The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation

[cowboy2579]

ok, i believe you guys. it should be simple to explain how it is reasonable for a person to hold these two statements simultaneously:

I cannot know whether X is true or false.
I know that X is true/false.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
ok, i believe you guys. it should be simple to explain how it is reasonable for a person to hold these two statements simultaneously:

I cannot know whether X is true or false.
I know that X is true/false.

[/ QUOTE ]Those aren't the two statements

I cannot know whether X is true or flase
I have/ do not have y belief about x.

Agnostic
I cannot know whether god exists or not.
Atheist
I am without the belief an any gods.

[cowboy2579]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So, a person can both believe that it is not possible to know something and believe that they do know it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Slowly -
A person believes it's not possible to know (agnostic), therefore they find it impossible to believe, therefore they are non-believers ..aka atheists ( when the topic is god/s ).

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll say this so that you can understand: 'slowly' has no bearing on an internet forum except to be condescending.

What is your education? You appear to be confortable assuming you know mine, so..?

[tame_deuces]

This is just semantics and trying to debate on definitions, and semantics is usually uninteresting in debate.

Atheism and agnosticism are both more than the terms you have outlined.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So if I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that you are less troubled by having a god who always existed than by a universe that always existed. Or...

By a god that sprang into being out of nowhere, than a universe which did so. Is this correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes that is correct. I do find both positions troubling though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. But why do you suppose an omnipotent, omniscient being is more likely? In other words, complicated things don't just pop into existence out of nowhere. Complicated things must evolve.

I'm genuinely curious, because just from your few posts I gather you are obviously a thinking person who is intelligent AND reasonable. You seem to accept evolution and logic in general. I'd like to know how we came to two different conclusions.

I agree first cause is a very perplexing issue and we may never know the answer. There might not even have been a first cause such as the big bang. Nevertheless, anything from a buildup of atoms, to multi-verses and extra dimensions seems much more reasonable to me than a supreme invisible being. So how did you arrive at a god is more likely, and me thinking almost anything else is more likely than a god (but only after seriously thinking about it)?

[cowboy2579]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ok, i believe you guys. it should be simple to explain how it is reasonable for a person to hold these two statements simultaneously:

I cannot know whether X is true or false.
I know that X is true/false.

[/ QUOTE ]Those aren't the two statements

I cannot know whether X is true or flase
I have/ do not have y belief about x.

Agnostic
I cannot know whether god exists or not.
Atheist
I am without the belief an any gods.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand your second statement:
I have/do not have y belief about x.

that can sprial out of control. can we say instead:
I do/do not believe statement x?

[mickeyg13]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So if I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that you are less troubled by having a god who always existed than by a universe that always existed. Or...

By a god that sprang into being out of nowhere, than a universe which did so. Is this correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes that is correct. I do find both positions troubling though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. But why do you suppose an omnipotent, omniscient being is more likely? In other words, complicated things don't just pop into existence out of nowhere. Complicated things must evolve.

I'm genuinely curious, because just from your few posts I gather you are obviously a thinking person who is intelligent AND reasonable. You seem to accept evolution and logic in general. I'd like to know how we came to two different conclusions.

I agree first cause is a very perplexing issue and we may never know the answer. There might not even have been a first cause such as the big bang. Nevertheless, anything from a buildup of atoms, to multi-verses and extra dimensions seems much more reasonable to me than a supreme invisible being. So how did you arrive at a god is more likely, and me thinking almost anything else is more likely than a god (but only after seriously thinking about it)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well first of all, I think that anyone (atheist, theist, agnostic, whatever) that spends enough time thinking about the subject should be very confused about the origin of the universe, first cause, or whatever you want to call it. I feel any answer any side provides is very inadequate and likely leads to more questions than answers. It seems so much more likely to me that nothing would exist than that something would exist. If I weren't so certain of my own existence, I would have concluded that the universe does not exist [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

I think it's pretty clear that science does not yet have a satisfying answer to this. However, I believe that this is fundamentally different from the types of questions science didn't have answers to in previous centuries. It seems to me that not only does science not presently have an explanation, but it is not possible for science to ever have an answer. Now many natural phenomena that were once explained merely by God have since been explained through science. One could criticize me by saying that this is another example, and that one day it will be explained. However, as I understand the problem and the limits of science, it seems it is fundamentally outside the reach of science. Maybe that's a bit naive of me to think, and maybe you think it's no different from a "God of the Gaps" argument used hundreds of years ago by someone who couldn't explain how the sun worked, I don't know.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Atheism and Agnostism are mutually exclusive. Atheism is a belief: a belief that there is no higher power. Agnosticism is a belief: a belief that a person cannot know if there is a higher power or not. You can't both definitively state that x does or does not exist and then say that it is impossible to know whether x exists or not. The two statements are mutually exclusive.

[/ QUOTE ]

As an atheist, would you accept my testimony that this is 100% incorrect? Would you accept maybe like the dictionaries or wikipedias testimony? Is there ANYONE who could convince you?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
ok, i believe you guys. it should be simple to explain how it is reasonable for a person to hold these two statements simultaneously:

I cannot know whether X is true or false.
I know that X is true/false.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your problem is the second one. The guy whose beliefs you are arguing with sounds like a tool, I wonder if he actually exists.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ok, i believe you guys. it should be simple to explain how it is reasonable for a person to hold these two statements simultaneously:

I cannot know whether X is true or false.
I know that X is true/false.

[/ QUOTE ]Those aren't the two statements

I cannot know whether X is true or flase
I have/ do not have y belief about x.

Agnostic
I cannot know whether god exists or not.
Atheist
I am without the belief an any gods.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand your second statement:
I have/do not have y belief about x.

that can sprial out of control. can we say instead:
I do/do not believe statement x?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, why not just say "I have a default position of disbelief for things which cannot impact reality or things which cannot give evidence." Then you dont have any of these problems you seem to be struggling with.