tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2473166537823294555.post2755942395389098582..comments2023-11-02T06:04:23.552-04:00Comments on Back to the Drawing Board: Towards a Plausible AgnosticismDannyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14933199894935324897noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2473166537823294555.post-28847395717509710702009-02-06T13:54:00.000-05:002009-02-06T13:54:00.000-05:00Hi RWW, thanks for stopping by! If you wouldn't m...Hi RWW, thanks for stopping by! If you wouldn't mind, I would really love to hear more about your experience; it sounds like you have a very unique kind of perspective to add to this conversation.Dannyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14933199894935324897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2473166537823294555.post-43033032266144506102009-02-05T23:21:00.000-05:002009-02-05T23:21:00.000-05:00This whole debate seems to be grounded on the assu...This whole debate seems to be grounded on the assumption that belief in God is always derived from reasoning, rather than experience. I agree wholeheartedly that most theists have no solid logical reason to believe as they do, but nevertheless I am a theist because I have experienced God. He has spoken to me on a few occasions. Now, this doesn't mean my knowledge is perfect (for example, I have no way of verifying that I have been contacted by the omniscient creator of the Universe), but the being who has contacted me is godlike, at the very least.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2473166537823294555.post-56940683973754403802009-01-25T15:32:00.000-05:002009-01-25T15:32:00.000-05:00I am an atheist. God probably does not exist. Bu...I am an atheist. God probably does not exist. But, of course we can not prove that without a shadow of a doubt. You can call me a teapot atheist. God's existence is about as likely as the existence of a teapot orbitting Saturn. You can't prove it isn't there, but it probably isn't.Bryan W/a 'y'https://www.blogger.com/profile/13046634158745858766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2473166537823294555.post-71172666821823770742009-01-01T23:58:00.000-05:002009-01-01T23:58:00.000-05:00What if we redefine "omniscient" to mean "Knows wh...What if we redefine "omniscient" to mean "Knows what will happen to the physical universe without intervention, and can foresee the consequences of any intervention before He does it"? That way, God wouldn't have to possess knowledge of His own future, which is difficult of me to imagine being compatible with the nature of an acting being, without compromising the substantive aspects of omniscience as generally thought of by theists.Dannyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14933199894935324897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2473166537823294555.post-33447249986270912052009-01-01T23:43:00.000-05:002009-01-01T23:43:00.000-05:00What do you think of this argument?1- God is omnis...What do you think of this argument?<BR/><BR/>1- God is omniscient and omnipotent.<BR/>2- If god is omniscient, he knows the future with absolute certainty. Thus, he cannot change the future absolutely.<BR/>3- If god is omnipotent, he can change the future absolutely. Thus, he cannot know the future absolutely.<BR/>4- It is logically impossible to be both omniscient and omnipotent.<BR/>5- God cannot exist.<BR/><BR/>Of course, this doesn't preclude the existence of a god that isn't both omniscient and omnipotent.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16615367646825440024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2473166537823294555.post-12413077821726591582008-12-14T11:22:00.000-05:002008-12-14T11:22:00.000-05:00Hopefully the person with whom you're arguing! Go...Hopefully the person with whom you're arguing! Gotta minimize that collateral damage :-DDannyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14933199894935324897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2473166537823294555.post-78106184702284796762008-12-12T19:57:00.000-05:002008-12-12T19:57:00.000-05:00"(that is to say, I don't ever want to have to exp..."(that is to say, I don't ever want to have to explain my position on this again)."<BR/>Amen to that. I think the next time I have to argue about whether logic is an arbitrary assumption or not I'm going to punch someone in the throat.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2473166537823294555.post-22184072343971240852008-12-09T18:13:00.000-05:002008-12-09T18:13:00.000-05:00As you describe them, your position sounds pretty ...As you describe them, your position sounds pretty much like mine, but with a different name. Accordingly, I can't help but agree strongly :)Dannyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14933199894935324897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2473166537823294555.post-44884458972322362942008-12-09T17:40:00.000-05:002008-12-09T17:40:00.000-05:00Personally I don't like to associate myself with a...Personally I don't like to associate myself with any specific ideology or absolute belief, though I understand atheism would not be included as an absolute belief