Agnosticism

Post Reply New Topic

Inspired by this post:

Even though I'm not sure what AG meant exactly, I wanted to make a thread about making a case against agnosticism, if there are critical analysis against the agnostic position about God, and why is the case, I would like to learn more about it, which I would expect a deep and honest analysis to the issue.

Well, Transcention started this thread about how he could write a new religion, and it would be the best thing ever, right here:

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt95514.html

And within that thread, Claire333 brought up the fact that he was writing an agnostic religion, which makes sense given his post right here:

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp1944155 ... t=#1944155

Where he states

---------------
Here is one argument that could be used against agnosticism:

1. It is proposed that a being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
2. It is proposed that a being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
3. Maximal greatness is possibly exemplified. That is, it is possible that there be a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
4. Therefore, possibly it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
5. Therefore, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists. (By S5)
6. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.

There are only 2 premises that can be questioned for this, Premise 3, and modal logic axiom S5.

If one accepts S5(S5 is widely accepted in modal logic) then the notion of god is either true or it is false, but one is not given much room to be agnostic about it as premise 3 is purely a logical notion of contradiction. Thus agnosticism has problems given Plantinga's ontological argument. The agnostic can only escape this by denying S5, or perhaps the ability of logic to do something like this.

Another argument against agnosticism is one of practice, can you be a practicing agnostic? Or do you really fall into theism or atheism? After all, if you do not act as if there is a god, then you are implicitly agreeing that there is no god. If you act as if there is a god, then you implicitly agree that there is a god.

Another argument against agnosticism is inconsistency, as the agnostic is only agnostic towards god, for other things, there is usually a presumption of knowledge, even if through the lack of knowledge. After all, are we invisible unicorn agnostics? Or do we instead say that invisible unicorns do not exist? Usually the latter. So, agnosticism fails to reduce away a possibility where it either already would, or where it is rational to.

There are also all of the arguments for the existence of a deity that can be used as arguments against agnosticism in favor of theism.

I can't think of any more off of the top of my head though.

I have always felt I had to agree with Orwell's asertion, an agnostic is a practicing atheist, in the sense an agnostic does not worship a God. However, please explain 'acting or not acting' as if there is a God.

False, in my case anyway. I am also agnostic toward spirits and souls, alternate or parallel dimensions, dark matter, how the universe came into being, what happens to me after I die...all sorts of stuff, really. Some are much more important to me personally than others, but to all of them I can honestly say I do not know. I sit on the borderline of belief and non-belief wondering why I even care....but I do care.

Well, it is basically arguing that an agnostic that is a practicing atheist is in fact an atheist, because what we act upon is an indicator of what we truly believe.


Hmm.... interesting. It was an attempt at an argument, I will admit that all of the attempts I put up will not always be good, but where I lack in quality I make up for in quantity I hope.....

I see, the black and white, either-or. Sometimes it just does not fit

I believe you certainly do. If nothing else, you are an interesting read.

Nope, sometimes it doesn't. In any case, I'd bet that some people reject Axiom S5 as well.


Yay!! ! I am good at something!!

Not sure, but you lost me on that one anyway, but it is a little late here, I have not been sleeping well, and I am really just not that bright.

I am just joking around about the ontological argument for God. One of the axioms that can be disputed is axiom S5.

Oh crikey, you people are actually using my name, in relation to absolutely anything?

That, is so cool.

Yeh, one of the most fundamental, and most simple, and basic of all principles of the religion I write is that human beings, truely know, little to nothing about: what governs Existence; what happens to the personality of a human beings when they die; or what the actual reality is, in relation to the true creation of Existence.

Personally, I don't bother with academic, and rather pointless, and quite useless, conceptual garbage, in relation to the realites of Existence.

The truth is.

1. Humanity has absolutely no idea of any kind whatsoever, what happens to the personality of a living being when they die.
2. Humanity has pretty much no idea, no matter what science, or religion says, in relation to the truth about the creation of Existence.
3. Humanity, knows pretty must nothing, to pretty much absolutely nothing, in relation to what actually governs Existence.
4. And, as a seemingly naturally gifted writer of religion, Existence, really doesn't seem to give any kind of a s**t whatsoever, in relation to whatever it is, that I say enlightened, and benevolent religion is. So, you know, in general f**k you. As a true, and naturally gifted writer of religion, just be thankful, that I actually care about the entire future of humanity, until the very ends of all conceiveable spacetime.

