Why agnosticism?

[Darwin]

What do you think about it,agnosticism?
Using a dictionary definition,an agnostic would state that "the existence of a God cannot be either accepted or denied".I can see how one could have a problem with this definition though,and there appears to be variations of it.
Biologist Thomas Huxley,as a famous example of an agnostic,gave us the idea of "not being able to know",while "not necessarily believing" (these are not really direct quotes).
Where philosopher Herbert Spencer felt that there will be things outside of human mind´s reach,Darwin (probable agnostic) thought that the whole issue goes beyond one´s intellect.
So,I wonder,why agnosticism? I think there are agnostics lurking around to offer their thoughts.
In a way it appears that agnosticism has logical edge in that it it appears true that the issue we are dealing with is often untestable unless predictions are made (on this ground,we can perhaps,more easily put to rest a God or two) and in that a solid one.But why should one assume this position,why not simply disbelieve? As for me,I think fairly highly of agnosticism,but I find no reason to entertain it myself,so far.
Responses of all kinds are appreciated.Thank you.

[Hegel]

For me, I used to be an athiest (expressedly denied the existance of god). Now I'm not so sure.

In reality, agnosticism just fits in with my whole philosophy better. I'm trying not to believe in anything, because I feel that if I believe in something then I close my mind to other opions, and possibly correct ones. So in essence it comes down to a lack of belief either way. I don't believe god exists, I don't believe god doesn't exists, however I am willing to entertain either option at any given point of time.

That help?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Hegel
So in essence it comes down to a lack of belief either way. I don't believe god exists, I don't believe god doesn't exists, however I am willing to entertain either option at any given point of time.




What he said.

[c4ts]

I always thought agnosticism was a belief in some sort of abstract God that had nothing to do with what organized religions said about it. Well, I'm an idiot.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by c4ts
I always thought agnosticism was a belief in some sort of abstract God that had nothing to do with what organized religions said about it. Well, I'm an idiot. That's what I think Deism is.

The first part, not the being an idiot part.

That's fundamentalism.

[Darwin]

Deism:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
Agnosticism:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
Rather different.Some dictionary definitions can be very bad (well,at least as far atheism goes),I prefer these sources.

"That help?"

Sure.Everything goes.

[Marc]

there is a bit of mixed definition of terms. Sometimes the set of definitions people use is something like:

Atheists: make the postive statement god does not exist

Agnostic: non-existance of god cannot be proven, but do not accept the existance of a god either without any evidence


These are close to the dictionary definition. Atheism as defined above is a positive statement that cannot be proven, and can be derided as just as much a statement of faith as stating a god exists. It is also sometimes refered to as Hard Atheism. Agnostic as defined above is also sometimes refered to as Soft Atheims.

The other pair of definitions sometimes used:

Atheism: does not believe in the existance of a god (combination of hard and soft atheism)

Agnostic: does not know if a god exists or not, possibly considers it an unanswerable question


So by the first set I would be an agnostic, by the second set I'm an atheist. Then we can bring in comparisons like the Loch Ness Monster. We would say it doesn't exist, which is similar to the Hard Atheist statement on god. Technically you can't completely prove such a creature never existed, but we have no problem makeing this statement. So a person can say that if we are justified in makeing the postive statement Nessie doesn't exist, then we are also justified in makeing the positive statement god does not exist.

[EdipisReks]

i am an atheist, and i actively disbelieve in any god/gods due to the fact that there has never been any real evidence for the existance of a god/gods. however, this active disbelief does not mean that i wouldn't change my opinion if valid evidence for a god/gods was found. to me, agnosticism has always seemed silly. being an agnostic about god/gods is no less silly than being an agnostic about santa claus.

i once heard, and this might be pure anecdotal hogwash, that the term "agnosticism" was coined as a joke by some late 19th century wag making fun of the fact that the "inteligentsia" of the time had a need to label everything, whether it needed to be labeled or not. whether that story is correct or not, i have always thought it to be apt, as i don't really believe that agnosticism is a valid philosophical position. in modern times, agnosticim seems to be nothing more than a reaction to invalid negative connotations to atheism brought about by the more rabidly religious to discredit those they feel are their enemies.

[Titus Rivas]

I would like to comment on this issue from another angle, namely that of the internal coherence of the position of agnosticism.

I think it's very difficult to formulate a version of agnosticism that wouldn't contradict itself implicitly.

Here's the logical problem I have with agnosticism:
1. First of all, agnosticism is a position about the knowability of the existence of a theistic or deistic god, i.e. of a divine creator who has created the whole manifest universe and its laws, whether he's still involved in its historical development (theism) or not (deism).
1a. Agnosticism claims that it is apriori impossible to know if there's a creator or not.
2. The existence of a creator supposedly would make a lot of difference, even all the difference "in the world" ;), for the structure of manifest reality.
2a. A world created by a divinity would have to be fundamentally different from a uncreated world.
3. If an uncreated world differs from a created world, it should in principle be possible to know if the world is created or not.
4. Thus, agnosticism claims that it is apriori impossible to know if there is a creator, whereas the very concept of a creator implies that his existence can in principle be known.

You may think you can save agnosticism from this incoherence by redefining the concept of a creator. A creator would be redefined as a being that makes no difference for reality and that's why he can't be known. However, that definition of a creator is clearly absurd, as creating the world and its laws makes all the difference one can imagine. A real creator who is nothing but "a superfluous hypothesis" for our understanding of the world simply makes no sense.

Agnosticism is about a creator as commonly understood by atheism and theism.

Please note that we're talking here about agnosticism in the non-trivial sense (we can't know if there is a god or not), not in the trivial sense which translates as "I just don't know if there is a god".

Perhaps the least incoherent form of agnosticism is a form of complete anti-rationalist epistemic skepticism or irrationalism, which simply claims we cannot know anything. However, even that form would be incoherent, as we would supposedly be able to know its truth.

Any comments?

Titus

For readers who understand Dutch (http://members.lycos.nl/Kritisch/index-52.html)

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Titus said:2. The existence of a creator supposedly would make a lot of difference, even all the difference "in the world" , for the structure of manifest reality.
Perhaps, but how do we know what those differences are?

~~ Paul

[Titus Rivas]

Hi Paul,

Perhaps, but how do we know what those differences are?
I have no exact recipe, but then again my argument is aimed against agnosticism, rather than an argument for atheism or theism.

In general, if the world is created by an intelligent creator, it should show in the structure of its laws, etc. Clever theoretical scientists should in principle be able to predict aspects of the way the world is structured that would follow from a theist or an atheist scenario. Again, if there's a creator he (just a grammatical gender ;)) should leave a mark in his creation.


Titus

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Well, I guess the Creationists would agree with you, since they think they've found the evidence. I remain agnostic, or perhaps I should say, anagnostic. :D

~~ Paul

[Titus Rivas]

Well, I guess the Creationists would agree with you, since they think they've found the evidence.Yep, but so would the atheists. Note that my point is about the apriori, in principle knowability of the existence of a creator. If there is a creator, then he should be in principle knowable. Even if this in principle knowability would never lead to knowledge in practice. In other words, even if agnosticism in the trivial sense were true.

I remain agnostic, or perhaps I should say, anagnostic You should say so perhaps, but not write, as it certainly means something else :)

Unless you're just referring to your surname of course.

Titus

[Franko]

”Darwin” asked:
What do you think about it, agnosticism?

Agnosticism = The existence of “God” is unknown, or there is not enough information to make a definite conclusion regarding the existence of “God”.

I would say that Agnosticism is a logically consistent, realistic, and skeptical position to hold.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

I'm inclined to agree with Titus on this one. In fact, I think there is an even simpler, and more air-tight proof.

If we define agnosticism to be the belief that the existence of God is unknowable, we can make the following deductions:

1) If the existence of God truly is unknowable, then it necessarily follows that the knowability of the existence of God, is also unknowable. In other words, if it is impossible to know whether God exists or not, then it is also impossible to know whether it is possible to know whether God exists or not.

2) This means that a person who claims that the existence/non-existence of God is unknowable, is claiming to know something which is unknowable.

Of course, this only applies if you define agnosticism to be the claim that the existence of God is unknowable. If you define it to be lack of knowledge of God's existence, as most modern agnostics do, then this argument is not applicable.


Dr. Stupid

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Titus said:You should say so perhaps, but not write, as it certainly means something else.
Well, let's see. Since agnosticism has been co-opted to refer to knowledge of god, I'll co-opt anagnosticism to refer to knowledge of ice cream, and I'm definitely on top of the ice cream situation.

Stimpy, here's what you said:

1. If it is impossible to know whether god exists

2. Then it is impossible to know whether it is possible to know

3. Therefore a person claiming to know whether god exists is claiming something unknowable

But statement 2 is only true if statement 1 is true, so statement 3 is paradoxical.

~~ Paul

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Paul,

Stimpy, here's what you said:

1. If it is impossible to know whether god exists

2. Then it is impossible to know whether it is possible to know

3. Therefore a person claiming to know whether god exists is claiming something unknowable

But statement 2 is only true if statement 1 is true, so statement 3 is paradoxical.

Actually, number 3 should read:

3. Therefore a person claiming to know that the existence of God is unknowable, is claiming to know something which is unknowable.


Dr. Stupid

[uruk]

I could be wrong about this but it is possible to know that something is unknowable. Take Hiesenberg's uncertianty principal. We can not know both the the velocity and position of a particle or system with any arbitraty degree of precision. Therefore we know that this is unknowable.

Also, a black hole, we will never know for sure what goes on in the singularity because no information can ever get out. Again
we know this info is unknowable.

Since all we ever will know exists in this universe, we can never know what exists (if anything) outside this universe, or before, or after. So I would suppose that agnostics believe that God exists outside this universe, so therefore unknowable.

You can know something about something that is unknowable because you can know what it is not. We can know that it is not knowable. So there:p

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by uruk
I could be wrong about this but it is possible to know that something is unknowable. Take Hiesenberg's uncertianty principal. We can not know both the the velocity and position of a particle or system with any arbitraty degree of precision. Therefore we know that this is unknowable.

Also, a black hole, we will never know for sure what goes on in the singularity because no information can ever get out. Again
we know this info is unknowable.



those aren't very good examples, as they are simply situations where we are constrained by our technology and our current grasp of physics. they aren't truly unknowable.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Oops, you're right, Stimpson:

1. If it is impossible to know whether god exists

2. Then it is impossible to know whether it is possible to know

3. Therefore a person claiming to know that the existence of God is unknowable, is claiming to know something which is unknowable.

But statement 3 is only true if statement 2 is true, and statement 2's truth means that statement 1 is true. Statement 3 is still paradoxical, no?

Of course, implication tells us nothing about the truth of statement 2 when statement 1 is false, so perhaps 1 is false but 2 is true.

Uruk brings up an interesting point. Why does statement 1 imply statement 2?

~~ Paul

[SFB]

Originally posted by uruk
I could be wrong about this but it is possible to know that something is unknowable. Take Hiesenberg's uncertianty principal. We can not know both the the velocity and position of a particle or system with any arbitraty degree of precision. Therefore we know that this is unknowable.

Also, a black hole, we will never know for sure what goes on in the singularity because no information can ever get out. Again
we know this info is unknowable.

Since all we ever will know exists in this universe, we can never know what exists (if anything) outside this universe, or before, or after. So I would suppose that agnostics believe that God exists outside this universe, so therefore unknowable.

You can know something about something that is unknowable because you can know what it is not. We can know that it is not knowable. So there:p

Philosophy Aside, again, there is no evidence for god[s], yet plenty we don't know about science. Why bank on the side of no evidence??????

I'll tell ya why: social pressure, family pressure, history, society, tradition, folklore, human nature........................................

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Paul,

Uruk brings up an interesting point. Why does statement 1 imply statement 2?

Perhaps I should have provided the logic connecting step 1 to step 2. I can see now that it is not quite as obvious as I thought it was.