because it is the absence of belief (subtle, but significant difference). I accept that all religions and their gods/deities are <B>likely</B> false, but not with 100% certainty; I am not agnostic either. I prefer to align myself with the philosophy of fallibilism which argues that all claims of knowledge could be mistaken. It is not to be confused with skepticism, which implies an abandonment of knowledge, and is rather, quite the opposite: I admit that since knowledge can be revised by further observations, any of the things we accept as knowledge might possibly turn out to be false. Beliefs are dangerous; by simply making an attempt to understand things, and to realize that something can either be true, false or neither is a much more humbling and open-minded way to view the universe, in my opinion. I'd also like to add I understand that this philosophy overlaps with agnostic atheism, I just prefer not to label myself as so.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06379779612810771053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2473166537823294555.post-19640822152144167302008-12-07T14:17:00.000-05:002008-12-07T14:17:00.000-05:00James, you don't need to point out my logical fall...James, you don't need to point out my logical fallacies when I admit to committing them as I commit them. The bottom line is this: I honestly don't think that it's worth my time to try to disprove your arguments. That's not so much dishonest as it is economical. I'm sure you have a really interesting point of view, but the claims you're making are matters of metaphysics, and not physics. And I know enough about metaphysics to know that it's simply not possible for the laws of physics to entail the things you claim that they do. They're simply not the sort of thing that the laws of physics can entail. <BR/><BR/>But that's just an assertion, and I don't intend it as an argument. My point is, I know you're wrong, and I also know it would be a lot of work to find out exactly why and to convince you of it. So I'm choosing just to ignore your challenge. Sorry if that makes me a jerk; I just honestly don't care enough about exactly why the laws of physics don't entail Christianity to spend any considerable amount of time looking into the matter.Dannyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14933199894935324897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2473166537823294555.post-63260203478480848762008-12-07T14:06:00.000-05:002008-12-07T14:06:00.000-05:00Doubt is a Virtue, if I understand correctly, you'...Doubt is a Virtue, if I understand correctly, you're defining "weak atheist" in the same way that the linked article defined "negative atheism." Is that right? In that case, it just seems like there's some redundancy in terms. There's theism (a positive belief in God's existence), weak/negative atheism (a lack of a positive belief in God's existence or nonexistence), and positive atheism (a positive belief in God's nonexistence); is that right? <BR/><BR/>But then we have a term "agnostic," which I understand to mean "an assertion of a lack of the knowledge necessary to reasonably assert whether God exists or does not exist." Is that a serviceable definition? If so, then doesn't that simply mean the same thing as "weak/negative atheism?" Or is there some other reason that someone would want to be a weak/negative atheist besides lack of the requisite knowledge to choose one of the positive positions?<BR/><BR/>Further, isn't it sort of odd to describe a position in a debate as a negative position? That is, there are destructive debaters out there who refuse to take a position, and just attack other people's positions. But it seems like weak/negative atheism is not a destructive approach to the God debate; it's a position of its own. It's not like weak/negative atheists simply lack an opinion; they <I>have</I> an opinion, and that opinion is that they can't reasonably believe in God, but also can't say that He doesn't exist. But that sounds like agnosticism to me. No?Dannyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14933199894935324897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2473166537823294555.post-55682399568542357062008-12-07T12:25:00.000-05:002008-12-07T12:25:00.000-05:00Danny, your assertions are the logical fallacy of ...Danny, your assertions are the logical fallacy of bare assertion, as well as being factually untrue. While lacking knowledge about a subject is not itself an error, what is completely unsound is to have vociferous opinions on an issue while remaining in that state of ignorance.<BR/><BR/>As well, your behavior is also dishonest, Danny. You desire that God not exist and are not open to information demonstrating the contrary. That's your choice, but then don't waste honest people's time by engaging them in debates on the matter. The honest course for you would be to not talk about the matter since you are ignorant on it and are uninterested in learning about it.James Redfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11284915453745539533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2473166537823294555.post-56733212297356021382008-12-07T03:21:00.000-05:002008-12-07T03:21:00.000-05:00Danny, I'd highly suggest reading this:http://www....Danny, I'd highly suggest reading this:<BR/><BR/>http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/smithdef.htm<BR/><BR/>I think you've misunderstood the position that most atheists hold. We don't claim to know god doesn't exist. We only claim that god-belief is not tenable.