And as an actual, "living, quite breathing", writer of religion, who seems to be having, a somewhat actually genuine, religious experience, in relation to being an actual writer of religion, and does such a thing, somewhat constantly, with their own two human hands, and who hasn't had any kind of auditory, visual, or olofactory hallucinations, of any kind; in relation to any kinds of burning bushs, strange magic stones, or any actual apparitions, that even vaguely resemble, any divine, non-living, or possibly even any divine non-living-beings that resemble the concept of moron, or morony; then that would make me an expert on the subject of writing, and creating religion.

Since none of you seem to be true experts, in relation to writing religion, and have shown no actual proof, of such a simple ability, arguing with me seems, rather pointless.

Don't get me wrong, I have a general philosophy that states: if you have a problem with the current state of human religion, shut the f**k up, sit down, and write religion, that is truely an improvement, in relation to the religion that exists upon the Earth; or step aside, and let truely naturally gifted people other than yourself, do the work, that you cannot.

So far, all you forum members, have fallen short, in relation to this most basic of premises, in relation to designing worthwhile, enlightened, and benevolent, religion, that is actually worth the gift of Existence... No disrespect... Blah, blah, blah....

"I do not expect the more average, and mediocre of human beings to work it out, but I have an unusually, quite profoundly existentiallly, and religiously bent, sense of humour. Being a man who actually writes religion, in the 21st century, and who actually seems to care about the content, of the religion one creates, this tends to make one seem, just a tiny, little bit, odd".....

Transcention Universia...

Oh my God, I just had the most amazing of epiphanies, in relation to the theory of desiging religion for humanity. Damn, unfortunately I decided to delete it from this thread, because as a species, you havn't earned it yet.

Some days, I really enjoy, just not writing down something of almost infintely profound value, in this case I did write it down, in this post, no less, I just decided, not to give it to you.

As far as I can tell, none of you can write religion, or are in anyway, masters of the art, and science of writing religion, and there is no reason for me to share the last sentence, or two, that I dreamed up, that might actually truely enlighten you.. I am going to keep passage 566, of Universalism, to myself, or at least I will keep it to myself, until a human being comes along who I think, should know such a seemingly obvious, mortally stunning, self-evident, and simple of things, that rocks one to the very core, of the foundation of one's soul, to myself.

Truely, that would amuse me. I might even keep that last premise, as an addendum to that last profound and enlightened, concept to myself, and watch you all squirm around, quite pathetically, in relation to your religious orientations.

Laadahdedah dah..

Try harder... Justify your Existence...

Even more than I enjoy the epihanies, in relation to writing the religion I write; I so much more enjoy withholding these epiphanies, from humanity. Just to see what you do.

Oh my, my wife would absolutely kill me, if I let you forum people let you know the last enlightned epiphany that I just had during writing this post.

I think I enjoy being a rather tricksterous, kind of a man, who writes religion. And boy, do I love withholding my secrets, and only surprising people with them, when I think they least expect it.

Try harder humanity, justify your Existence to me, or I shall eventually die, and will quite happily go to my grave, without teaching you the religion, you need to help you survive the perils of your own Existence.

Granted, I can only improve your chances of survival as a species. I can't like so many people who have come before me guarentee it.

Although, at the very least, I can actually offer humanity, as a whole, a true way to survive your own stupidity, and the inherent perils of your Existence.

And some chance, in relation to surviving your own stupidity, is better than nothing, isn't it?

Oh boy, you all complain about my commas, and semi-colons, but I am the poor f****r who actually has to edit all this stuff.

Transcention Universia....

Last edited by Transcention on 04 Apr 2009, 3:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

Not to worry. Abraham and Jesus and L.Ron Hubbard probably felt the same way.

Unfortunately, for me, l.ron.hubbard, abraham, and jesus, didn't have access to as much 20th, and 21st century information, in relation to science; or for that matter in relation to anything worthwile, that I do; and didn't seem to be as obcessively perfectionist, in relation to writing religion that actually reflected the realities of Existence, as I do, to the very extent of human perfectionism, and exactitude, that people such as Einstein, Copernicus, and Newton, tried to achieve in their science.

Granted, some of these aforementioned names, did actually have access to some of, if not most of the 20th, and 21st century knowledge that I also do, but none of them, were actual specialists, in relation to writing, and designing truely enlightened, and benevolent religion, no matter how much of a specialist they were in their own particular, even peculier fields of human knowledge they were gifted in.