If the existence of God is truly unknowable, then this implies that one of two possibilities is true:

1) God does not exist. If this is the case, then his existence is unknowable, because you can never prove that he does not exist.

2) God does exist, but does not interact with the Universe in any way. As Uruk put it, he exists outside the universe.

So which of the above is the agnostic claiming?

If he is claiming the first, then he is claiming to know that God does not exist. That is a contradiction, since he also claims this is unknowable.

If he is claiming the second, then he is claiming to know that God does exist, which is also a contradiction, for the same reason.

If he is claiming that one or the other of those two is true, but that he does not know which, then he is claiming that if god exists, then he doesn't interact with the universe. But this, too, is unknowable, for exactly the same reason that it is impossible to know that god does not exist. It is always possible that God does interact with the universe, and that you have just not seen or recognized the effects.

So no matter which way you slice it, the agnostic must be claiming to know something which, if it were true, would be unknowable.


Dr. Stupid

[Renfield]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Titus said:


1. If it is impossible to know whether god exists

2. Then it is impossible to know whether it is possible to know

~~ Paul

I'm with Paul. I don't see how the second statement follows from the first. Why can't you know whether something is unknowable? You say this is so, but what is your reasoning?

[Renfield]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
Paul,




1) God does not exist. If this is the case, then his existence is unknowable, because you can never prove that he does not exist.

2) God does exist, but does not interact with the Universe in any way. As Uruk put it, he exists outside the universe.

.


Dr. Stupid

These are not the only two possibilities. Actually, neither of them is a possibility, since an agnostic claims no knowledge either way. Agnostics simply think that - based on the current evidence - we cannot say with any certainty whether or not God exists. I don't see anything contradictery in this kind of statement at all.

And I still don't see how this justifies your previous statements about knowing whether something is unknowable, etc etc.

[hammegk]

Slightly revising Franco's earlier comments:

Agnosticism = there is not enough information to make a definite conclusion regarding the existence of “God”.

Some definitions of god fare better than others, imo. That is, for a given "god" I may hold the "99.999% certain does not exist" position, but remain agnostic.

I also would say that Agnosticism is a logically consistent, realistic, and skeptical position to hold. Of course, idealists & dualists have less problems here than materialists (or whatever they now call themselves -- naturalists, maybe?).


Er, my agnosticism also extends to the question of "knowability". ;)

[MoeFaux]

I think it's a cop-out. Just make up your mind.

I like the new term, "Bright", but I won't refer to myself as such around people I don't know, because it's just too wishy-washy; it includes everything.

I am an atheist. It's not a matter of beleif, it's a matter of fact. There is no god.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Renfield,

I'm with Paul. I don't see how the second statement follows from the first. Why can't you know whether something is unknowable? You say this is so, but what is your reasoning?

On the contrary. I would not claim that it is true in general that it is impossible to know whether some fact is unknowable. I have explained why I think it is clearly true in this specific case.

1) God does not exist. If this is the case, then his existence is unknowable, because you can never prove that he does not exist.

2) God does exist, but does not interact with the Universe in any way. As Uruk put it, he exists outside the universe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These are not the only two possibilities. Actually, neither of them is a possibility, since an agnostic claims no knowledge either way. Agnostics simply think that - based on the current evidence - we cannot say with any certainty whether or not God exists. I don't see anything contradictery in this kind of statement at all.

I am afraid you misunderstood my argument. I am quite aware that most agnostics mean by the term only that they lack knowledge of the existence of God. I myself consider myself an agnostic, and that is exactly what I mean by the term when I say that I am one.

My entire point was that if you define agnosticism to be not just lack of knowledge of the existence of God, but also the position that the existence of God is, in principle, unknowable, then there is a problem.

I don't define it that way. Apparently neither do you. Good for us.


Dr. Stupid

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by MoeFaux
It's not a matter of beleif, it's a matter of fact. There is no god.

That's quite a claim, can you back that up with evidence. I mean, you're certainly making a positive claim here, a claim to have facts that show there is no god. Please present them.

It is a matter of belief, if you're rational about it.

Adam

[MoeFaux]

Originally posted by slimshady2357


That's quite a claim, can you back that up with evidence. I mean, you're certainly making a positive claim here, a claim to have facts that show there is no god. Please present them.

It is a matter of belief, if you're rational about it.

Adam

It's my opinion that it's a fact. So, we can file it under "Opinion", but, to me it's a fact.
I can't think of any evidence to back up a god, but I can think of plenty of evidence to back up evolution, i.e. Darwin's finches, all kinds of archeological discoveries of pre-human skulls, etc.

You are right, though, it is my opinion. That evidence could be taken any way. Even the pope has said that evolution could be the way the world was created, and there's plenty of Believers who say evolution is correct.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

MoeFaux,

It's my opinion that it's a fact. So, we can file it under "Opinion", but, to me it's a fact.

Since when are facts a matter of opinion?

Dr. Stupid

[MoeFaux]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
MoeFaux,



Since when are facts a matter of opinion?

Dr. Stupid

When it's mine. :D

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Stimpy, isn't there a third option, in addition to:
1) God does not exist. If this is the case, then his existence is unknowable, because you can never prove that he does not exist.

2) God does exist, but does not interact with the Universe in any way. As Uruk put it, he exists outside the universe.
3) God does exist, but he interacts with the Universe through a magical means that will always appear to be entirely natural.

Oh wait, never mind. :D

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Stimpy, why does this original formulation appear to be paradoxical? Is my brain malfunctioning?
1. If it is impossible to know whether god exists

2. Then it is impossible to know whether it is possible to know

3. Therefore a person claiming to know that the existence of God is unknowable, is claiming to know something which is unknowable.

~~ Paul

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by Titus Rivas
The existence of a creator supposedly would make a lot of difference, even all the difference "in the world", for the structure of manifest reality. ... A world created by a divinity would have to be fundamentally different from a uncreated world.
I suggest that there is zero reason/evidence for such a claim. Certainly none has been offered.

There is, in my opinion, a difference between what is knowable and what warrants belief. Agnosticism speaks to the former; atheism to the latter. Huxley's agnosticism was cleanly defined by Huxley himself: Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle. Positively, the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, follow your reason as far as it can take you without other considerations. And negatively, in matters of the intellect, do not pretend that matters are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable. This impresses me as little more than an early expression of methodological naturalism. For example:In contrasting the Western religions with science, the most important vriterion of distinction is that the supernatural or spiritual realm is unknowable ... Given this fiat by the theistic believers, science simply ignores the supernatural as being outside the scope of scientific inquiry. Scientists in effect are saying: You religious believers set up your postulates as truths, and we take you at your word. By definition, you render your beliefs unassailable and unavailable.This attitude is not one of surrender, but simply an expression of the logical impossibility of proving the existence of something about which nothing can possibly be known through scientific investigation.

- Understanding Science: An Introduction to Concepts and Issues by Arthur N. StrahlerI suggest that many if not most atheists are agnonostics. As for "A world created by a divinity would have to be fundamentally different from a uncreated world.", perhaps the best response is " do not pretend that matters are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable".

[Titus Rivas]

Hi Reasonable Doubt,

You're probably right that not all real supernatural beings would have to be knowable for us humans. You might compare this to say hypothetical parallel universes of a kind that would never interact with ours.

However, agnosticism is not simply talking about the knowability of the existence of ANY supernatural being, but specifically of the existence of the supposed creator of this world we inhabit. My point is that such a creator is not the kind of being whose existence would be in principle unknowable.

So I claim that a priori unknowability is at odds with the definition of a creator, and that therefore the theory of non-trivial agnosticism is incoherent.

Please note that I'm not talking about what I see as trivial agnosticism which may have such meanings as "I actually don't know whether there is a God", "so far there haven't been any conclusive arguments for or against the existence of a god", etc.

A non-trivial agnostic is someone with an interesting, but incoherent view.

A trivial agnostic is simply someone who has reasons to believe it is as yet impossible to decide if theism (or deism) or atheism is right.

I'm talking about the implicit claim that the existence of a creator would make no difference for reality, i.e. that reality would be completely identical if it is created or if it is not created. This is does not at all imply that I would claim we already know whether atheism or theism is right, but simply that agnosticism is wrong, as it is incoherent that the existence or non-existence of a creator would in principle be indeterminable from arguments founded on reality. So my rejection of non-trivial agnosticism is in principle reconcilible with a trivial agnostic stand on this issue ;).

Titus

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Paul,

Stimpy, why does this original formulation appear to be paradoxical? Is my brain malfunctioning?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. If it is impossible to know whether god exists

2. Then it is impossible to know whether it is possible to know

3. Therefore a person claiming to know that the existence of God is unknowable, is claiming to know something which is unknowable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I don't know. It doesn't seem paradoxical to me. Could the problem be that (3) seems somewhat counterintuitive? We would not normally think that claiming that something is unknowable is a claim of knowledge. But in this case, that is exactly what it is.

Here is another way to think about it. Let's define God1 to mean any conception of God. Let's define God2 to mean only those conceptions of God in which God interacts with the world in some potentially observable way.

Now, to claim to know that the existence of a God1 is unknowable, is to claim know that no sort of God2 exists.

But if this is true, if no sort of God2 does exist, then it is impossible to know this, because it is impossible to prove that such a God does not exist. It is always possible that such a God does exist, and that we simply have not identified any of his interactions yet.

Therefore the claimant must claim to know something which, if he is right, is unknowable.

In other words, nobody can claim to know that an interacting Deity does not exist, but that is exactly what you must do, in order to claim that the existence of any sort of Deity is unknowable.


Dr. Stupid

[evildave]

Why agnosticism?

"I don't know, and I don't care."

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by Titus Rivas
My point is that such a creator is not the kind of being whose existence would be in principle unknowable.
Nor is it the "kind of being whose existence would be in principle knowable". Unless you can demonstrate a methodology (protocol) capable of providing verifiable information about the supernatural, you've managed to say essentially nothing.

[triadboy]

As to the moronic Gods of the OT and NT - I am atheistic. That much I'm sure of.

Was there a creative force that motivated existence?

I can conclude there being one and I can conclude there not being one. On this and this alone - I'm agnostic.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by slimshady2357
That's quite a claim, can you back that up with evidence. I mean, you're certainly making a positive claim here, a claim to have facts that show there is no god. Please present them.
There are lots and lots of different kinds of science, they all work soundly with one another. With them, you can easily see how the world could have come the way it has without any aid from God.

Also, usually the best way to prove somethings nonexistence is to prove that it cannot logically exist. There are other ways to go about this, but just for the purposes of time, I'll use the famous Arguement from Evil (copied and pasted from the internet, it can be found pretty much all over the place):
1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
5. Evil exists.
6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil.
7. Therefore, God doesn't exist.

Premise 5 is what makes the contradiction. Premises 1 through 6 do logically (and validly) imply Conclusion 7.

Of course, the usual way people try to go about "refuting" the Arguement from Evil is by claiming that Evil doesnt exist objectively... no s**t, but evil exists when someone's actions conflict with the teachings of Jesus Christ (refusing to turn the other cheek by hauling off and coldcocking someone would be evil). Another way is to suggest that "evil is relative to the observer, what is evil to me might not be evil to you", of course use the same Teaching's of Jesus counter and the Evil is Relative remark becomes irrelevant.

As brought up in another thread, if we "started from scratch" and began science all over again, we would have the the same science as we did before, now try that with religion.

There you go, the world of science sees no need for god, God cannot logically exist using the Arguement from Evil, and the nature of Christianity is as best on shaky grounds. It is perfectly reasonable to say "I know God does not exist".

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by Yahweh

There are lots and lots of different kinds of science, they all work soundly with one another. With them, you can easily see how the world could have come the way it has without any aid from God.

Also, usually the best way to prove somethings nonexistence is to prove that it cannot logically exist. There are other ways to go about this, but just for the purposes of time, I'll use the famous Arguement from Evil (copied and pasted from the internet, it can be found pretty much all over the place):
1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
5. Evil exists.
6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil.
7. Therefore, God doesn't exist.

