perspective.

However, if we were to run with your reasoning here, then surely it would make just as much sense to presume that unicorns, goblins, quorgnaxes (which I just made up) or any other type of beings exist as a default position - but where would this leave us? Would you say that believing in quorgnaxes before you even can even possibly know what they are constitutes a "rational" perspective?

quote:

"2001: A Space Odyssey" is incomprehensible to me. However, it is a film, and I can certainly detect its existence. Maybe I'm using the word "incomprehensible" in the wrong manner here (I'm not a native English speaker), but I think that "comprehensible" means that something can be understood completely. If something is not "comprehensible", then it is "incomprehensible". If this is the correct interpretation of "incomprehensible" then I think that the difference between undetectable and incomprehensible is quite clear?

It's all semantics I guess, but when I said incomprehensible I meant it, to quote dictionary.com yet again, to refer to something that is "impossible to know or fathom". So my question is, to put it another way, what is the difference between a God that cannot be "empirically" understood ("undectable") and a God that cannot be "rationally" understood ("incomprehensible"). Then, pragmatically, what is the difference between these two gods and no god at all?

All these Gods are inaccessible to us. None can exert any influence on our lives. Is there any point in distinguishing semantically between the three types (the "undetectable" God, the "incomprehensible" God and the "non-existent" God) when all result in the same conclusion (we humans are alone and abandoned in the universe)? Is there any way of determining which, of the three, is the most likely hypothesis?

quote:

No. I prefer to suspend belief on this issue. I think that it is possible that the limitations of the senses prevents us from detecting any gods that may exist, but it is also possible that we someday detect the existence of a god through our senses.

But how does that alter the circumstances of our current paradigm? Quite literally anything "may" exist or be shown to exist in the future, so what do we gain by making baseless speculations that are inconsistent with what we currently understand about the universe?

quote:

I *do* believe that humans are incapable of understanding the "values" of any gods that may exist, or to put it in another way, the "why" of existence. John D. Barrow has written a book called "Pi in the Sky", which contains a made up story of human beings creating a super computer, and starting a simulation of the physical laws on it in order to study some phenomenon X experimentally. The simulation runs for a very long time, and eventually sim-structures of sim-molecules are arrived at, which exhibit the defining characteristics of life. This life evolves and finally ends up becoming self-aware. However, as all the input this simulated and self-aware life has access to is other parts of the simulation, there is no way for it to ever be able to know about X (as it is outside the simulation), and hence it can never get to know about the purpose of its existence. Further, imagine that the simulation was constructed to follow other rules than those of the physical laws (or even none at all), and self-aware life emerged nevertheless. Then the concepts the self-aware life uses to reason about its environment wouldn't necessarily correspond to any counterparts in the real world. It would thus not only be unable to guess the purpose of its existence, it would most likely also not know about the concepts "purpose" and "existence", but be philosophising about something different of something else. I believe that we humans, if under the supervision of, created by, or ruled by some god, are bound by the same kind of restrictions, but I do recognize that this is only a belief.

That's an interesting analogy, but again it doesn't help us in our current situation. We may be the product of forces we can never understand, but if we cannot possibly understand them, in what sense does speculating on their existence assist us? Is there "rational" cause to speculate on their existence, or on the existence of any other sort of forces inaccessible to us?

Again, stepping away from the God question, would it make sense to speculate on the existence of anything else that cannot be detected or comprehended? If so, on what grounds? If not, why should we allow such logical leniency with regards to the issue of the existence of God?

quote:

Eh. I'm not sure I can answer this question, as my answer to the first part of it was "no".

Let me put it another way: do you consider yourself an agnostic (or, at least, view agnosticism as a tenable position) solely due to the fact that our senses are fallible and that some events must therefore exist beyond their scope, or are there other reasons for your leaning towards this view?

quote:

Even though I do not acknowledge the validity of your presumptions, I'll have a go at answering the last question: If somethings existence would imply some inconsistency with evidence, then it can be disproven to exist. Say, I can definately say that "the God who made Earth explode on April 14th 2005" does not exist.

Agreed. But the dragon in my garage - as I've defined him - is not inconsistent with available evidence either. Does that mean - even though I made him up just then - it is possible for him to exist?

