EVERYONE should be AGNOSTIC

[logic]

ag•nos•tic
1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

Alright, regardless of anyones faith/beliefs, NO ONE, not even the pope himself knows,without a shadow of a doubt that there is/isn't a god. By this i mean no one can prove empirically that god exists or dosn't. So, does it not follow that everyone should be agnostic??? Is any other belief logical?

[dangerdan]

Sorry ST88, I’ve been meaning to get around to responding to your post some day. Me bad.

[BALLS2WALL]

ag•nos•tic
1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

Alright, regardless of anyones faith/beliefs, NO ONE, not even the pope himself knows,without a shadow of a doubt that there is/isn't a god. By this i mean no one can prove empirically that god exists or dosn't. So, does it not follow that everyone should be agnostic??? Is any other belief logical?

Thats a HUGE yes and no question. I can see the point you are making but some people will argue that they know there is a God and they are 100% sure. Something to think about though.

[dangerdan]

Ok ST88, sorry about the delay, lets roll…

Ok, first off, when I say “proof” and "prove", I don’t mean 100% certain proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. I mean proof provocative enough to pass my skeptical filters (which, incidentally, I don’t think are set very high ).

My own problem with this view is that the existence of such supernatural beings is, in most if not all cases, unprovable, and so there will never be any proof and there will never be any disproof.

Ah ha! This is where we are parting ways. I feel that God could “prove” her existence extremely easily. All she has to do is reveal herself in some measurable scientific way. Not really much to ask, especially as her goal is to let people know she loves them (correct me if I’m theologically mistaken guys). I think it’s rather noteworthy that there is a total absence of any such being (interacting with the empirical world) from all manner of devices (that detect the empirical world) strewn throughout the world…telescopes…video camera…you name it.

And if, in my opinion, God does not interfere with the empirical world, then I would not think it fitting to bestow such a lofty title on this being. The utterance “God” has a quite specific theistic definition.

The question "Is there a God?" has no more meaning than "Is there a Don Quixote?" or "Is there a race of elves living in a giant boulder on the hill?" They present as fictional characters who sprang from the unconscious minds of humans, but though they do not have the "ring of truth" we might be able to detect rationally, our minds are hard-wired to accept the irrational.

Hmmm, but this raises the next point.

Surely you don’t suspend judgment on existence of the elves? Surely if asked to place your bets, you’d put it on the “non existence” side. This brings us to the point of the burden of proof. We are not born with knowledge of the existence of anything. They are introduced to us. The default setting, I feel, is that one doesn’t believe in something until there is sufficient evidence or argumentation to the contrary. So while we may find it difficult to find utterly 100% certain proofs either way, this doesn’t stop us from making a rational judgment on the existence of elves, unicorns, Santa, etc, etc. Perhaps you may call this agnosticism, but would call this atheism.

Atheists and Theists can pelt each other with rhetoric about yes and no all they like, but at the end of the day, the existence of deities is an irrational concept, and the denial of the existence of theses deities is also an irrational concept.

Hmmm, I do not follow your reasoning. From my view, if something seems irrational, and it is meant to be a “being”, then that’s a pretty good indication of it not being able to exist. Could you expand on your reasoning for me?

[Max Byzantium]

I think you can come to believe in God, without a shadow of a doubt.

There are exercise in logic which would point to the existence of a Supreme Being. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle in his famous picture of the Unmoved Prime Mover all believed in God. Not the Judeo Christian God, but God nonetheless. Muslims have the Compassionate Allah, Christians the merciful Christ, Jews the One True God, Jehovah....

mix some basic logic formulas with a zen like sense of the divine..and yes, you can believe in God.

Don't get me wrong...Doubt is good for the soul and mind. It exercises both....but you can come to a complete belief in God.

[ST88]

I feel that God could “prove” her existence extremely easily. All she has to do is reveal herself in some measurable scientific way. Not really much to ask, especially as her goal is to let people know she loves them (correct me if I’m theologically mistaken guys). I think it’s rather noteworthy that there is a total absence of any such being (interacting with the empirical world) from all manner of devices (that detect the empirical world) strewn throughout the world…telescopes…video camera…you name it.

This is true, and it is the only case in which the revelation of that particular God would come to be. But I wasn't speaking of direct contact, I was speaking of logical and empirical proof. We can maintain indirect empirical knowledge of scientific phenomenae even though we may have no direct contact, such as the existence of quarks or the chemical composition of the sun. When I say "proof" I mean that we can't do it ourselves.