Premise 5 is what makes the contradiction. Premises 1 through 6 do logically (and validly) imply Conclusion 7.

Of course, the usual way people try to go about "refuting" the Arguement from Evil is by claiming that Evil doesnt exist objectively... no s**t, but evil exists when someone's actions conflict with the teachings of Jesus Christ (refusing to turn the other cheek by hauling off and coldcocking someone would be evil). Another way is to suggest that "evil is relative to the observer, what is evil to me might not be evil to you", of course use the same Teaching's of Jesus counter and the Evil is Relative remark becomes irrelevant.

As brought up in another thread, if we "started from scratch" and began science all over again, we would have the the same science as we did before, now try that with religion.

There you go, the world of science sees no need for god, God cannot logically exist using the Arguement from Evil, and the nature of Christianity is as best on shaky grounds. It is perfectly reasonable to say "I know God does not exist".

The arguement from evil at best invalidates an omnibenevolent god and really can't even do that. There is no logical argument that is going to show the nonexistence of God. Read Leibniz, this is the best of all possible worlds ;)

And the fact that science would evolve the same way means nothing, especially to an agnostic. :rolleyes:

He already believes that the existence (and I would say nature) of God is unknowable, so not having religion pin it down means not much at all.

And it is perfectly reasonable to not believe in any God, however it is not perfectly reasonable to say "I know God does not exist", as you do not have the facts to support 'know' in that sentence.

Adam

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by slimshady2357
The arguement from evil at best invalidates an omnibenevolent god and really can't even do that. There is no logical argument that is going to show the nonexistence of God. Read Leibniz, this is the best of all possible worlds ;)
There are other Arguements from Whatever, the point was what I stated earlier: The easiest way to prove something does not exist is to show how it cannot logically exist.

And the fact that science would evolve the same way means nothing, especially to an agnostic. :rolleyes:
"That's quite a claim, can you back that up with evidence. I mean, you're certainly making a positive claim here, a claim to have facts that show" science evolving the same means nothing to an agnostic. "Please present them."

(Sorry to be patronizing...)

He already believes that the existence (and I would say nature) of God is unknowable, so not having religion pin it down means not much at all.

And it is perfectly reasonable to not believe in any God, however it is not perfectly reasonable to say "I know God does not exist", as you do not have the facts to support 'know' in that sentence.[/B]
Just semantics, it depends on how you define "know".

[Titus Rivas]

Reasonable Doubt, Nor is it the "kind of being whose existence would be in principle knowable".

Well, my point is precisely that a creator is the one thing which would have to in principle be more knowable than anything else. If anythings is knowable, then certainly a creator is. That follows from the definition of a creator.

Titus

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by Titus Rivas
Well, my point is precisely that a creator is the one thing which would have to in principle be more knowable than anything else. If anythings is knowable, then certainly a creator is. That follows from the definition of a creator. Absolute rubbish. I understand that this is your point. I also understand that, despite your near religious insistence, you've offered absolutely no basis for it.

There exists a method, methodological naturalism, by which we come to "know" more and more about our surroundings. I know of no methodological supernaturalism, no method by which we may come to "know" more and more about the supernatural save one, and that 'method' is revelation: the claim that my guru/fantasy is better than your guru/fantasy because my guru/fantasy says so.

So, rather than telling us how something is "in principle ... more knowable than anything else" (whatever the hell that means), why not simply tell is what protocols you would employ to gain verifiable knowledge about it.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt

There exists a method, methodological naturalism, by which we come to "know" more and more about our surroundings. I know of no methodological supernaturalism...
The same problem an idealist has with dualism; i.e. nothing can exist "supernaturally".

However, a question, basically with regards to "psi" claims -- to date 100% anecdotal SFAIK -- yet in significant number.

If the sum total of, say, electrons available for study had never exceded a few billion, would qm/qed/etc have had the statistics necessary to be formulated? I make no claim one way or the other, but note that for individual "wavicles" no predicability exists in the sense, once it happened, p=1. Hmm, does that make sense?

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by hammegk

... nothing can exist "supernaturally". Unknown.

Originally posted by hammegk

However, a question, ... I sure hope that you're not asking me, because I haven't a clue what you're talking about. Sorry.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by hammegk
If the sum total of, say, electrons available for study had never exceded a few billion, would qm/qed/etc have had the statistics necessary to be formulated? I make no claim one way or the other, but note that for individual "wavicles" no predicability exists in the sense, once it happened, p=1. Hmm, does that make sense?
[Yahweh smiles, shakes head "No"]

[espritch]

To traditional theists (Christians, Islamists, etc.) it doesn't really matter wether you are an atheist or an agnostic: you're still going to hell.

On the other hand, atheists aren't going to conduct their lives in an appreciably different way from agnostics (neither group is likely to spend much time in church). So if it doesn't make any difference, what really is the point of debating the distinction?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Yahweh

[Yahweh smiles, shakes head "No"]
At least you didn't provide an irrelevant link or 2. ;)

BTW, Yahweh the original might understand the question -- or at least ask for clarification -- before the answer. Somehow I don't have you in that league.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by espritch
To traditional theists (Christians, Islamists, etc.) it doesn't really matter wether you are an atheist or an agnostic: you're still going to hell.

On the other hand, atheists aren't going to conduct their lives in an appreciably different way from agnostic (neither group is likely to spend much time in church). So if it doesn't make any difference, what really is the point of debating the distinction?
Its the same distinction we use when we debate the difference between a Democrat and a Republican. Both will run the country just fine, none any better than the other, yada yada yada.

Its important to debate the distinction because an Atheism is not the same as Agnosticism.

Atheism: I have no religious beliefs.
Agnosticism: I dont know, I cant decide if god exists or not.

I know I certainly dont like it when Christians tell me something like "There is either a God, or there isnt, why should we debate about it". I've never been one to leave over-reduced conclusions "as is"...

[Titus Rivas]

Reasonable Doubt,

You've completely missed my point.
Never mind.

Titus

[Templar]

What I believe we need for this argument are some definitions.

The Unknowable: It is, of course possible to know that something is unknowable maybe adding... "under current, existing circumstances." We can simply put it this way: "We currently have neither the knowledge or technology to prove or disprove the existence of something we might define as a god." If a satellite landed in the midst of a group of Masai tribesmen (previous to their introduction to Western civilization) they would not know what it was or have the capacity to learn what it was.

Perception: I do feel that there probably is more going on than we've managed to hammer out so far with our laws of physics and biology but I also believe that it can be proven by preponderance of the evidence that all of the world's religions are mythology. I would be defined as an agnostic but instead I choose to call myself an atheist for the following reasons. The term "agnostic" seems wishy-washy and undecided whereas "atheist" immediately presents a strong point of view. Also when Christians hear the term "agnostic" they assume that you haven't made up your mind about Jehovah; I have, he doesn't exist.

God: Is God Unknowable? Well I guess the question is - "What is God?" If our civilization manages to bump into a civilization thousands of years in advance of ours could we call them gods? How about a God like Azathoth who simply sits at the center of the universe mindlessly spitting out the fundamentals of life? I contend that it is only pertinent to prove the existence of a known God - it is really irrelevant (right now) whether Azathoth, Superalien or the Star Trek Voyager Probe is real. I believe that if you define "God" as Jehovah, the God of the Hebrews than I think it is possible to disprove its existence.

Theists: One quick side note - when an atheist debates a theist invariably the theist will point to our enormous universe asking "You can't possibly believe that in this great expanse of billions of light years there isn't something greater than us." My answer is - "I don't know but, oh... Jehovah certainly doesn't exist!"

Well - that's my 2 cents worth.

John Templar - Agn... Atheist.

[uruk]

Gods of religion are easy to disprove because they are man made
and self contradictory.

but on the other hand a god doesn't have to obey our preconcieved notions.

on the other hand (the third hand)

God is perfection
there is no such thing as perfection.
therefore there is no such thing as god.

on the forth hand look at the second hand.

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by Titus Rivas
Reasonable Doubt, You've completely missed my point.

No. You wrote: "Well, my point is precisely that a creator is the one thing which would have to in principle be more knowable than anything else." What I "completely missed" was any justification for the claim.

Originally posted by Titus Rivas
Never mind.
As you wish.

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by Yahweh
[B]
"That's quite a claim, can you back that up with evidence. I mean, you're certainly making a positive claim here, a claim to have facts that show" science evolving the same means nothing to an agnostic. "Please present them."

(Sorry to be patronizing...)

I did, did you not read the next line? You said that the fact that science would evolve the same and religion wouldn't mattered. But to an agnostic God is unknowable, therefore you would expect religion to evolve in various ways, because they're talking about something they don't know about. Science is knowable, it should turn out the same.

Just semantics, it depends on how you define "know".

Yes, I agree, if you define 'know' in a trivial manner, you'll be able to 'know' God does not exist :rolleyes:

Adam

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by Yahweh

Agnosticism: I dont know, I cant decide if god exists or not.
Did you read the Huxley quote presented earlier in the thread? Certainly your definition of agnosticism is a poor paraphrase/summary of that quote.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt

Did you read the Huxley quote presented earlier in the thread? Certainly your definition of agnosticism is a poor paraphrase/summary of that quote.
Sometimes I go through a thread quickly, this time I didnt happen to read the Huxley quote, I just answered a question presenting my opinion (I made no attempt to paraphrase a quote which I did not read).

I'm not the type of person who gets his rocks off by playing Definitions all day, I find it very inconvenient and annoying to nitpick which definition is good/bad/better/poor/etc.

However, I am the type of person who likes to cram things into a nutshell, it usually gets the point across much more quickly and succintly.

It should also be noted that when determining the definition of some words (in this case, words with religious significance), it is very difficult to nail down a single definite all-powerful definition. Its usually easier to think "The word agnostic is defined as, but not limited to, blah blah blah...". As it says in my signature, lets try not to throw common sense out the window.

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by uruk
Gods of religion are easy to disprove because they are man made
No. That does not disprove God(s). It simply shows that not all god-constructs can be correct.

Originally posted by uruk
God is perfection
there is no such thing as perfection.
therefore there is no such thing as god. God is perfection.
Who made up that rule? You? In fact, most Gods worshipped throughout the history of our species were not. Your building a strawman/ there is no such thing as perfection
What a remarkable claim. Prove it. You indirectly assert that which is at issue. At best, your 'argument' is reducible to: 'perfection is impossible because there is no possible perfection.' You now have a strawman living in a house of cards. therefore there is no such thing as god
with all due respect, there is no there in your "therefore".

Originally posted by uruk
on the forth hand look at the second hand.
With all those hands, you have shown yourself to be, in this instance, remarkably unhandy at making a case.

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by Yahweh

As it says in my signature, lets try not to throw common sense out the window. You insist: Its important to debate the distinction because an Atheism is not the same as Agnosticism., and I'm not the type of person who gets his rocks off by playing Definitions all day, I find it very inconvenient.
You then present a caricature of agnosticism when compared to that of the originator of the term. Apparently, your offering is very important, while all responses are preordained as nitpicking. This, you no doubt find 'very convenient'.

Perhaps it would be best if you do not presume to be the arbiter of common sense.

[Yahweh]

I see you managed to seperate the things I said into points.

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
You insist: Its important to debate the distinction because an Atheism is not the same as Agnosticism.,
Obviously. I'm sure other people might say the same thing if the words Atheism and Agnosticism were replaced with Christianity and Islam.

and I'm not the type of person who gets his rocks off by playing Definitions all day, I find it very inconvenient.
You then present a caricature of agnosticism when compared to that of the originator of the term. Apparently, your offering is very important, while all responses are preordained as nitpicking. This, you no doubt find 'very convenient'.
Wow, it almost looks like "contradiction" in what I said. I maintain Atheism and Agnosticism are not the same, yet I dont like nitpick definitions... I'm a scoundrel.