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

Last edited by Renegade on Apr-19-2005 at 17:56

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: Evolution is a cause to such things as racism, communism/marxism, nazism, humanism, and movements like it. i ask, how can God(Yahweh) not exist?

Evolution is a myth remember? Racism, communism/marxism, nazism, humanism, etc., are all part of God's intelligent design.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by Subey hmmm, it all sounds like a tautology to me. "Statement X" Regardless of what statement X is, I have three responses to it. I can believe that a) Statement X is true at this time. b) Statement X is false at this time. c) or there is not enough evidence to choose a or b at this time. You've then proceeded to present logic that argues that option C (i.e. agnosticism) is in fact b (atheism). Clearly at the level of abstraction there is no reason to move people from the "fence" into atheism.

You've oversimplified my argument. If we exclude the position of strong agnosticism (which hasn't really been discussed in the posts so far) the positions I've offered with regards to the existence of God are:

A) Theism / Deism ("I believe God exists")
B) Strong Atheism ("I believe God does not exist")
C) Weak Atheism ("I do not believe God exists")
D) Weak Agnosticism ("I suspend judgement on the issue of whether God exists")

Or, to put it in the more general terms you've used:

A) Statement X is true.
B) Statement Y is true.
C) ~(X).
D) ~(X) U ~(Y).

(Where U = "Union" in mathematical terms. I can't get MS Word symbols to copy over properly.)

Therefore, in this case we'll note that both (C) (weak atheism) and (D) (weak agnosticism) require, as a starting point, the rejection of (A) (theism and deism). The distinguishing feature between the two perspectives, is that while (C) makes no inferences on the positive belief that God does not exist ((Y)), (D) does and rejects the premise that "God does not exist". Therefore, agnosticism is seperate from weak atheism, but it still shares its condition as part of its equation (IF ((~X)=(C)) THEN (D)=((C)U(~Y)) ).

Therefore, the viability of (D) (that both "God exists" and "God doesn't exist" are false) is dependant on the premise that there is sufficient cause to reject premise (B) (that "God does not exist"). If there is sufficient cause to reject this premise then agnosticism is viable, if there isn't then it isn't.

It's worth pointing out, though, that - as this seems to be one of the areas where I've been misrepresented - weak agnosticism and weak atheism are not the same thing and I've never tried to suggest that. What I have said though, is that weak agnosticism can only be developed from the starting point of weak atheism and - if you read through all of my posts - I think I've defended this perspective pretty well.

quote:

The only way that you have been able to do that is because you have presented "weak agnosticism" in such a way that it is already collasping. If you had worded it in a more reasonable way then it would easily withstand this attempt to topple it. For instance if you had worded it: weak agnosticism, suspend judgement on the question of God's existence. instead of "Suspension of belief with regards to the existence of God." Clearly by substituting the word "judgement" with "belief" you have distorted the position that weak agnostics take in order to facilitate their defeat.

I'm not sure that changing the word "judgement" to "belief" makes any difference, and I'd be happy to argue with you on those terms if you like. My rejection of agnosticism isn't made on semantic grounds, it's made on empirical and logical grounds.

quote:

I hate to say it, but sounds like a straw man fallacy better not let Kano see this

If he has anything to contribute, feel free to send him over here!

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: Evolution is a cause to such things as racism, communism/marxism, nazism, humanism, and movements like it.

I find it funny that you equate humanism with racism, communism and nazism.

No wait, not funny - I meant infuriating. Do you even know what humanism is?

quote:

i ask, how can God(Yahweh) not exist?

Define the basis upon which Yahweh's existence can be proven false and I'll be happy to answer this for you. That is, tell me what I have to do, specifically, to demonstrate to you that he doesn't exist.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade So my question is, to put it another way, what is the difference between a God that cannot be "empirically" understood ("undectable") and a God that cannot be "rationally" understood ("incomprehensible"). Then, pragmatically, what is the difference between these two gods and no god at all?

Have never considered the advantages of such a god?

If you consider the ramifications of a a known god vs a secret god.

Can you imagine how a sentient race would prefer a secret god over a known god? How would our development in the arts and sciences be warped if god was a known? Certainly you know that all growth exists in exploring the unknown; without absolutes we are allowed to explore many different avenues.

I believe Alan Watts said it best, "if we could prove god existed it would rot our brains"

___________________
Светопресавление
your pearl casting hero