The question "Is there a God?" has no more meaning than "Is there a Don Quixote?" or "Is there a race of elves living in a giant boulder on the hill?" They present as fictional characters who sprang from the unconscious minds of humans, but though they do not have the "ring of truth" we might be able to detect rationally, our minds are hard-wired to accept the irrational.

Hmmm, but this raises the next point.

Surely you don’t suspend judgment on existence of the elves? Surely if asked to place your bets, you’d put it on the “non existence” side. This brings us to the point of the burden of proof. We are not born with knowledge of the existence of anything. They are introduced to us. The default setting, I feel, is that one doesn’t believe in something until there is sufficient evidence or argumentation to the contrary. So while we may find it difficult to find utterly 100% certain proofs either way, this doesn’t stop us from making a rational judgment on the existence of elves, unicorns, Santa, etc, etc. Perhaps you may call this agnosticism, but would call this atheism.

Naturally, if I were to place a bet, it would be that they didn't exist. But ruling it out to a 100% certainty is surely impossible. It's not that I can intellectualize that there is no possibility for it, it's that there is always the possibility that any supposition could be true if there is no information other than the supposition. This is why it makes no sense to me to come to any conclusions. All we have about God is the original supposition -- everything else is just philosophizin' and psychology.

Atheists and Theists can pelt each other with rhetoric about yes and no all they like, but at the end of the day, the existence of deities is an irrational concept, and the denial of the existence of theses deities is also an irrational concept.

Hmmm, I do not follow your reasoning. From my view, if something seems irrational, and it is meant to be a “being”, then that’s a pretty good indication of it not being able to exist. Could you expand on your reasoning for me?

The idea of God is irrational, it's true. But the problem is, as it is explained, the idea of God is supposed to be irrational. God is supposed to be beyond our understanding. The skeptometer may be off the charts, but skepticism does not imply denial, merely the willingness to ask questions and not take things on faith.

I should reiterate that my position is not exclusively that God could possibly exist so I can't be an atheist. This is just a small part it. My main position is that the question of whether God exists is itself not a rational question -- it's a question that doesn't deserve an answer.

[bernee51]

I think you can come to believe in God, without a shadow of a doubt.

Ah yes - the telling word here is belief.

belief does not equal proof. All it means is that you belive god exists it does not make him exist.

If that was the case then my simple non belief would make he.she/it non existent.

There are exercise in logic which would point to the existence of a Supreme Being. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle in his famous picture of the Unmoved Prime Mover all believed in God. Not the Judeo Christian God, but God nonetheless. Muslims have the Compassionate Allah, Christians the merciful Christ, Jews the One True God, Jehovah....

Again it only points towards - belief - nothing more nothing less.

And all the numbers of people or their status who do believe count for nought.

Not so long ago most humans, from king to peasant, believed the earth was flat. It didn't make it so.

mix some basic logic formulas with a zen like sense of the divine..and yes, you can believe in God.

Yep - no dispute - YOU can believe in god.

[dangerdan]

This is true, and it is the only case in which the revelation of that particular God would come to be.

So we agree then that existence of God could be proved via direct empirical evidence, yes?

Naturally, if I were to place a bet, it would be that they didn't exist. But ruling it out to a 100% certainty is surely impossible

Amen brother. But do you think an atheist needs to be 100% certain?

It's not that I can intellectualize that there is no possibility for it, it's that there is always the possibility that any supposition could be true if there is no information other than the supposition. This is why it makes no sense to me to come to any conclusions.

Hmmm, I still disagree with you here. I very much think it rational to pass judgment on something’s existence (for all common uses of the term) due to a distinct lack or empirical evidence…or if the reasoning does not rest on deductions made from empirical evidence…and even more so if, when scrutinized, appears self contradictory and internally inconsistent.

All we have about God is the original supposition -- everything else is just philosophizin' and psychology.

Totally. It’s a philosophical question. No doubt about that. Science can not pass judgment on the existence of God. However, science can bring us a very large body of empirical evidence for us to make our decisions from. It has also done rather stupendously at explaining the world, thus reducing much of the necessity of God’s existence when explaining this or that.

The idea of God is irrational, it's true. But the problem is, as it is explained, the idea of God is supposed to be irrational. God is supposed to be beyond our understanding.

An interesting point. But I don’t feel most theologians would honestly agree that God is meant to be unintelligible. They revert to that argument when pressed, but I can’t help but feel it’s not sincerely held, as pointed out by the fact that they are indeed theologians.

But passing your personal judgment on the existence of something that’s irrational (even if it is meant to be irrational) still seems sound. I may, through clever argumentation, say that Santa is meant to be beyond our understanding. Surely this would not cause you to suspend judgment on my Santa, would it?