I dont know why I am taking the time out of my day to describe this, but since you appear to be confused, I'll make some time to clarify:
Atheism and Agnosticism are not the same.

I dont like to nitpick definitions. For instance, when I say "I think Agnosticism could be described as 'I dont know if God exists or not', I dont like to have a debate scratching at every possible definition, every possible iteration. "Agnosticism means you are undecided if God exists", "nuh-uh, it means you dont know god exists, thats not the same as 'undecided'", "wrong, it means God might exist, or he might not"...

Nitpicking, its inconvenient. I dont consider making the claim "Atheism is not the same as Agnosticism" as nitpicking.

Does that clear anything up?

Perhaps it would be best if you do not presume to be the arbiter of common sense.
Perhaps it would be best if you closed your eyes, pictured kittens, and calm down.

I am perfectly capable of accepting negative criticism, I'm not one who likes to be insulted.

[Prospero]

I'm not sure I see where the dispute over the definition of "agnostic" even comes from. It's basically characterised as an uncertainty of some divine being(s), either in the potential to know of his existence or whether or not he could even exist.

I personally don't see there being a god. Too much stuff is too easily and readily explainable by science, even in the absurdly limitted state that it currently exists in. However, I'm not one to jump the gun, which is basically Huxley's belief in the matter. His rationalization consists of the methodological belief that nothing can be ruled out until proven factual, yet there is also Pascal's Wager, that the odds of there being a god that we don't know of are just as good as the odds of there not being one (because neither odd can be known, thus their equal). That being the case, even if there were concrete definitions and descriptions of all aspects of perceivable reality, there's still the possibility that there is a god that made everything so that he remained imperceptible. So even on that account, you're faced with the decision of chancing an assumption when the god or whatever doesn't even have to be playing by any rules of which you can even be aware.

That just leads me to believe that even if there were indisputable evidence that all things within human perception were made without divine interference, there's still that possibility that it was made to look just like that. I guess I just take Huxley's point a few steps further using an argument that most believers throw at non-believers in an attempt to scare them into believing "just in case".

[Titus Rivas]

Prospero, That being the case, even if there were concrete definitions and descriptions of all aspects of perceivable reality, there's still the possibility that there is a god that made everything so that he remained imperceptible. So even on that account, you're faced with the decision of chancing an assumption when the god or whatever doesn't even have to be playing by any rules of which you can even be aware. Interesting position. However, in that case we could limit the rationality of agnosticism to the claim that it is impossible to know whether there is a creator who does not want to be known by men. There is no religion or theology which holds that there is such a creator.
Pascal's position is absurd, as his was a Christian God who supposedly had done quite a lot to be known by men, i.e. apart from creating the world, giving us a holy book and divine intervention (as in Judaism and Islam), incarnating as a man. No chance of his creating a world indistinguishable from an uncreated world.
In general, creation should be adding something to what would happen anyway by simple laws of logic if there were no god. It is absurd to even speak about creation if the world does not gain in structure by this hypothetical act.
Now that I come to think of it, a creator who doesn't want to be known, does not need to create anything. The world 'created' by him, would be absolutely identical to an uncreated world. So on second thought, I don't believe such a creator deserves to be called a creator.

Titus

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by Titus Rivas
There is no religion or theology which holds that there is such a creator.Why continue to make baseless claims? Deism suggests an impersonal Deity uninterested in proving itself. There are more than a few arguments within the ranks of Christianity and Judaism as to why God chooses not to 'reveal' himself. Similarly, Easter religion could well argue that an obvious Pantheon or Diety would simply preempt the spiritual pursuit.

Originally posted by Titus Rivas
Now that I come to think of it, a creator who doesn't want to be known, does not need to create anything. The world 'created' by him, would be absolutely identical to an uncreated world. So on second thought, I don't believe such a creator deserves to be called a creator. The 1st sentence is simply your impression. What established theology to your knowledge insists that God(s) act out of "need"? The 2nd sentence is a baseless assertion that has absolutely no connection to the first. The 3rd sentence expresses a petulent opinion which is, of course, your right. In my opinion, however, you would do well to reconsider the words of Huxley, i.e., "do not pretend that matters are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable".

Atheism addresses what is believable. Agnosticism addresses what is knowable. While Huxley's methodological agnosticism serves as a fine foundation for atheism, there is nothing to preclude an agnostic theist: fideists, deists, and, perhaps, daoists would fall into this category.

[Titus Rivas]

Reasonable doubt,

Speaking of baseless claims ;)...

Deism suggests an impersonal Deity uninterested in proving itself. We're not talking about a creator who would be UNINTERESTED in proving itself, we're talking about a creator who would choose to prevent the occurrence of any proofs in its creation that point to its being a creation. What I meant by this, is that a creator necessarily leaves its mark on its creation, as that's what being a creator is all about. I don't understand why you continue to be so stubborn about this, as it seems obvious to me.

There are more than a few arguments within the ranks of Christianity and Judaism as to why God chooses not to 'reveal' himself.
Sorry, but that's plain nonsense. Christianity and Judaism are religions explicitly based on revelation. So the non-revelation of God within these religions boils down to an absurdity.

What established theology to your knowledge insists that God(s) act out of "need"? I'm not talking about any limitations on (a hypothetical) God's actions, I'm talking about the definition of a creator. A creator who would create what would arise anyway is not a creator as commonly understood, but a superfluous entity which literally adds nothing to reality. Adding nothing is not the same as creating, I'd say. Would you call that creating. I'm talking about the coherence of the notion of a creator, not of a God. That's my argument against non-trivial agnosticism as I said before; it may claim that there could be a whole pantheon of gods that we would never know anything about, but claiming the same about a creator of our very own reality, is simply incoherent.

The 2nd sentence is a baseless assertion that has absolutely no connection to the first. Come on now, a world which would not change a bit by creation IS identical to an uncreated world. Are you pulling my leg? ;)

agnostic theist: fideists, deists, and, perhaps, daoists would fall into this category. What are you talking about? Deists DO believe there is a god, so calling them agnostics (either in the trivial or in the non-trivial sense) is nonsense.
Fideists base their beliefs on non-rational grounds, but they can't be called agnostics either, unless you want to limit agnosticism to the possibility of reaching knowledge through empirical (or rational) means. In the strict, general sense of the word they claim to know that there is a God.
Daoism comprises various branches, but there's no clear-cut notion of a creator (which is what I was talking about), so the question of agnosticism seems pretty irrelevant here.

Perhaps your misunderstanding is based on limiting agnosticism to the claim that it is impossible to know anything about the existence of a creator on empirical grounds. Whereas I define agnosticism as the claim that it is impossible to know anything about the existence of a creator on any ground whatsoever (including ontological analysis, spiritual experiences, etc.). In other words, I define agnosticism as a general claim about the inability to know if there is a god or not. That's why by my definition it is impossible that somebody is both an agnostic and a theist, or an agnostic and an atheist.

Just a general tip: take your opponents a little bit more seriously.

Titus

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by Titus Rivas
Just a general tip: take your opponents a little bit more seriously. Just a specific suggestion: provide some reason to do so. :rolleyes:

[Titus Rivas]

Reasonable Doubt,

Just a specific suggestion: provide some reason to do so. Well, for one thing, it's in your own interest ;)

Titus

[Correa Neto]

Uh... I´m an agnostic. So what?

Is my position related to the "just in case" fear? Is it related to the fear of breaking social and cultural conventions? Maybe at least in part.

Most arguments that have been made point to a God like that from the Bible, one for against whose existence there are plenty of valid arguments. The same is valid for the God (or Gods) from the many religious traditions we have (even though some Buddist texts are very interesting to me). So, in respect to that God, I am an atheist. The way I see, all our notions of God are a construct. In this sense, Mankind created God at its own image. However, when it comes to other possibilities, or other definitions (OK, how can one define what can not be defined?) I keep an open mind. And for these cases, I am not sure if there is a God or not, and in respect to it, I am an agnostic.

I am not sure if God exists or not (even though I tend to the "no" side, but again, I am nor sure), and also, for example, admiting the possibility that there is a God, I am not sure if it is an external or internal reality. Maybe there is a God, but maybe its just a construct of our mind, that sometimes under the right conditions manifests itself (eg- the many different "mystical experiences"). In this case, God would be just a pshycological (or neural) feature, perhaps a trait evolved to help mankind go ahead.

But there may be something else. Our cosmology does not need a God, but also it does not completely excludes the possibility of the existence of something that could be (perhaps quite loosely) called "God" (again, not the biblical God- if that one is real, its easy to understand why Lucifer rebelled), something that we just can not understand and may be quite different from our current notions (maybe it may not have created the universe, for example). Is is vague? Yes. Are there evidences? No. I am just keeping an open mind, even though the odds seem to weight much more on the "no existence" side.

In the end, as someone here pointed out, in an agnostic point of view, it really doesn´t matter if there is or not a God.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Prospero


I personally don't see there being a god. Too much stuff is too easily and readily explainable by science,



Wholly irrelevant unless your idea of God is exclusively one of the God of the gaps. Actually it most probably will be since atheists insists this is the only legitimate definition of "God". As I keep saying, no wonder atheists are atheists!

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by Titus Rivas
I'm not talking about any limitations on (a hypothetical) God's actions, I'm talking about the definition of a creator. A creator who would create what would arise anyway is not a creator as commonly understood, but a superfluous entity which literally adds nothing to reality.


You assume something here, that the world would arise anyway.

Basically, you're assuming that some world would arise without a creator. Why can a creator not create a world that looks like it had no creator simply because no world would have existed otherwise?


Come on now, a world which would not change a bit by creation IS identical to an uncreated world. Are you pulling my leg? ;)


It's identical to a hypothetical world that was not created, but the difference is that the one is real and the other not. Once again, you assume that some world would exist if not a created one.

You forget that even if a creator creates a world that looks exactly like one that wasn't created (just came to be), he is possibly adding something still, existence as a reality.

Perhaps your misunderstanding is based on limiting agnosticism to the claim that it is impossible to know anything about the existence of a creator on empirical grounds. Whereas I define agnosticism as the claim that it is impossible to know anything about the existence of a creator on any ground whatsoever (including ontological analysis, spiritual experiences, etc.). In other words, I define agnosticism as a general claim about the inability to know if there is a god or not. That's why by my definition it is impossible that somebody is both an agnostic and a theist, or an agnostic and an atheist.

Hmmm, I see what you're saying, but what if a Deist doesn't 'know' by any of those methods either? What if a Deist was to admit that they only believe in a God, but that they recognize that under no definition of 'to know' (empirical observation, logical analysis, subjective experience, etc.) do they 'know' there is a God?

That's how I view agnosticism, as compatible with Deism, or even theism. Just because it strictly has to do with knowledge, not belief.

What do you think?

Adam

[uruk]

quote:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by uruk
Gods of religion are easy to disprove because they are man made
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------quote:

No. That does not disprove God(s). It simply shows that not all god-constructs can be correct.


Wow.I guess facetiousness really does'nt transfer though the internet.

If you read my sentence carefull you'll notice I said "gods of religion" I guess I meant to write "religions".

Besides all human notions of god are man-made constructs. That's why there are all the imperfections and contradictions. (i.e.The christitian god is a god of absolute love, yet he continually tells his chosen people to smite those around them. also the burn in hell thingy)

I noticed that you didn't comment on my statement
"but on the other hand a god doesn't have to obey our preconcieved notions. "

The logical argument that follows:


______________________________________________
God is perfection.

Who made up that rule? You? In fact, most Gods worshipped throughout the history of our species were not. Your building a strawman/
__________________________________________________


.
Who made up that rule? Just about every religion that I know of .
I remember going to church (roman catholic) and hearing that all through the sermon. Which religion do you know claims that god isn't perfect?
__________________________________________________ __


there is no such thing as perfection

What a remarkable claim. Prove it. You indirectly assert that which is at issue. At best, your 'argument' is reducible to:
'perfection is impossible because there is no possible perfection.'
You now have a strawman living in a house of cards.

