Does Agnosticism Make Sense?

because god is different than everything else. all of the other things that you mention have nothing to do with agnosticism. agnosticism has to do with god, not unicorns. its not concernered with unicorns, so the argument does not stand. its not [all] about science and uncertainty.

 

More specifically, agnosticism has to do with the unknowability of God, which is exactly what I was discussing. The argument is valid. To say that God is immune from the same criteria upon which all other knowledge claims are based simply because God is said to be omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient would be ad hoc. Unicorns are like God in that there is no reason to believe in either. I think you're focusing too much on the unicorns and not enough on the argument. Besides, you still haven't shown why God's supernatural status infirms the argument.

 

CS- good argument. Jesus and Buddha though are historical figures that some evidence supports that they did exist. Atheists and agnostics can follow their teachings without necessarily believing in a "god".

 

CS
True
As stated, Occams definition of a god would not be the religious one.
That one supposes an infinite omnipotent god and also a devil incarnate, a hell, and a heaven. Eternal souls, and a whole bunch of other crap none of which appear to be actually real. Just like unicorns.

Occams idea allows ANYTHING that weilds power to bypass or manipulate
the objective laws of reality, To be a god.
And while unicorns and omnipotent yaweh show no evidence to support their reality.
An ANYTHING, is as occam said, logically probable.

If we are only just reaching out of the cradle [earth]
How can we say we are the smartest kids in town?

You read it wrong.
Agnosticism has nothing to do with how occam lives his life.
As said in the 1st part of this post.
An ANYTHING that has the powers of a god is one.
And occam thinks it quite logical to believe that such power IS weilded
somewhere in the universe.
This position however is simply that. A philosophical position.
And effects occams life as much as his position on the nature of consciousness or the soccer scores in bolivia.

If occam faces a moral dilemma, he asks both his mind and his heart what to do. Not someone elses idea of a moral arbitrator.

Occam

 

And what are some examples of such things? I can't think of one.

No, I understood what you were saying. I just think it's a serious problem. Why would you postulate the existence of an entity if that entity has no impact on the real world? It seems unscientific.

 

CS

1. Really, occam could name many.
How about a localised alteration of the law of gravity.
Making the speed of light 1kmh faster.
Adding 2% to planks constant.
We know only of these laws from their effects.
Not from any real understanding of why they exist or what they are.
So NO HUMAN can say if such laws can or cannot be manipulated.

2. How do YOU know of any possible impact on the real world by such an entity?
That [real world] logically being all of reality.
Have you been to all of reality to observe such? No.
Then you speak from a false premise.
You suggest a theory about reality and what exists or does not exist in it.
Based on local conditions only.
Hardly scientific.

Science is to understand what we observe SO FAR.
We have SO FAR observed very little of anything.
Let alone understand all that we have observed.
Ergo......
It seems 'unscientiffic' to you to postulate such an entity.
But occam is a rationalist, not a scientist.
Science is a product/tool of reason, it's a method, no more.

Can you in scientific terms, define the awe and wonder occam feels
when looking into the eyes of a laughing child?
Can you explain scientifically, why ANYTHING exists?

Occam

 

I have this plush unicorn my grandma gave me a couple years ago... I HOPE they exist, so goddamn cute.

Just kidding...

On a more serious note...

Agnosticism, as you described it, makes perfect sense to me ....ALTHOUGH, the problem with it that I see is....

Religion and theory is not supposed to be about fact, but belief. Agnosticism is purely derived from fact.... if it were proven tomorrow, that a god existed, there would be no more of Agnosticism on that matter, considering they would *know*---

That's my problem. I don't *believe* in a god... if it were proven tomorrow that a god existed, would I believe in the god? No, but, rather I would *know*. If that makes any sense...

I suppose anybody could be an agnostic considering nobody knows the truth, but the question is what do you believe? Or what do you NOT believe?

It's like if a person lies to you, but you have no way to prove it... do you believe them or don't you.... you'll never know the truth, whether it was a lie or not, so what does your gut tell you?

My gut tells me no god exists, and that's why I am an atheist. Not to mention, that if it were proven that a god existed, I still would not worship in any way shape or form. I would still be without religion... WHY? Because, I believe, and FEEL, that no matter what the truth is, you must believe in yourself.

True, you may have a king... but does that mean you should follow your king blindly, and believe in his every word?

For an agnostic...if it were proven that God existed...what would you do? Would you believe in god, or would you not... You would KNOW, but would you believe in god? Would you put your faith in gods hands? Would you rely on a god? Would you feel god's energy within?

I answer no to all of those questions.

Back to the point of what I was trying to say.... Agnostics, do you NOT have ANY sort of GUT feeling of what exists? That's a belief...if you FEEL a god exists, you believe god...if you FEEL a god doesn't exist, you don't. My gut feeling tells me not only is it not possible/probable, but that I do not feel any greater power/feeling within from another realm.

I feel here's what I have, and I'll make the best of it... I feel, I will die, not even know what hit me, and never feel again, only to rot in a dark casket...and not even realize it because I will be dead... and I don't believe in souls. I believe that there is no surreal supernatural realm outside of what is given to me...and any *signs* are either my own guilt, or conscience telling me what to do... or my own mind playing tricks on me. I believe that we exist, simply TO exist, and not for any greater reason. Just organisms skurrying around, fighting for survival. I do not believe we are here just to procreate, I believe there is NO reason to why we are here. I believe demons and the *devil* are excuses for people's insanity and cold hearts. I believe angels are and spirits are haulucinations, and another excuse because people don't believe in themselves or others. I dont believe in spirits, I believe in personalities....formed by your reaction to things around you, and genes.

