Logically refuting atheism in favor of agnosticism - Page 3

valenzuela · #21 10-09-2006, 03:17 PM

Post deleted by valenzuela

madnak · #22 10-09-2006, 03:22 PM

I think the key piece is that the existence of God(s) is a proposition that's not falsifiable. Can't disprove those, no way no how.

Prodigy54321 · #23 10-09-2006, 03:26 PM

yes, technically, I consider myself and agnostic, but there is no reason to think of it in the technical sense...

I am technically an agnostic with regards to unicorns and leprechauns and god and many other things (actually all things)

would you say that you are 100% sure that your name is ..whatever you think it is?..no..you can't be, but there is no reason to add a comment that you are not sure of your name every time you introduce yourself

valenzuela · #24 10-09-2006, 03:30 PM

I deleted my post because I was posting something that the OP had already agreed on.

My main point is: I think that GOD has logical contradictions. Tell me the features a GOD has and I will either state that : a) The God you posted has logical contradictions or b) I dont consider that to be a GOD.

Also if you think the odds of God existence is 1*10^-100 then you are an atheist not an agnostic.( if you say that Im still an agnostic then we are discussing linguistic issues). I cant be 100% sure God doesnt exists because I accept that there is a small chance my logic reasoning is wrong.

aeest400 · #25 10-09-2006, 03:31 PM

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

[/ QUOTE ]

And the refutations you've received demonstrate that there is more than one way to play the game. You can't get from: the concept of god does not imply a logical contradiction to "being an atheist takes as much faith as being a theist." Though, like the idea of God, it's no doubt comforting to believe so.

madnak · #26 10-09-2006, 04:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
My main point is: I think that GOD has logical contradictions. Tell me the features a GOD has and I will either state that : a) The God you posted has logical contradictions or b) I dont consider that to be a GOD.

[/ QUOTE ]

So looking at the set of possible Gods that fits your definition of the term, each of them is internally inconsistent? Doesn't that mean that you've defined God based on inherently inconsistent terms?

Jonny5 · #27 10-09-2006, 04:16 PM

theism: the belief in a god or gods.
atheism: the absence of a belief in a god or gods.

They are contradicting viewpoints. You HAVE to be one or the other. The reasons why you are an atheist (or theist) is not relevant to whether you can call yourself an atheist (or theist).

aeest400 · #28 10-09-2006, 04:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My main point is: I think that GOD has logical contradictions. Tell me the features a GOD has and I will either state that : a) The God you posted has logical contradictions or b) I dont consider that to be a GOD.

[/ QUOTE ]

So looking at the set of possible Gods that fits your definition of the term, each of them is internally inconsistent? Doesn't that mean that you've defined God based on inherently inconsistent terms?

[/ QUOTE ]

Or to render god consistent, maybe you have to define him out of being "God." Either that, or this is the best of all possible worlds.

Piers · #29 10-09-2006, 04:27 PM

You are right of course; it’s logically invalid to assert that something really does not exist.

Or to put it another way, proof can only exist inside a model; mapping of a model to the real world is purely subjective. So we can only say, “if my model is an accurate reflection of reality A is true, and look my model appears to fit quite well, hence I will treat A as true.”

I don’t claim to be an atheist; I just do not have a meaning for the word God. So the word God and atheist are equally without meaning. Although I am perfectly willing to temporally use someone else’s definition.

aeest400 · #30 10-09-2006, 04:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You are right of course; it&#8217;s logically invalid to assert that something really does not exist.

Or to put it another way, proof can only exist inside a model; mapping of a model to the real world is purely subjective. So we can only say, &#8220;if my model is an accurate reflection of reality A is true, and look my model appears to fit quite well, hence I will treat A as true.&#8221;

I don&#8217;t claim to be an atheist; I just do not have a meaning for the word God. So the word God and atheist are equally without meaning. Although I am perfectly willing to temporally use someone else&#8217;s definition.

[/ 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.