"..
__________________________________________________ .Well, name me something that is perfect. Perfection, I think, is objective. Like truth, and good/evil there is no one definitive answer. Perfection is an abstract ideal, which in reality does not exist. So I indirectly dissagree with your indirect assertion of what my indirect assertion is.
__________________________________________________ __


therefore there is no such thing as god

with all due respect, there is no there in your "therefore...


Well, My intention was to show that "logical" arguments
are based on assumptions.

I believe that problem with an argument for or against a god is that these arguments are based on assumptions of something we know absolutley nothing about. There is no "frame of reference to go on. I argue that using religious texts as a reference for the existance of god is shakey at best because those text are a construct of man. All the philosophical ruminations of god through the eons are also at best just guessing. The observational fact remains that if there is a god it has "chosen" to make it's presence obscure to us. Most events which are claimed to be miracles, which would presummably be an indication of it's existance, can normaly be explained as being caused by means other than a diety. I know this doesn't nessissarily prove the non-existance of a diety. it might mearly shows that it does not want to revel its existance to us for some unfathomable reason. hence my "does not need to conform..etc"
statement. But that is the point. God's inscrutablity.

So if there is a god, it doesn't seem to care if we acknowledge it's existance. Or does it want us to search for it? If so what for? Is it a game? Hide and seek? Why the hiding game? If it wanted to be worshiped, then why not make it's existance undeniable to us?
Is a god that doesn't want to be found any different from a god that doesn't exist? Or are we missing the forest for the trees.

See, no answers. Just guesses.

That's why I'm an agnostic (for lack of a better word)
I simply don't know. All arguments for or against god are just
assumptions based on guesses. or guesses based on assupmtions. Or strawmen as you put it

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by uruk
Who made up that rule? Just about every religion that I know of .
The idea of God as a perfect omnimax is relatively new. The members of the Sumerian pantheon were not perfect, nor were those of Babylonia, Canaan, Egypt, Greece or Rome. One could make a good case that the object worshipped by early Jewish henotheism was not perfect, simply more powerful than His counterparts. Finally, I would be surprised to find that all of the Hindu Gods and Goddesses had attained perfection.

[uruk]

The idea of God as a perfect omnimax is relatively new...etc

Well, I did some searching in summerian and bablonyian religion.
Here are some links if anyone is interested.

http://www.cwru.edu/UL/preserve/Etana/Etana.html
http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/enuma.htm
http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/stc/index.htm

I have to admit That could not find a direct mention to the perfection of a god. But they do mention qualities that we assign to our modern day "perfect" gods. (i.e. supreme, all knowing, all powerful..etc.)


I haven't looked too hard at hindu or ancient judaism.
But I seem to remember the Bhagavad Gita or the Mahabharata saying something about Krishna being perfect. (I could be wrong)
And the old testament does allude to god being perfect. I don't know about the tora. And I've only read portions of the Koran.

Anyhoo, I don't think there is anyone who still seriously worships or believe in ancient summerian and bablonian gods.
Most of our modern religions consider their god/s as being infallable and perfect. And when most believers argue for the
existance of a god, I believe they'll say that their god is perfect and infallable.

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by uruk
I haven't looked too hard at hindu or ancient judaism.
But I seem to remember the Bhagavad Gita or the Mahabharata saying something about Krishna being perfect. And, presuming that your memory is accurate, what of the remaining deities?

Originally posted by uruk
And the old testament does allude to god being perfect. I don't know about the tora.The OT also alludes to a jealous God who promotes genocide and changes his mind. The Torah is the Pentateuch - the "Five Books of Moses" in the OT.

Originally posted by uruk
Most of our modern religions consider their god/s as being infallable and perfect. And when most believers argue for the
existance of a god, I believe they'll say that their god is perfect and infallable. You apparently know more about Hinduism and Daoism than I.

Tell me, do you limt the scope of atheism/agnosticism to the God(s) as defined by "most people"? If you claim to be an atheist and/or agnostic, are you less so with respect to an imperfect deity?

[Cinorjer]

2. The existence of a creator supposedly would make a lot of difference, even all the difference "in the world" , for the structure of manifest reality.
2a. A world created by a divinity would have to be fundamentally different from a uncreated world.

Well, no. Once you postulate a God, a being that is not bounded by reality and in fact has total control over reality, then this God can create a world that looks exactly like one ruled by natural laws only. This God can create a universe that looks exactly like it is billions of years old, when in fact it was created a few thousand years ago. Such a God, being omnipotent, can in fact hide completely from its creation. If this God does exist, then it seems to be doing exactly that. Unless this God decides to come out of hiding and manifest itself to us, then we'll never know.

When it comes to any one religion or culture's definition of their God, I am atheist. Every culture has put faces and names to their own particular religion, and believed they held the divine truth of the matter. We are no different. Our revealed truth will seem like silly fantasy to some future culture. And they'll have their own silly fantasy that they will insist is the genuine Godhead.

When it comes to the concept of an otherwise unspecified God, I am agnostic. This God has been defined as a being outside of reality as we experience it. It cannot even be said to exist, because opposites like exist/nonexist don't apply to it. Logic doesn't even apply to the concept. It's like asking what existed before the universe.

[LW]

Originally posted by Yahweh

1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.

Why?

I can easily imagine that there exists a God that is not omnipotent, not omniscient, and not morally perfect. So the proof falls flat at the first proposition since it is not at all certain that the implication holds.

Also, usually the best way to prove somethings nonexistence is to prove that it cannot logically exist.

P1: The proposition P1 is false.

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by uruk


...
So if there is a god, it doesn't seem to care if we acknowledge it's existance. Or does it want us to search for it? If so what for? Is it a game? Hide and seek? Why the hiding game? If it wanted to be worshiped, then why not make it's existance undeniable to us?
Is a god that doesn't want to be found any different from a god that doesn't exist? Or are we missing the forest for the trees.



What raises a point that has always intrigued me- Why would God need to be worshiped if he/she/it is so great?

Or perhaps the question should be putted as- Assuming that there is a God, does he/she/it really want to be worshiped?

Some people say this "absence" of God is proposital, intended to not interferr with our freewill and evolution. God would be distant, and want (can we actually say "God wants?"- unless we are speaking on figurative terms, I belive not, for we would be giving God a human attribute) us to evolve on our own.

Originally posted by uruk

...
Anyhoo, I don't think there is anyone who still seriously worships or believe in ancient summerian and bablonian gods.
Most of our modern religions consider their god/s as being infallable and perfect. And when most believers argue for the
existance of a god, I believe they'll say that their god is perfect and infallable.

Maybe... But there are many people around the world that still worship what could be called "minor" or "imperfect" Gods or spirits, not completely unlike these ancient deities (animists, for example), and in some cases they may even actually be actually "theological variants" or descendants from them. regardless what people from moderne religions say, a God that comes and say something like "kill the ones who do not belive in me" is far from perfect IMHO.

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
Tell me, do you limt the scope of atheism/agnosticism to the God(s) as defined by "most people"? If you claim to be an atheist and/or agnostic, are you less so with respect to an imperfect deity?

It is my opinion that one can be rotulated as an atheist regarding certain concepts of god and an agnostic regarding others.

[uruk]

And, presuming that your memory is accurate, what of the remaining deities?

Weren't the other 330 million gods (including brahma, shiva vishnu, naga, hanuman, ganesh..etc) just different incarnations of the same one? Besides, as stated before my memory is not infallible.

The OT also alludes to a jealous God who promotes genocide and changes his mind. The Torah is the Pentateuch - the "Five Books of Moses" in the OT.

True, so does the Christian god (who is the same god by the way) But that doesn't stop the believers from claiming that their god is "perfect". The prayers and hymnals either directly or indirectly proclaim this. Dispite what we (the non-belivers or questioners) may see as the fallibility of god/s. The believers I have been in discussion will invariably say that god is perfect. (my own mother too!. She's a devote roman catholic.)

Like you said before:
The idea of God as a perfect omnimax is relatively new.

I've yet to have a discussion with a Marduk worshipper. So I can't comment on what they may say about their god.

I believe that "most believers" have an anthropomorphic view of
their god. This seems to be the way they relate to their god. He was lonely, angry, jealous, horny, whatever. We see this as a
fallibility, they do not. The human emotions fit in to their view of
a "perfect" god. If god gets angry and smites a whole race, it's
probably because they were asking for it. God is jealouse, why not he's god he deservers our worship.

Have you had any disscusion with believers who did not believe
thier god is perfect? Which religion is it? Could you give me an example? Oh wait, the Jewish Henothezim.

Oops, got caught by the boss. I'll finnish later

[Titus Rivas]

Hi Adam,

Hmmm, I see what you're saying, but what if a Deist doesn't 'know' by any of those methods either? What if a Deist was to admit that they only believe in a God, but that they recognize that under no definition of 'to know' (empirical observation, logical analysis, subjective experience, etc.) do they 'know' there is a God? Interesting point. In general you could be right about common believers who might admit they (really) believe in God (or gods) but still may have their doubts now and then. However, a (philosophical) theist, atheist and deist all claim to know something, namely that it is reasonable (for whatever particular reasons) to believe that there is or is not a God. Atheism in the philosophical sense is the claim that (one knows that) there is no God. Similarly, theism in the philosophical sense, is the claim that (one knows that) there is a God. This is not a matter of 'mere' ;) religious belief, but of philosophical conviction.
Likewise, Deism is the position that (one knows) there is a God who created this world, but didn't interfere with its evolution ever since. As far as I know Deism is not so much a religious stance, but a philosophical position about the origin of this world.



It's identical to a hypothetical world that was not created, but the difference is that the one is real and the other not. Once again, you assume that some world would exist if not a created one.

You forget that even if a creator creates a world that looks exactly like one that wasn't created (just came to be), he is possibly adding something still, existence as a reality.
You're absolutely right, I should have added that possibility. But then again, it can be included in my argumentation. Namely that an uncreated reality would be NO reality whatever. It may well be that say the Big Bang or whatever other cosmological beginning (of this universe) is inconceivable without the concept of a creator. Now, that (a creation ex nihilo) would certainly be leaving a mark, wouldn't it?
However, if it is logically possible that this universe could have arisen without a creator, its mere creation as such would not count as adding anything.

Best wishes,

Titus

[Titus Rivas]

Well, no. Once you postulate a God, a being that is not bounded by reality and in fact has total control over reality, then this God can create a world that looks exactly like one ruled by natural laws only. I was not talking so much about natural laws, but about what I've already termed logical laws. What I mean by that is that the world could not logically be otherwise, meaning that a world structured otherwise would be incoherent. Now, if the world would be just the way it should be from such a logical point of view, it is in my view absurd to postulate that a God might have added exactly such a type of laws to reality which would arise by sheer logic alone. If the laws would arise automatically without any creation, where's the creating? It's like saying 2+2=4, but that this might be created by God (whereas it obviously is an analytical truth, of the kind I'm referring to here).

This God can create a universe that looks exactly like it is billions of years old, when in fact it was created a few thousand years ago. Such a God, being omnipotent, can in fact hide completely from its creation. If this God does exist, then it seems to be doing exactly that. Unless this God decides to come out of hiding and manifest itself to us, then we'll never know. Well, again, I obviously was talking about a different type of natural order than you, namely an order arising out of necessity rather than an order that seems arbitrary and in this logical sense artificial or brought about by other factors than necessity. If this world was artificially created rather than arising out of blind logical necessity, there should be markers of it. Of course, there are several scholars, both Christians, Hindus, Muslims, etc. and Rationalistic Deists, etc. who claim that such markers really exist and can hardly be overlooked.

