Logically refuting atheism in favor of agnosticism - Page 5

valenzuela · #41 10-09-2006, 06:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I think the standard or (pun-intended) canonical definition of God is: omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent. Mix those together, look at the world, and I think the contradiction case is fairly strong.

[/ QUOTE ]

MidGe · #42 10-09-2006, 09:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I think the standard or (pun-intended) canonical definition of God is: omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent. Mix those together, look at the world, and I think the contradiction case is fairly strong.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly, the world as we experience it is proof that there is no O3 god.

Douglas Core · #43 10-09-2006, 10:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
... people who say they are "certain" are wrong. Unless you know how the universe came to be, you must allow some chance for any possibility. ... You just can't know with 100% certainty.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is incorrect. The concept of "certainty" is used to describe the state of one's knowledge. It cannot be used without regard to this state. When one considers the full state of one's knowledge, one's conclusions are certain. If at a later time one's knowledge is expanded in such a way as to change previous conclusions, one can be certain of the new, different conclusions. There is no contradiction here because the two certainties are inextricably tied to two separate states of knowledge.

Note how certainty is different from making a statement about the nature of existence. Two people with different contexts can be certain of an aspect of nature in two directly contradictory senses. Both are truthful (and right) to say that they are certain if both have reviewed the full context of their knowledge. But since contradictions do not exist in nature (I am certain of it), one of their contexts must be too limited to lead to truth about nature. When they're brought together and their two contexts are enlarged, such that each has the knowledge of the other, then both should become certain of the same thing. They were certain before, and now they are again. To summarize: certainty is a concept of consciousness used to describe the state of your logical conclusions in regard to all of your knowledge.

I am not omniscient. But within the context of my knowledge, I am certain that neither god nor gods exist. I allow for the possibility that my knowledge on the subject may later be expanded. Until that time, I am an Atheist.

benjdm · #44 10-10-2006, 12:57 AM

Step back and think about it. Beyond the anthropomorphizing my two year old does - "bye car," "bye water" - is there any reason to propose anything resembling a God in the first place ? I don't see it. If you are agnostic to the idea that there is a supernatural reality that does not normally interact with our natural universe, and in this supernatural reality Batman and Robin fight it out with bad guys and every "WHAM !" starts a natural universe, then count me as agnostic. The two proposals are equally valid.

ChrisV · #45 10-10-2006, 01:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]
My real claim behind this is that being an atheist takes as much faith as being a theist.

[/ QUOTE ]

So presumably denying that the Earth is ruled by reptilian humanoids takes as much faith as believing it is.

Sorry, but there is such a thing as onus of proof. And the atheist claim is not, as you suppose, that they know for sure that God does not exist. It's a statement that having examined the facts, they have come to the conclusion that no evidence for a God exists. Agnostics are saying they either haven't thought about it, or aren't sure what conclusion to draw from their thinking.

Lestat · #46 10-10-2006, 03:01 AM

Excellent first post! Hope to see many more.

David Sklansky · #47 10-10-2006, 04:55 AM

Meanwhile, you have moved back into third and second is unfortunately now within reach.

Mickey Brausch · #48 10-10-2006, 08:13 AM

Unless I have misunderstood your post, I'm afraid you are ignoring the difference between estimates of probability with confidence about those estimates.

Lestat is saying that we cannot make a prediction with probability 100% that the thoroughbred Skolansky will win his next race; you are saying that we can make such an estimate, since everything we know about the thoroughbred indicates that it will win its next race hands down.

But confidence (aka strength of conviction) matters. You ask people at the racetrack, Is there a horse that's likely to win the next race with 100% certainty, and which is it? Smith is a first-timer at the track who hears everyone around getting excited about the horse Skolansky, so he picks Skolansky. But, wait, Joey the experienced pro handicapper also replies Skolansky! (Smith doesn't know about Joey's opinion.)

When asked about the strength of their convictions, and presuming that both are brutally honest in their self-assessments, Smith should give a confidence level lower than Joey's.

Mickey Brausch

bocablkr · #49 10-10-2006, 10:38 AM

1. Humans are not omnipresent or omniscent

2. Without omnipresence or omniscence, one cannot know with absolute certainty whether or not there is or is not a God/Gods

3. Humans cannot know with absolute certainty whether there is a God/Gods or not.

4. If one cannot be certain of there being or not being a God/Gods, then one cannot logically be a theist.

5. Therefore it's logically invalid for one to claim they are a theist.

spoohunter · #50 10-10-2006, 01:19 PM

If you want to bicker over semantics, I suppose that I will admit there is a .00000001% chance there is a God. If believe that makes me an agnostic, then I guess I'm an agnostic, but I'm still going to call myself an atheist.

There is no God.