Is there really a God?

Post Reply New Topic

Yes indeed. I just find the phrase hackneyed and irritating in the context so I abused the ambiguity in the wording.

The only thing I can think of with Karmic's first line and following paragraphy in response would be that he could have misinterpreted my 'at best' as 'everyone is either agnostic or theist', I really meant that no one knows - not atheists, not theists, not agnostics, no one, we all just give the best of our thoughts on this as its all we really can do. The other way - he said no, agnosticism is not superior (first line) but that I'm trying to dodge the supremacy of agnosticism somewhere (perhapse by leaning in the theist direction at all? I kind of hope not).

Something slightly more serious now.

Well, if we logically cannot prove that unicorns do not exist, then, by definition, that means they *could* exist. If we cannot prove by evidence that they do not exist, then it clearly could be the case that they exist nonetheless. If we are precluded from logically refuting the existence of unicorns (which we obviously are), then ~L~∃unicorns, and hence M∃unicorns by definition. Adding the "--or could--" is clearly a bad move for the argument.

Now, if we take agnosticism as "lack of knowledge" then we are agnostic by definition (although it seems to me one could, interpreted more loosely, be a gnostic theist, but it would take an unusual view of the universe to be a gnostic atheist). In fact, I might well argue that we are in fact unicorn agnostics, or invisible pink unicorn agnostics; a broad definition of agnosticism will include the belief that knowledge of true reality is unknowable as well. The fact that it is necessary for people to pare down possibilities doesn't *actually* grant them knowledge.

Now, what you want to argue is what the criteria for belief are. The question becomes "is it permissible for someone to believe in God?" Let's use a bit of Alvin Platinga's sophistry here, just because I like this argument:

This can be easily formalized; 3=>6 QED. Now, I'm not going to argue this is true; what we might argue instead is whether belief in 3 is permissible. After all, 3 asserts nothing but a logical potential rather than an evidentiary claim. If it is permissible, then it is permissible to believe in God is it not?

Going further, why do there exist interpersonally relevant standards for belief on things which do not have practical distinction in the first place? While we may argue that maybe everyone is ethically obligated, even, to believe concrete and apparent demonstrable practical facts, on what grounds do we assert a duty to believe something which makes no difference at all in the model of the practical world?

My comments aren't directed at people...they're directed at the comments that people make. Important distinction.

I'm sorry to say, that the frequency with which a particular phrase--hackneyed or otherwise--may be appropriately employed has nothing to do with the (in)correctness of said phrase. Thus...the fact remains, ya can't prove a negative--it's the logical fallacy of Argumentum ad ignorantiam . Perhaps the library of fallacies found here http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... logic.html might help some folks.

The assertion that agnosticism (as opposed to atheism) is the only logical or rational conclusion with respect to discussions/arguments over the existence of god(s) is a non-sequitur deriving from persistently clinging to...waaaaiiiiitttt for it !....insisting on proving the negative as the sole condition for positive establishment versus refutation.

I might be willing to "allow" for the possibility of something existing based on being unable to prove that it doesn't exist (there's that pesky proving the negative again!)...but that allowance falls within the realm of belief, not the pure, established overlap of belief and truth IE it does not fall within the realm of the purely logical/rational.

I'm sure that we, here in this thread on this forum, will definitively answer this question of the ages once and for all .

Again...I'm one of the most passive atheists y'all are ever going to run across. As I've said many times in my life--whatever floats your boat, so long as it doesn't deprive someone else of their boat, the water it sails upon, etc.

God is randomness and infinite.
It's sort of pointless to try to understand something like that.

It's just best to drink the cherry kool-aid and relax.

Real quick, off the top of my head, I'm pretty sure that this is the argument that Aquinas used to "prove" that (G)od must exist--in order for good to exist then evil must exist, in order for virginity to exist, nonvirginity must exist, etc. The problem with this is that it can be used to prove anything and everything...not to mention the fact that any atheist will "admit" to the existence of (G)od as a conceptual abstraction........which is entirely different from existing in actuality.

I could be wrong about the Aquinas thing...might have been someone else in "church" history...

Hmm.

Huh. That doesn't quite seem to match the claim that "you don't know god doesn't exist because you haven't proved it". You're abusing fallacies, and that's my job dammit.


You're also abusing definitions (also my job, dammit). Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive, nor are theism and agnosticism.


I don't recall, but this is hardly relevant anyway as you're misconstruing my point. It wasn't an argument, it was a critique of the fact that you had a beef with "God could exist". ~L~∃unicorns iff M∃unicorns. It's painfully simple.

That's a cut/paste from a site hosting a discussion of Aquinas' 5 Proofs...I still can't find the official name, though I know that it refers to the ontological portion of the argument that he proposed.

If you think the argument from contingency has any bearing on what has thus far been exchanged, then I fear your grasp of either my posts or Aquinas is not sufficient to permit progress.

Not so, Twosteps...you just dont want to give up the "well, it could exist" argument.

I can prove that the square root of two is NOT the ratio of two integers whose greatest common denominator is 1. That is a negative and it is provable.

This was first proved by Hippasus of Metapontum a student of Pythagoras.

ruveyn

Which argument is that? "Could exist=>exist" is one interpretation of Platinga's ontological argument, but I have introduced that solely to introduce the concept of rational permissibility, rather than actually proving God's existence. But since the primary focus of my posts has been the rational permissibility of belief in God coupled with the lack of knowledge that he does/does not exist, I have no idea what you're on about.

The argument is that anything after agnosticism is opinion. Its interpretation of date, its a leap of faith based on personal proclivities and experience just as much as how a person's mind filters reality.

Arguing equality rather than supremacy probably makes me look weak (which is something that people seem to dole on agnostics all the time) - I might know to expect it but frankly I don't and can't care, I still have to side with what I find to be the most honest stance. No problem with atheists being atheists, just that the cute little saying about how believers would be atheists if they could think logically - I really have to disagree on the grounds that equally intelligent and rational people can come to completely different conclusions based on what's in front of them. The vastness of our universe is a bit out of our depth anyway so to an extent it is kind of just an act of self-actualization when a person puts themselves toward examining reality and trying to bring their level of consciousness to a place where they can soak in more and more of it on an intuitive level.

It is indeed quite simple: to say that god could or must exist because one cannot prove that god does not exist is the same thing as saying that unicorns or leprechauns could or must exist because one cannot prove their nonexistence. Thus...I place belief in god(s) in the same category as belief in unicorns and leprechauns. Agnosticism is the cowardly bet-hedger's way out...

Well, much as I am loathe to use an argumentum ad logicam on you, but this is totally a straw man.

Gnostic atheism is a pretty fantasy.

...and the rationale for the absolutism of atheism versus agnosticism rests on the fact that leaving the door cracked open ever so slightly admits entrance of an entire universe of irrationality (or, for those who prefer to remain rational, rational insanity)...a universe in which I may spontaneously turn into a piano, a whale, or a geranium or...? The possibilities under such conditions are endless because their potentiality is predicated upon having not been disproven: "Just because you haven't turned into a piano yet doesn't mean that you wouldn't or won't if we wait long enough..."