In my definition, a creator cannot possibly hide from its creation.
In this sense, omnipotence is an incoherent notion. Not even a God can do the logically impossible. Omnipotence should refer to all logically possible actions and to no logically impossible ones. Logical impossibility is very different from practical impossibility. There's nothing logically possible which can't be done by an omnipotent being. What's logical impossible is what can't happen, by any standards.

Titus

[Prospero]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Wholly irrelevant unless your idea of God is exclusively one of the God of the gaps. Actually it most probably will be since atheists insists this is the only legitimate definition of "God". As I keep saying, no wonder atheists are atheists!

A god of the gaps; I like that. However, I would ask you to propose a contrary purpose as to god's existence. There is certainly no concrete evidence of undeniable authority that he exists, much less serves a purpose. If god exists and created it all, what is accomplished in letting the world run wild on the off chance that a religion he introduced millennia ago will one day be in a position of world dominance and create a, what, utopia where god is revered by all and life is wonderful? That's utterly absurd. If that was the end result he was working towards, he could have just started there. He didn't have to kick Adam and Eve out of the garden. I'm sure he could have just turned them back into dust and start over. It was all his prerogative, after all. Either god is an entirely illogical being or does not exist. There are no logical alternatives.

[Titus Rivas]

Prospero, Either god is an entirely illogical being or does not exist. There are no logical alternatives. An alternative may be that the God of the Bible may be a concept built on deeper notions, insights or intuitions of a creator who has revealed himself through its creation rather than through the limited means of historical events such as the supposed revelation of Holy Books. In that case, the image of God given by the Monotheistic religions might be very limited, incomplete and even flawed.

The most plausible notion of a God is for me a benevolent creator which has created the universe for the development and happiness of souls. Any incomprehensible, seemingly illogical properties of creation or fate could be reinterpreted within that view. In fact, it accords well with what many people who have had an Near-Death Experience claim to have experienced, namely that life makes sense after all.

Anyway, it's seem overly restrictive to take the Bible Belt God as the typical notion of a creator. Agnosticism, atheism and theism are primarily philosophical positions, not credes.

Titus

[Cinorjer]

In my definition, a creator cannot possibly hide from its creation.
In this sense, omnipotence is an incoherent notion. Not even a God can do the logically impossible. Omnipotence should refer to all logically possible actions and to no logically impossible ones. Logical impossibility is very different from practical impossibility.

The rules of logic certainly don't apply to a God, if it exists, because it operates by an entirely different set of rules. The fact that a God can, if it chooses, break the rules that bind our universe doesn't mean it has to. Our rules of logic are bounded by our experience living in this universe. We know that every effect must have a cause, for instance, and that the effect follows the cause. A miracle is an effect without a cause. Once you've thrown out logic, anything is possible. No one and nothing can be in two places at the same time. God can, because it's God. That's the whole problem with the concept. "Why doesn't God have a creator?" Because it's God. That's why you can't use logic against the religious. When you point to a logical paradox, they can always shrug their shoulders and say, "But it's God, so anything is possible."

A God bounded by our rules of logic or behavior is not omnipotent, of course. There are many Gods like that in our history of religions - humans written on a large scale. The God of Christianity is a curious mix of both onmipotent Creator and anthromorphic Ruler. If it is the Revealed Truth, then God is, by our standards, insane.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Cinorjer


The rules of logic certainly don't apply to a God, if it exists, because it operates by an entirely different set of rules.



I'm sorry but that's nonsensical. There is no meaning attached to saying God can do the logically impossible.



The fact that a God can, if it chooses, break the rules that bind our universe doesn't mean it has to. Our rules of logic are bounded by our experience living in this universe.



Logic has nothing to do with experience.



We know that every effect must have a cause, for instance, and that the effect follows the cause.



Well that's our experience of the world.



A miracle is an effect without a cause. Once you've thrown out logic, anything is possible.



Anything is possible even if you don't throw out logic.



No one and nothing can be in two places at the same time. God can, because it's God. That's the whole problem with the concept. "Why doesn't God have a creator?"



Why should God have a creator? This is the problem you see. Just because our experience of the physical world says that every effect has a cause doen't mean to say that an infinite mind need have a cause! :eek:



Because it's God. That's why you can't use logic against the religious. When you point to a logical paradox, they can always shrug their shoulders and say, "But it's God, so anything is possible."



If there is a logical paradox in the concept of God then I would reject the existence of such a God. Are you able to name any logical paradoxes?

[homunculus]

I've got into this "agnosticism" vs. "atheism" thing a few times, on different boards. Basically, there is a lot of confusion about what the words actually mean. If you do a search, right now, for dictionaries of philosophy on the Net, pretty much any entry for "atheism" will describe it in terms of active denial (as opposed to passive disbelief). The atheist can always be asked WHICH god he is denying (denial can only exist in relation to some conception of deity) - and of course, there is no such thing as non-evidence for non-entities!

But colloquially (and here, on this board) the word does tend to be applied to anyone who doesn't believe in the gods.

Personally, I prefer "agnostic" because theories about invisible, or non-material entities or beings are not open to verification/falsification either way. Talk about gods, spirits etc. is just verbal confabulation, a kind of word-magic.

Paul.

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by Titus Rivas
Hi Adam,

Interesting point. In general you could be right about common believers who might admit they (really) believe in God (or gods) but still may have their doubts now and then. However, a (philosophical) theist, atheist and deist all claim to know something, namely that it is reasonable (for whatever particular reasons) to believe that there is or is not a God. Atheism in the philosophical sense is the claim that (one knows that) there is no God.


I see a pretty big difference between your last two sentences. In one you say:

"However, a (philosophical) ... atheist ... claim(s) to know something, namely that it is reasonable (for whatever particular reasons) to believe that there is ... not a God"

And the next one:

"Atheism in the philosophical sense is the claim that (one knows that) there is no God."

The first sentence is how I would characterize Atheism, I agree that an Atheist thinks they know it is reasonable not to believe in any Gods. But this doesn't mean that they know there is no Gods.

I'm an Atheist, I don't think it's reasonable to claim I know there is no God(s).

So I agree that an Atheist claims to know something, but not that there is no God(s), only that it is rational to not believe in any God(s). [with a disclaimer that the reason it's rational in my experience is a lack of evidence, if someone has experienced evidence of God(s) it's different]

Similarly, theism in the philosophical sense, is the claim that (one knows that) there is a God. This is not a matter of 'mere' ;) religious belief, but of philosophical conviction.

I believe such a philosophical position is possible of course, but I don't think I've ever heard it said it was the theist philosophical position. But I don't think it really matters, it's probably just usage, and usage varies across territories. Did you know there are a fair number of people on these boards that were taught 'W' is sometimes a vowel, in the same way 'Y' is? :eek: I'd never heard of that before! :)

Likewise, Deism is the position that (one knows) there is a God who created this world, but didn't interfere with its evolution ever since. As far as I know Deism is not so much a religious stance, but a philosophical position about the origin of this world.

I'm really surprised by that one though! How would a deist claim to know this? The situation of the world is exactly the same whether he's right or wrong, what is his reasoning for knowing a Deist position to be the case?? Subjective revelation? :D

Just curious. I've met only two people who called themselves a Deist, one is on this board (Joshua) and the other was in RL. I've not asked Josh, but the guy I met in school certainly didn't think he 'knew' Deism was true, he was in philosophy also.

Best wishes for you too :)

Adam

[Cinorjer]

Logic has nothing to do with experience.

You'll have to argue this point, since it seems to go against the generally held definition of what logic is. Logic has EVERYTHING to do with experience. We observe the world around us, we see patterns, we draw conclusions and set rules of logic based on that experience. To say something is logical is just to say it fits into how we know the universe works, according to our experience. For instance, if we watch a tree grow from a seed, that's nothing to remark about, because logically we know that's how trees arrive. If a full grown tree suddenly appeared in your front yard, that's not logical. Trees don't just appear. We would have to look for a cause that fits into the logic of how things happen. The only logical explainations would be (1) the tree was there all along, and our memory is faulty (it can happen), or (2) someone dug a hole and put the tree there when we weren't looking, as a joke. (it also happens). That's logic in action. To shrug your shoulders and say "It's a miracle" defies all logic. What definition are you working from?

I gave you several examples of logic in action in my post you replied to. Let's take this infinite God. Logically, a complex being with a personality, consciousness, and will has to come from somewhere. God has to have a cause. We look around us, and see that complex organisms such as ourselves evolve and grow from less complex elements. Yet, we insist God has no cause, that this infinite mind was always there. That's not logical. But it's applying the wrong yardstick, at that. Of course it's not logical. God is a concept that exists outside of our universe, so logic dosn't apply.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Cinorjer

II
Logic has nothing to do with experience.

Cinorjer
You'll have to argue this point, since it seems to go against the generally held definition of what logic is. Logic has EVERYTHING to do with experience. We observe the world around us, we see patterns, we draw conclusions and set rules of logic based on that experience.



This is inductive "logic". It's not really logic at all.



To say something is logical is just to say it fits into how we know the universe works, according to our experience.



No that's not my understanding of the word logic at all.



For instance, if we watch a tree grow from a seed, that's nothing to remark about, because logically we know that's how trees arrive. If a full grown tree suddenly appeared in your front yard, that's not logical.



Well it's certainly not illogical. Just against physical laws as we know them. But you can't say something which contravenes currently known physical laws is illogical.



Trees don't just appear.



How do you know?



We would have to look for a cause that fits into the logic of how things happen. The only logical explainations would be (1) the tree was there all along, and our memory is faulty (it can happen), or (2) someone dug a hole and put the tree there when we weren't looking, as a joke. (it also happens). That's logic in action. To shrug your shoulders and say "It's a miracle" defies all logic. What definition are you working from?



I would say something defies logic if there is something conceptually incoherent about the notion. But there is nothing incoherent about a tree suddenly springing into existence. Certainly we can imagine it.



I gave you several examples of logic in action in my post you replied to. Let's take this infinite God. Logically, a complex being with a personality, consciousness, and will has to come from somewhere.



Not at all! Neither do I accept that people do. I'm not talking about our physical bodies but rather our selves. The self does not come from anywhere because it has always existed :)





God has to have a cause.



Not at all. And I remind you that intellectual materialist atheists (if that is not an oxymoron) don't typically believe the Universe has a cause.

[homunculus]

"The smell of a fart does not exist.

Stimpson J Cat


He thinks the smell of a fart is literally a physical process in the brain



At the risk of derailing this interesting thread, what exactly is wrong with Mr(s) Stimpson's assesment, here? The "aroma" of a fart - what you imagine when you imagine a fart - is a purely subjective experience, arising through the physical process of perception. There IS no "smell" (in this sense) without a physical nose, and a physical brain and nervous system, to interpret the electical stimulus from it.

Simularly, there is no "red" without an observer, just a dance of photons (or whatever). "Red" is how our brains translate a certain wave frequency - nothing more.

Paul.

[Ruby]

Having just been delivered out of Christianity, I can safely say that Agnosticism feels GREAT!!!

It's great to question everything and look and study. My hubby and I have been reading so much info lately. I have missed being on here.

I may end up an Atheist in the end. I don't know. :eek:

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by Ruby
Having just been delivered out of Christianity, I can safely say that Agnosticism feels GREAT!!!

It's great to question everything and look and study. My hubby and I have been reading so much info lately. I have missed being on here.

I may end up an Atheist in the end. I don't know. :eek:

That´s the very point! As an agnostic, you should question all conceptions regarding god, with no prejudices or preconceived ideas. And surely many atheists have done that and this lead them to their current position.

An agnostic, IMHO, can be defined (among many others definitions) as someone who has not been convinced (yet?) by the avaliable evidences, that god, according to a certain conception (that is a human construct), exists or not. But many will say that an agnostic should just turn his/hers back to the question, because he/she belives that nothing can be said about god´s existence or inexistence.