Agnostics...do you have ANY feeling, any OPINION at all on this matter.... ?! I can't understand how you COULDN'T.

 

in response to this whole thread,
"The man who knows anything, knows that he knows nothing"

 

Common Sense

Cool

But in no way convinces occam that there is no possibillity
of something that is possible.
You say it is not.
Because you have not seen or heard of any evidence of such.
But as we are just a speck of dust at the edge of a nondescipt
gallaxy, and our powers to observe what exists in that titanic
reality out there is so limited.
Then occam does not think you, or any other human can start
making claims of knowing a thing does not exist.

A generalist like occam calls this 'common sense'.

Occam

 

"As I've said again and again, it is logically possible that God exists. There is, however, no evidence (an impact on the real world) that such a God exists. So, why would I suspend judgement about the existence of God? I may as well suspend judgement about the idea that unicorns exist somewhere on a distant planet."

agnosticism doesnt assume there is a god. it addresses the possibility of a god. My question is, if its logically possible that there be a god, and we as humans know only a fair ammount about our universe, let alone what is "outside" of it, why would you go so far as to deny the existence of god? that is more ludacris imo.

 

You would suspend judgment because there is no evidence which has convinced you enough at this time to believe, thus you are atheist by definition.

Atheism doesn't "DENY", it "DOUBTS". ATHEISM ISN'T A BELIEF, IT IS DOUBT OF A BELIEF (theism).

Denial is an affirmative. Doubt is not. THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIES ON THE CLAIMANT, NOT THE DOUBTER.

You LACK belief. Thus, you are "without theism" = ATHEIST.

 

there are athiests who "know" there is no god.

 

If someone AFFIRMS a BELIEF that no god exists, this is more than just atheism. This is dogmatic atheism.

However, it depends on the definition of god. If the god is self-contradictory (like the Christian God), then it is safe to say that one could affirm that such a Being is logically impossible. If someone says that this "God" goes BEYOND the realm of reason and logic, one would have to question how the believer "knows" this information and evidence would need to be given within the faculties of man. If not, it is incomprehensible and should, therefore, be dismissed as nonsense.

 

Because it's absurd to suspend judgement just because a statement is logically possible. It's logically possible that the sun won't rise tomorrow, but I never consider this possibility; only a lunatic would do so. It's also logically possible that my pen will fly out the window, instead of falling to the ground, the next time I set it down, but I'm never worried about losing my pen when putting down. It's also logically possible that somewhere Santa Claus exists, but Santa Claus does not exist.

The second problem is that I don't see how an agnostic can affirm any negative existential assertion, except perhaps logical contradictions such as "There is a round square somewhere," or "There is at least one married bachelor." Logically, unicorns could exist, but unicorns do not exist.

The third problem I very explicitly outlined earlier. How can an agnostic face ethical problems? If there is a God, then which God is he? What are his comandments? The agnostic has no rational basis to make ethical decisions. It's essentially guess-work.

P.S. I will affirm the statement, "God does not exist," and there's nothing dogmatic about it.

 

ethics has nothing to do with religion.

 

That's just intuitively wrong. Besides, you didn't answer either of the two arguments.

 

CS

LOL

It is not logically possible for the sun to rise in the morning.
[unless reality has taken on new laws or aliens have taken controll of everything. Or god is pissed]

You speak as a logician but cannot get this little thing right.

The SUN DOES NOT RISE.
THE EARTH ROTATES

Occam

 

CS

And occam will affirm his statement that you 'do not exist'.
You cannot prove logically to others that you exist.
Thus logic finds its flaws.

Reality is a practical thing, we get along because we do not place too much credance on pure thought ie: logic.
If logic cannot 'prove' reality as we experience it exists.
Then logic should used only where it does apply without practical contradiction.

Somtimes logic, like religion, is contradictory.

UNLESS one wishes to believe they are the only thing that exists.
For that is all logic can state as fact.
ALL ELSE. Is extrapolation on the premise that what we call everything, neuroelectrical data recieved from the senses, is accurate.
Occam

 

You can get caught up in semantics all you want. It's also logically possible that the earth will stop rotating tomorrow. A statement is logically possible if it is conceivable; that's the only requirement. So, only a very small number of statements can be called logically impossible, such as "There is at least one married bachelor," since bachelors are by definition unmarried. It is not strictly necessary that the sun will rise tomorrow. If you don't believe me, look at any introductory text book on logic or David Hume.

You are absolutely right that you cannot logically prove that I exist. But you have some other very good reasons to think that I exist. Such as this discussion we're having right now, or the fact that if you wanted to, you could drive to Canada and come visit. So, logic isn't flawed, you're just misapplying it. You can't prove a priori that anything exists because that's not what logic does.

Well, that's my point exactly, except I will not grant that logic leads to contradictions, not even practical ones. You will never find a valid argument for the existence of God, just as you will never find a valid argument for the existence of me, you, or unicorns. We have very good practical reasons for believing that me and you exist. We have no reason whatsoever to believe that God or unicorns exist. Logic has nothing to say about the existence of things, only experience and practical reason do.

So, I've really been very confused about which direction your argument is taking. You grant that it is logically possible that almost anything could exist, even things that are absurd like Santa Claus. Then you go on to say that we should only believe in things that we have good, practical reasons to; things unlike, say, God. Exactly which position are you arguing for, again?