<BR/><BR/>Your statement "I take it that "atheism" means the belief in the absence of a God." is not correct.<BR/><BR/>Yes, SOME atheists believe that, but not all. That is the difference between a strong/positive atheist, and a weak/negative atheist.<BR/><BR/>Strong atheists claim god can't exist, and you can take issue with them all you like.<BR/><BR/>But attacking their position does nothing to attack the position of the weak atheist, who only asserts a lack of god belief. Not a belief that god doesn't exist. For a well-reasoned explanation of why the definition needs to be that way, see my link above.<BR/><BR/>Also, agnosticism is not a half way point between the two.<BR/><BR/>You either have a god belief or you don't. Which makes you a theist or an atheist.<BR/><BR/>There are two varieties of agnosticism. <BR/><BR/>Huxley's version, which basically states that the question of god is unanswerable in principle is commonly known as PAP. Permanent agnosticism in principle.<BR/><BR/>The modern version, which basically states that the question is currently unknown, is known as TAP. Temporary agnosticism in principle.<BR/><BR/>No matter what your position is on that issue you are still either an atheist or a theist.<BR/><BR/>So one could be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. Of either agnostic variety.Doubt Is A Virtuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04829279246483269760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2473166537823294555.post-15887182806692341562008-12-07T00:58:00.000-05:002008-12-07T00:58:00.000-05:00James, I honestly don't have time to take a course...James, I honestly don't have time to take a course in physics in order to have this conversation with you. I am confident in simply asserting blindly that we don't know enough about physics to say things like "The laws of physics entail that God parted the Red Sea" or "The laws of physics entail that Jesus rose on the third day" or "The laws of physics entail that Paul was sent to convert the gentiles."<BR/><BR/>I'll further assert that the laws of physics do not entail that the choice of a conscious entity was responsible for the existence of the material universe. I'm not going to cite anything to back that claim up. I'm just going to say it.<BR/><BR/>So if the laws of physics don't entail that the choice of a conscious entity was responsible for the existing of the material universe, and if they don't entail that the content of the Christian account of history actually occurred, then I think I have a pretty good claim to saying that the laws of physics do not entail the truth of Christianity.Dannyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14933199894935324897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2473166537823294555.post-13811240669248109932008-12-06T23:23:00.000-05:002008-12-06T23:23:00.000-05:00Danny, you can't learn about such matters if you r...Danny, you can't learn about such matters if you refuse to read what was written. Go over the text of mine that you deleted very carefully. It's not that hard. Contained therein are links to articles available for free on Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory, including to peer-reviewed papers on it published in a number of the world's leading physics journals. I can't hold your hand and do your reading for you.James Redfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11284915453745539533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2473166537823294555.post-58644496987773410262008-12-06T21:47:00.000-05:002008-12-06T21:47:00.000-05:00It's not clear to me why you'd think that perceptu...It's not clear to me why you'd think that perceptual modalities can only come in the varieties possessed by humans, or even earth creatures. I mean, I agree that a God would need to be able to detect material events in order to fulfill some of the roles that would be needed to legitimately qualify as a God. But it's not as though eyes are the only way things can be perceived...it's not even as if we necessarily have the knowledge necessary to be able to conceive of every possible way that perception can occur.Dannyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14933199894935324897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2473166537823294555.post-43885526088892539292008-12-06T21:32:00.000-05:002008-12-06T21:32:00.000-05:00As a gnostic atheist, I have proof that an intelli...As a gnostic atheist, I have proof that an intelligent god, for certain, does not exist. <BR/><BR/>As you all may know, it is extremely unlikely for the human species to evolve into the apparence that resembles exactly like an anthropomorphic god. Just as it is common knowledge of the impossibility that extraterrestrial life would resemble like humans.<BR/><BR/>We will now argue that an intelligent god, for certain, do not exist.