A point that should be made- could one really use such attributes (possible/imposible; good/bad; existence x non-existence among others) to a creator of the universe- supposing there is one-? If there is such a thing, our concepts, language, intelligence, etc. may just be inadequate to define, describe and attribute characteristics to it. As inaquate as to say that god sees everything, what would imply that god has eyes or something like that and therefore a material existence. Well, you probably know where this line of reasoning came from and lead to. Maybe its just like an homo erectus trying to understand quantum physics... He/she lacks the abillity to do it and has some more important things to do (find food, elude predators and breed to evolve).

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Correa Neto
As inaquate as to say that god sees everything, what would imply that god has eyes or something like that and therefore a material existence.

There is evidence to suggest that during out of body experiences people can see much better than their eyes normally allow them to. The idea that it would be logically impossible for a being to see without eyes is utterly absurd.

[Cinorjer]

I would say something defies logic if there is something conceptually incoherent about the notion. But there is nothing incoherent about a tree suddenly springing into existence. Certainly we can imagine it.

We can imagine all sorts of illogical events. Imagination is not bounded by reality. A full grown tree suddenly appearing out of nowhere certainly fits any definition of incoherent: lacking orderly continuity or intelligibility. In fact, it fails the flying monkey test. A tree will materialize out of nowhere the same time monkeys fly out of my butt. Both have equal chance of happening.

Not at all! Neither do I accept that people do. I'm not talking about our physical bodies but rather our selves. The self does not come from anywhere because it has always existed

An unsupported and illogical belief. If you want to believe that, fine, but don't say it's logical. There is absolutely no evidence that any such "self" exists outside of our individual minds. In my own religion, Buddhism, we insist this "self" is an illusion caused by the workings of the mind. At least we can logically argue why we believe this to be so.

And I remind you that intellectual materialist atheists (if that is not an oxymoron) don't typically believe the Universe has a cause.

Wrong analogy. The universe, as we know it today, was caused by a singular event in the far distant past and evolved into the present form. What caused that to happen, and what came before that, we simply don't know. That's like saying God came into existance in the distant past and evolved into the being it is today, then created the universe. The universe is visible around us; God is not.

[Correa Neto]

Ian,

Lets assume that there are real OBEs, in the sense that something (say, a "soul") really comes out of the body, and lets also assume that this soul (astral body, counsience, etc) can somehow perceive external objects (shapes, volumes, colors, etc).

Sight is a sense created by our brain processing data acquired by reception of reflected light by sensory cells in our eyes (or structures with similar functions in other organisms) .

So, a "soul" would still be able to "see" by capting light rays in some sort of organ and processing the data in something like a brain? If it uses another process, then this process should not be called sight. One would be using the term "sight" on an impropper manner or as an adaptation, artistic licence, whatever.

It would also be like saying that bats can "see" using sonar. They can avoid obstacles and locate possible prey, but they can not actually see using sonar. Or on a different level, perhaps similar to what pysics do when saying that a quark has a color or a flavor.

So the idea that it would be logically impossible for a being to see without eyes is not utterly absurd.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by homunculus
"The smell of a fart does not exist.

Stimpson J Cat


He thinks the smell of a fart is literally a physical process in the brain



At the risk of derailing this interesting thread, what exactly is wrong with Mr(s) Stimpson's assesment, here? The "aroma" of a fart - what you imagine when you imagine a fart - is a purely subjective experience, arising through the physical process of perception. There IS no "smell" (in this sense) without a physical nose, and a physical brain and nervous system, to interpret the electical stimulus from it.



A. OK, own up, who's farted??! :mad:
B. It was I.
A. It stinks! :mad:
B. It is your brain and nervous system creating the smell, so don't blame me.



Simularly, there is no "red" without an observer, just a dance of photons (or whatever). "Red" is how our brains translate a certain wave frequency - nothing more.

Paul.

You can hold everything we ever perceptually perceive as being an illusion, or as not really constituting the "furniture" of reality if you like. But don't expect me to agree with you. I prefer to believe what my senses tell me.

[gentlehorse]

Originally posted by Cinorjer
[Interesting Ian said:]
And I remind you that intellectual materialist atheists (if that is not an oxymoron) don't typically believe the Universe has a cause.
[Cinorjer replied:]
Wrong analogy. The universe, as we know it today, was caused by a singular event in the far distant past and evolved into the present form. What caused that to happen, and what came before that, we simply don't know. That's like saying God came into existance in the distant past and evolved into the being it is today, then created the universe. The universe is visible around us; God is not.

I've got to diagree with you on a couple of points. Right off the bat, Ian wasn't making an analogy as much as he was simply stating the facts as he knows them to be. I have to agree with him to an extent, based partly on my experience on this forum. I've exchanged ideas with atheists who think it likely that the universe is acausal. These same atheists would probably take issue with your having said that we don't know what came before the singular event which resulted in the universe. Why? Because there was no "before the singular event". Spacetime sprang into being with the birth of the universe. No universe means no spacetime. No spacetime means no "before the event". Counterintuitive? Yes. That's no problem for them for a couple of reasons, the first being that much of the knowledge we've achieved as a result of the application of the scientific method is counterintuitive. Secondly, intuition is not a reliable source of information. In short, it been my experience that it's not at all unusual to run into atheists who dont' believe that the universe had a cause.

[uruk]

A. OK, own up, who's farted??!
B. It was I.
A. It stinks!
B. It is your brain and nervous system creating the smell, so don't blame me.


Yea, but the methane and hydrogen sulfides which binds to the receptor sites in the olfactory cells and stimulated the nervous system which caused the brain of "A" to respond with an EEEWWWW!!!! came out of "B"s ass.

I agree with most of what Gentlehorse wrote. Stephen Hawking
has been doing some thinking on what was before the initial state
of big bang. Even he admits that it is pretty difficult to deal with.

Why should God have a creator? This is the problem you see. Just because our experience of the physical world says that every effect has a cause doen't mean to say that an infinite mind need have a cause!

The same could apply to the universe. Quantum mechanics has shown that the universe (at least at on a quantum level) does not
have to follow our intuition or what we feel is common sense.

Just because we observe the universe in a linear and causual manner doesn't mean that the universe is operating in that manner. It could be operating on a much deeper level. Feyneman postulated that some quantum mechanical processes look the same going forward or backward in time.
I think he even described that anti-matter was regular matter traveling backward in time. (How he came to that idea or what became of it, I don't know. I think Hawking superceded it.)

Anyhoo, I don't think it's possible to detect or prove the existance of god. Not to say that it may not exist, Just that it is impossible for us to find that evidence or know it if we "see" it. It's kind of like trying to point to where the fourth dimension is. I know, bad analogy, but something akin to that.

[homunculus]

You can hold everything we ever perceptually perceive as being an illusion, or as not really constituting the "furniture" of reality if you like. But don't expect me to agree with you. I prefer to believe what my senses tell me.

Me too. If a tree falls in the woods when nobody is around, it might not make a "sound". But it does vibrate the air in a way we would interpret as "sound", were we around to listen.

As you were.

Paul.

[Cinorjer]

Why? Because there was no "before the singular event". Spacetime sprang into being with the birth of the universe. No universe means no spacetime. No spacetime means no "before the event". Counterintuitive? Yes.

Yes, the question of what came before the big bang is meaningless, because time and space are attributes of this universe. It not so much that we can't say the universe didn't have a cause, as the concept of cause and effect doesn't apply. Cause and effect require a flow of time and space to operate. Words and logical concepts fail. That was my original point, I think (these threads are fun but do tend to wander). To be agnostic about the concept of God in general to me, is to say it's a concept where rules of logic don't apply and nothing can be said about it, other than that there's no evidence for one and imaginings of various religions are certainly cultural projections.

[Correa Neto]

errr...

I was not referring to particular tastes (among 4 billion people, chances are that some will like the smell of fart- disclaimer- I´m not one of them), phylosophical interpretions of reality or if one belives or not in his what his/hers/its senses are telling.

I was just referring to the ways information about the surroundings are gathered by sensory organs and interpred by the brain. On a completely dark cave (no not that one with the blind humans), someone without a light source would stumble on the walls or worse, while a bat would be able to hadle itself in and out with ease. Does the bat sees the walls, stalactites and other obstacles? Not really. It uses its sonar. It emmits sounds, its ears pick the recflections and its brain proccess the data ("obstacle 3 meters ahead to the right"). Blind cave arthropods gather data about their surroundings using antennas. Our spelunker whose batteries run out will be aware of the presence of obstacles on a different (and possibly more painfull) way. If our spelunker just stood still, waiting for a rescue party, the obstacles will still be there, even if he can´t gather data about them.

An earless animal could still know that a tree has fallen by sensing vibrations transmitted through the soil. But it would not actually hear the sound.

So, no eyes-like structure to gather reflected or emmitted light, no brain-like (or equivalent) structure to interpred the data, there is no sight sense. But the objects that reflect the light or the light sources are still there. Data about them can eventually be acquired by other means.

Back to the topic, our intuition, as many people said here and in other places before, is not adequate when analizing quantum or relativity. Even Newtonian mechanics has several counterintuitive situations. Some people confuse intutive logic or common sense with logic, and this just does not work. Quantum mechanics follow mathematic equations that are utterly logical but are against our common sense and intuition. And look for what existed before the big bang is somehow like tring to know what we were doing before born. Unless one belives in regression and similar things, one must accept that counsiousness sprang out after a certain time when his/hers brain achieved a certain development stage. I´m afraid that these paths will not lead to an answer regarding god´s existence or inexistence.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by uruk
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. OK, own up, who's farted??!
B. It was I.
A. It stinks!
B. It is your brain and nervous system creating the smell, so don't blame me.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Yea, but the methane and hydrogen sulfides which binds to the receptor sites in the olfactory cells and stimulated the nervous system which caused the brain of "A" to respond with an EEEWWWW!!!! came out of "B"s ass.



But you suppose the actual qualia (the odor of the fart) is created ex nihilo by the recipient. You do realise the scientific story need not depict a literal state of affairs?



I agree with most of what Gentlehorse wrote. Stephen Hawking
has been doing some thinking on what was before the initial state
of big bang. Even he admits that it is pretty difficult to deal with.


It's impossible to deal with. Physics by definition cannot explain why the Universe came into being because physics only deals with the physical ie once the Universe is already there.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why should God have a creator? This is the problem you see. Just because our experience of the physical world says that every effect has a cause doen't mean to say that an infinite mind need have a cause!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The same could apply to the universe.



Right, if I translate this correctly this means you agree with me.

[MoeFaux]

Originally posted by Correa Neto
errr...

I was not referring to particular tastes (among 4 billion people, chances are that some will like the smell of fart- disclaimer- I´m not one of them.

After not reading this thread for days, it's nice to come back and see that we're addressing such pressing matters.
Yes, there are plenty of people who have a fetish for this. Google it.

There is no god.
But, okay, if it's still being argued, there's no way to prove it either way. But, there is no god. We can go round and round on this. So you haven't made up your mind, or you've said, f**k it, I'm not going to live my life wondering and I'm just going to pick a side. Good for you. But my mind is made up until I'm shown proof otherwise.

[uruk]

But you suppose the actual qualia (the odor of the fart) is created ex nihilo by the recipient. You do realise the scientific story need not depict a literal state of affairs?

Possibly, But without the anal eminations, there would be no "ex nihilo" as it were. Since our bodies are physical (exist in this universe) and the various processes are governed by the laws of physics and follow cause and effect (in the macro sense) you need a phyisical stimulus to generate the cognition.

If you had never smelled the rectal bouquet of a good ripper, then you could only assume and imagine what one smelled like.
Others could describe it to you, (egg-like or sewer-like) that is, to refrence to what has been already experienced. You've created
an "image" based on stimulus that was previously physicaly experienced.

It isn't untill you actually experiance that full bodied, piquant
gastric arouma, by having those complex molecules assault your olfactory nodes, does it become a reality and fully formed in your mind.