I am not being fussy or anything, but comparing me to jesus, l.ron.hubbard, jesus, abraham, the bahaullah, the dude from aum shunriko, or for that matter any other ret*d, from the 20th, or 21st century of humanity, is kind of like comparing me to a freaken maggot, so f**k you, no dis-respect.

If you can't see the difference, then you must be seriously, spiritually, intellectually, and most profoundly stupid.

I am sorry if you have never seen religion, that has been written for the 21st century mind, that is actually properly fused, and is most infinitely, and has been with due care been brought into perfect harmoy with science. But your own lack of natural ability, in relation to designing religion, that is worthy belieiving in, is unfortunately not my problem.

You will just how to live, in the pathetic, state of naivety, and ignorance, that you exist at, if you make just a terribly and most infinitely profound statement.

Can you try, just a wee bit harder, homo-sapien, so that your comments, don't smell, like human faeces, smeared across, the pavement, during the midday sun?

To be just a wee bit more direct, than you were, in relation to your post, and you will have to excuse me sand, that you seem to me, to be a complete moron, in relation to the subject of designing religion that is actually worth believing in. Your response to me, just does not seem to be as deeply contructive, and as deeply fascinating, in a way that I need for your Existence, to mean anything more than the s**t that I create out of my own ass...

No disrespect..

Try again, humanity. Send me someone, more worthy, than him.

My problem, you see, sand, is that I realize that there are only two choices for humanity. Humanity can either learn to shape the power that flows freely thoughout the entire Universe, or humanity can stand impotently by, and can watch humanity destroy themselves with the religion that is runs rampantly through their civilization.

I wonder, humanity, how impotent, and pathetic you feel, that almost everything you say to me, I can transform, and convert into Universalism? I wonder how pathetic, and impotent you must feel, in relation to the fact that I can take everything you are as a species, and can pass it through the naturally true, religious filter of my being, and can convert it into religion that is actually worth the gift of Existence....

Quite sincerely, I do not know how it feels to be neurotypical; I do not know how it feels, to remember where the commas, or semi-colons go. I just wouldn't know, how it feels, to not see the current reality of Human Existence, through the limited level of mortal vision that you see it.

Last edited by Transcention on 04 Apr 2009, 3:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

I'm going start this bluntly - knock off the profanity (however censored) and attacks, Transcention. Argue your point; do not attack.

We fundamentally disagree; I do not believe that one need write doctrine to have experience, gain perspective, perceive enlightenment. That you presume none here capable or competent to discuss anything with you as a result of this difference - regardless of cause - gives reason to consider your philosophy to be closed-minded, and disinterested in anything but skepticism and disregard. I've questioned why this religion of yours must attack other religions, with no answer.

Now, back to the original topic of agnosticism:

One who does not know does not deny God. One who does not know might speak to such a being at times, unsure if being heard. At the same time, they do not see the divine at the root of all things. It is the acknowledgment that there is more that exists than can be learned or known at this time, and therefore living one deems appropriate instead according to doctrine or code. As an option.


M.

Well I will be blunt as well then.

Why allow subtle personal attacks, that lack any finesse, and lack any kind of actual vision.

If you don't have the cojones, to moderate people who use finesse, then don't even dare to moderate someone who does, I guarentee you, the existential pain you experience, will not be worth the trouble...

I am sorry I don't see the difference.

Just because, you and I have a different perspective of Existence, one that I am guessing you have not even researched to any worthwhile level, you have decided to exercise your pitiful moderator powers?

You will have to excuse me, if you do not make me sick, by even wasting my time, with your worthless threats.

Either study, and research what I have to say, whoever you are, or stay out of my conversations.

Your moderator status, simply doesn't mean anything to me, unless you use it wisely....

Admittedly humanity persists in some terribly stupid and vicious actions, some out of basic nastiness, some out of stupidity, and some out of contempt. The overwhelming contempt you display leads me to wonder why you post to us inferior humans.

The rules are clear; you've been made aware. If you continue to violate them, that is your decision - the consequences are equally your own.

You presume much about the spirituality of others; to your gross disappointment, there has been much investment into my own views of existence... they just don't coincide with your own perspective. I read what you had to say, and found much contemptible in what was said. You invited the discourse; it is poor posture to withdraw when you are challenged. When you're willing to answer the questions asked of your writing, I will be glad to continue the conversation... until then.


M.