<BR/><BR/>Intelligence requires perceptual modalities, such as vision and spatiotemporal perception. However, god does not have any perceptual modalities, such as eyes, to see things. It is impossible for eyes to see through buildings. Therefore, god, for certain, does not exist. <BR/><BR/>Moral judgement requires perception and intelligence. Therefore a moral god also does not exist.Anarcho-Mercantilisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05536890545703938679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2473166537823294555.post-25459618218354959172008-12-06T20:58:00.000-05:002008-12-06T20:58:00.000-05:00James, it seems like you're suggesting that becaus...James, it seems like you're suggesting that because the material universe apparently had a temporal beginning, it somehow follows that God sent his only son to die for the sins of man? I just don't see how you make that jump.Dannyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14933199894935324897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2473166537823294555.post-39232592766298842912008-12-06T20:20:00.000-05:002008-12-06T20:20:00.000-05:00James, in order to avoid cluttering up this commen...James, in order to avoid cluttering up this comments section, I've reproduced below the portion of your comment which was original to this posting. As the rest of the comment is basically a repeat of your arguments elsewhere, I'm providing <A HREF="http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/5011.aspx" REL="nofollow">a link to your comments on the LvMI forum</A>.<BR/><BR/>-----------<BR/><BR/>Hi, Danny Shahar. Etymologically speaking, "atheism" means non-theism, i.e., lacking a belief in God. You're using the word atheism to mean antitheism, i.e, the extant belief that God doesn't exist, which seems to be the more common usage of this word.<BR/><BR/>You write, "The first reason that I find it unreasonable to be a theist is that there is no theistic position which is clearly the most plausible one." Actually, Christian theology is preferentially selected by the known laws of physics due to the fundamentally triune structure of the Omega Point cosmology and due to the universe having come into being a finite time in the past (i.e., creatio ex nihilo from the Big Bang singularity).<BR/><BR/>Regarding different cultures' take on religion, the ancients of course didn't have concepts pertaining to computer science, general relativity, quantum mechanics, etc. So they developed the concept of God using the intellectual tools they had available to them, including via revelation. They had knowledge of something real which they could not have more fully understood at the time (i.e., in the technical details).<BR/><BR/>Yet Christianity maintains that Jesus Christ is the second person of the divine trinity. If that belief in fact is correct, then he would be in a position to know far more about such matters, i.e., we would then expect Christianity to be more true than the other major religions. What the known laws of physics demonstrate is that Christian theology is more correct than the other religions.<BR/><BR/>But let's keep in mind what the major religions--Christianity, Islam, Judaism and Hinduism--have common agreement on: God exists, and God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. That is, God is infinite in power and mind, and is present everywhere it is possible to be. Furthermore, that God created the universe and everything in it. The known laws of physics demonstrates that this is correct.<BR/><BR/>"Faith" in the Christian sense means trust that God will fulfill his promises, i.e., that God is sane and just. It does not mean a lack of rationality in coming to belief in God. Indeed, Paul appealed to reason when he wrote in Romans 1:19,20 that an understanding of the natural world leads to knowledge of God. After all, some form of reason must be used in order for a person to convert in belief from one religion to another; or from any belief to another belief, for that matter. It can either be veridical reason, or false reason--but some process of reasoning must be involved.Dannyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14933199894935324897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2473166537823294555.post-10305113810184426212008-12-06T19:04:00.000-05:002008-12-06T19:04:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.James Redfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11284915453745539533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2473166537823294555.post-36398725584144337152008-12-06T17:03:00.000-05:002008-12-06T17:03:00.000-05:00You're going to have to elaborate a little bit...I...You're going to have to elaborate a little bit...<BR/><BR/>I take it that "atheism" means the belief in the absence of a God. The mere lack of belief in a God (without belief in His nonexistence) would seem to fall into the agnostic camp, no? I mean, you could say "agnostic non-theist" to describe that point of view, but the prefix "a-" in "atheist" suggests a stronger position.Dannyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14933199894935324897noreply@blogger.com