Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Christopher McGuire on May 29, 2010 at 4:24pm

Hahaha, cute, Sid.

Well, it's nice to know that someone cares enough to take notice of me. Even though you misconstrued my words quite admirably, I'd actually like to see how others are willing to be open-minded and ask me personally which part of this is really true or not.

Permalink Reply by Nelson on May 29, 2010 at 4:38pm

Christopher, which part of this is really true? ;)

Permalink Reply by Reggie on May 29, 2010 at 5:26pm

What Nelson asked.

Permalink Reply by Sid Knight on May 29, 2010 at 11:15pm

he implied that because it can not be proven to him on his terms that he knows for sure there is no god. but you can't say for sure there isn't you can only believe there isn't.

Permalink Reply by Sid Knight on May 29, 2010 at 11:26pm

Well, feel free to tell us all right here right now. Do you believe that since you have not been convinced that there IS a god that there can not be one what so ever and that you know this 100%

Explain your side exactly, as I did in this thread. I said that you can only believe there is no god, but can not know for sure that there isn't! Your proof is not enough to say for sure there isn't you can only be unconvinced there is.

Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on May 29, 2010 at 5:36pm

Christopher McGuire says that because someone can not prove there is a god that that is proof there is no god. He believes that his definition of "proof" is the only one and that any other is only opinion, but will not let you say the same about his. He assumes his way is right because he believes it.

It would be appreciated that you provide a direct quote for reference here. Otherwise, how do I know you aren't just putting words in his mouth?

Permalink Reply by Reggie on May 29, 2010 at 5:40pm

You can't know.

Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on May 29, 2010 at 5:45pm

So now we're talking about agnosticism?

Permalink Reply by Nelson on May 29, 2010 at 5:47pm

peripherally, yes.

Permalink Reply by Sid Knight on May 29, 2010 at 11:21pm

You can, not believe in a god or gods without knowing for sure 100% of that fact. But you can't be 100% sure of it without absolute proof and, unless I am unaware of some great discovery, there is no proof 100% that there is no such thing as any kind of god! You only can believe there is not. That is not exactly agnostic. Agnostic is not having been convinced but still open to the possibility that there might be. You have not lived long enough or been everywhere in the universe to be able to say for sure there is no such thing as a god! It is arrogant to assume because you have not been convinced so that it can't ever be!

Permalink Reply by Sid Knight on May 30, 2010 at 12:49am

Yet that is my point 99.99999% isn't 100% You can not say you KNOW for SURE there is no god or gods or has never been. You can only believe or not believe. How do we really know the Mayan gods didn't exist, I mean we still don't even know what happen to them. For all we know their gods took them. Saying you as a limited human know for sure that there is no such thing as a god is just arrogant and pompous! That is all my point. You really don't know, you just find it unlikely. But long ago many things were thought to be unlikely or even impossible but are now very possible. Our views of the world around us is changing every day. For all we know science may one day prove there is a god. LOL My only point is you can not say for sure that there is no god. You can only personally not believe there is. Since you were not alive in the Cro-Mag time you don't know their god didn't exist!

Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on May 30, 2010 at 1:50am

edit: sorry if my wording below is some what sloppy; my attention is somewhat divided at the moment.

That isn't what agnosticism is. There have been numerous threads on this site quite thoughtfully explaining what the term means. My joke pertains reggie's comment and what is, ultimately, the etymological root of 'agnostic'. Admittedly, it's not that funny of a joke.

As for your argument, there are semantic issues right from the start. Chiefly, what are we talking about when we say 'god' and what is meant by 'know'?

I don't find the way you use 'know' to be meaningful. Humans know things based on context and based on interactions with the natural universe. Based on 'x' we know 'y' to be true. Based on 'y' we no 'z' to be true. It's not necessarily a linear thing, but if we trace any such set of statements back to the original statement from which all others were reasoned, we should arrive at an axiom.

Is this sort of knowledge absolute? No, I suppose not, but it is highly functional. It allows us to use what we 'know' to make correct statements and predictions about the universe we live in.

When it comes to god, can I prove it doesn't exists? That depends on the god. Let us take Thor for example. Can I know that Thor does not exist as he has been defined? Yes, that would be possible. The mythology surrounding Thor makes claims about the natural world that are demonstrably false. We can also make a strong, evidence based case for Thor being anthropomorphic.

The same can be done with many gods showing us that they do not exists in the form that their adherents claim them to exist in. The creationist god of biblically literal Christianity is a prime example. He doesn't exist as he has been described. We can know this as much as we can know anything.

Now, can I know that no supernatural deities exist in any form whatsoever? No, but if they truly are supernatural I have absolutely no reason to concern myself with them one way or the other. I suppose I could view them as Schrödinger's deities, simultaneously existing and not existing from my perspective. So long as they remain in their supernatural box, there is no point in giving them any consideration.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page