I believe that the quality or the experiance or the neural connection patterns formed in our brain is the direct result or response of a physical interaction. We can "build" an "experiance" which never took place but it has to be based
or refrenced on what has been previously, physicaly experianced

Any image we have of god will always be based on whatever we have experianced. ( god is anthropomorfic, god is a creator, god is male, god is female, god has emotions, god has form, ) That is one reason I belive any concept of god we can come come with will be an incorrect one. God is completely outside our experiance
and as a result we have no "frame of referene" to describe him.

It's impossible to deal with. Physics by definition cannot explain why the Universe came into being because physics only deals with the physical ie once the Universe is already there.

I agree with you there. Hawking wrote that "we have a good understanding of what happened in the first femto seconds of big bang. but we no frame work to describe what went on before". (not an exact quote, but thats the idea. For futher reading, check out his books) And I go to further to say that the same applies to any concept of god.


Right, if I translate this correctly this means you agree with me.

I agree, if you mean that the universe does not necessarily have to have been "created" by a creator.

[Dorian Gray]

Logic has nothing to do with experience.

Zeno's Arrow - first the arrow has to travel half the distance, then half that, etc., to infinity, therefore the arrow never reaches its target.

That's Logic.

Experience tells us that arrows hit their targets like a mofo. (Some of them miss, I know - that's irrelevant)

Now, having said that, it has logically been proven both that you should believe in God, and that you should not believe in God.

Sagan did the 'should not' on his show Cosmos. "There is the assertion that God has been here forever - why not just save a step and say that the universe has been here forever?" is more or less what he said.

I don't know who proved the 'should', but it reads more like bet hedging than cause. Nonetheless, it's something like:
Don't believe in God - God doesn't exist - death is the end.
Believe in God - God doesn't exist - death is the end.
Don't believe in God - God exists - death leads to hell.
Believe in God - God exists - death leads to heaven.

So if you don't believe in God, the best that can happen is nothing and the worst is hell. If you believe, the best that can happen is heaven and the worst is nothing.

Therefore, you should believe in God.

Both are valid arguments. Basically only one can be true. So again, logic has nothing to do with experience.

However, it is not known whether God exists. At best, it can only be believed that God exists. Not only that, but then there is a question of WHICH God exists.

Agnosticism seems like the most all-encompassing position to have, especially agnosticism without religion. Any position that incorporates the most viewpoints is by my reckoning the best one.

I choose Agnosticism.

[MoeFaux]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray

Experience tells us that arrows hit their targets like a mofo.

Making reference to me? :D

[AfaintcoldcupofTea..]

Originally posted by Darwin
What do you think about it,agnosticism?
Using a dictionary definition,an agnostic would state that "the existence of a God cannot be either accepted or denied".I can see how one could have a problem with this definition though,and there appears to be variations of it.
Biologist Thomas Huxley,as a famous example of an agnostic,gave us the idea of "not being able to know",while "not necessarily believing" (these are not really direct quotes).
Where philosopher Herbert Spencer felt that there will be things outside of human mind´s reach,Darwin (probable agnostic) thought that the whole issue goes beyond one´s intellect.
So,I wonder,why agnosticism? I think there are agnostics lurking around to offer their thoughts.
In a way it appears that agnosticism has logical edge in that it it appears true that the issue we are dealing with is often untestable unless predictions are made (on this ground,we can perhaps,more easily put to rest a God or two) and in that a solid one.But why should one assume this position,why not simply disbelieve? As for me,I think fairly highly of agnosticism,but I find no reason to entertain it myself,so far.
Responses of all kinds are appreciated.Thank you.

If you can't prove God exists and you can't prove God doesn't exist. How can you then test a God or 2?

Is agnosticism, 'A sitting on the fence' type of philosophy?

I don't believe there is a God/s but I can't prove he/she/it/them aren't out there. Would it be that I have a closed mind being an atheist?

Where as an agnostic has their own personal views, but leaves the field open to other possibilities?

[SFB]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
However, it is not known whether God exists. At best, it can only be believed that God exists. Not only that, but then there is a question of WHICH God exists. ....


Yes, not only that but religions can be viewed as explanations for human experiences. These explanations make sense to me. Religions themselves do not. Take merely the many contradictions within them, let alone the fact one must drop all common sense about what we observe to be true, and believe in something we otherwise would not.

[69dodge]

Originally posted by Titus Rivas
If this world was artificially created rather than arising out of blind logical necessity, there should be markers of it.You seem to assume that there are only two choices:[list=1] there is only one logically possible world, and our world is it, or
our world was created by a creator.[/list=1]It seems obvious to me there are many different worlds that are all logically possible. But it is still not obvious to me that our world had a creator. Perhaps our world simply happens to exist, and the many other logically possible worlds happen not to exist.

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray

Nonetheless, it's something like:
Don't believe in God - God doesn't exist - death is the end.
Believe in God - God doesn't exist - death is the end.
Don't believe in God - God exists - death leads to hell.
Believe in God - God exists - death leads to heaven.


One could also add:
Don't believe in God - God exists - death is the end.
Believe in God - God exists - death is the end.

I don´t see why the existence of god necessarily imply on the existence of an afterlife, unless you stick with the definitions of god that are given by religions.

[Cinorjer]

Logic has nothing to do with experience.

Zeno's Arrow - first the arrow has to travel half the distance, then half that, etc., to infinity, therefore the arrow never reaches its target.

That's Logic.

I'm not using mathematic or symbolic logic - that isn't the only definiton of the term, you know. Those logic games start with a premise and ask you to reach a conclusion based only on the premise. Given that for x amount of time an arrow only travels halfway to its goal, then by solving that equation you conclude the arrow never reaches it's goal. But the logic of experience: "a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration", tells you that in fact, arrows do indeed, in reality, reach their goal. Logical reasoning tells you the example isn't a valid description of reality, that there's something wrong with the equation. This is not intuition (I hate that term), but using logic to reach conclusions based on our demonstrated experience.

If you start with the premise that there is a God, then you still need to further define its attributes before you can logically draw any conclusions about it. But that sort of thing is nothing but word games. As a Minister once told me, when I said I was an atheist: "Tell me what sort of God you don't believe in. I probably don't believe in it, either."

[Bazza]

Agnostics are essentially fence sitters - they are hedging their bets by not committing one way or another. Unfortunately for them a vengeful god would whip their butts to hell with the atheists (Can't I have purgatory instead cries the Agno!!)

A smart Agno may as well profess a belief & if there is a God he is allocated his 2 square metres & polished harp!! If he's wrong what the heck? He's manure like the rest of us (including the fundamentalists!!)

Isn't that what religion is about? Covering your own butt!

The sad thing for us Athos is that if we are right, big deal we can't say Ha Ha - told you so!!! If the Christians are right, well we've got some harrassing coming our way, although I suspect God would turn off the BBQ cookers & tell us to come on up for a beer after a couple of million years. Isn't he about forgiveness?

I am confident that God was a creation of humans & not vice-versa therefore won't fence sit, but to quote Irish comedian Dave Allen " I don't believe in God, but I'm not against a death bed repentance - there's nothing like a bit of insurance on the way out!!"

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by Bazza
Agnostics are essentially fence sitters - they are hedging their bets by not committing one way or another.Huxley's agnosticism was (and is) a sound methodological foundation for atheism.

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Fact: Atheists are atheists because they like feeling special knowing that they were that one sperm that made it will all of the sperm that men produce and go through instead of being pre-selected. It's a great feeling knowing that you beat all those billions of other sperm sort of like winning the loto!

:hit:

@!

[SFB]

Originally posted by traveller
Fact: Atheists are atheists because they like feeling special knowing that they were that one sperm that made it will all of the sperm that men produce and go through instead of being pre-selected. It's a great feeling knowing that you beat all those billions of other sperm sort of like winning the loto!

:hit:

@!

Care to expand on your statements? Frankly they don't make a lick of sense (to me). What's this about sperm that "go through instead of being pre-selected"? If you are against atheists in what way were you "pre-selected"? How can a sperm be singled out from others?

Are you serious? Or am I missing something here?

And is it billions or millions???

ACCKKKKKK!

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by SFB


Care to expand on your statements? Frankly they don't make a lick of sense (to me). What's this about sperm that "go through instead of being pre-selected"? If you are against atheists in what way were you "pre-selected"? How can a sperm be singled out from others?

Are you serious? Or am I missing something here?

And is it billions or millions???

ACCKKKKKK!

There are many sperm that guys produce and go through I don't think that is questionable.

http://www.teenwire.com/index.asp?taStrona=http://www.teenwire.com/warehous/articles/wh_20030827p192_testicle.asp
"An average pair of testicles can produce 150 million sperm in one day, and can store up to about two billion sperm at a time. Guys, just think about that the next time someone says you're not being productive!"

Atheists like the feeling of being that one sperm who beat all the other sperm, if it was another sperm that made it instead the one you developed from then it wouldn't have been "you" who was born. If something like re-incarnation was true it would be a 1:1 chance because nomatter which sperm made it your the same consciousness would enter the body regarless of which of the millions of sperm made it. Like I said given those chances it's a good feeling kind of like winning the lotto!

[SFB]

Originally posted by traveller


There are many sperm that guys produce and go through I don't think that is questionable.

http://www.teenwire.com/index.asp?taStrona=http://www.teenwire.com/warehous/articles/wh_20030827p192_testicle.asp
"An average pair of testicles can produce 150 million sperm in one day, and can store up to about two billion sperm at a time. Guys, just think about that the next time someone says you're not being productive!"

Atheists like the feeling of being that one sperm who beat all the other sperm, if it was another sperm that made it instead the one you developed from then it wouldn't have been "you" who was born. If something like re-incarnation was true it would be a 1:1 chance because nomatter which sperm made it your the same consciousness would enter the body regarless of which of the millions of sperm made it. Like I said given those chances it's a good feeling kind of like winning the lotto!


"If something like re-incarnation was true..."

Well, there's no evidence for anything similar to reincarnation.

"[B]ecause nomatter which sperm made it your the same consciousness would enter the body regarless of which of the millions of sperm made it."

Umm... come again? Perhaps you should expound a bit more, I don't get it.

Are you a fatalist?

I don't follow, nor agree with your assessment of atheists.

You seem to say some humans are ingrained, fated, to be atheists. If this is your stance, please provide an argument for it.

[MoeFaux]

:what:

Dude, that's whack.

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by SFB
Well, there's no evidence for anything similar to reincarnation.

You may be right but I don't know!

"[B]ecause nomatter which sperm made it your the same consciousness would enter the body regarless of which of the millions of sperm made it."

Umm... come again? Perhaps you should expound a bit more, I don't get it.

If re-incarnation was true it would not matter which sperm made it to the egg. Your consciousness would have existed before that so it would not matter which sperm made it, the same consciousness will occupy the body therefore the sperm that makes it to the egg is irrelevant. If there is no re-incarnation/afterlife then it would not be the same "you" that exists now if another sperm had fertilized the egg, so you beat millions (probably billions) of sperm to that egg. If those stats are right it's about 150 million sperm produced a day but times x number of days that a guy lives. Just look at the chances of you being that one sperm that made it to fertilize the egg. Use the Occam's razor on the stats for both sides!

Are you a fatalist?

No, I'm a blainetologist.

I don't follow, nor agree with your assessment of atheists.

I'm not even being serious there but I have a point with the chances compared to re-incarnation!

You seem to say some humans are ingrained, fated, to be atheists. If this is your stance, please provide an argument for it.

I don't think that.

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by MoeFaux
:what:

Dude, that's whack.

http://www.student.smsu.edu/s/san232s/hardfunnypics/wtfdog2.jpg

[Titus Rivas]

69dodge:
Originally posted by Titus Rivas:
If this world was artificially created rather than arising out of blind logical necessity, there should be markers of it.You seem to assume that there are only two choices:

1. there is only one logically possible world, and our world is it, or
2. our world was created by a creator.

It seems obvious to me there are many different worlds that are all logically possible. But it is still not obvious to me that our world had a creator. Perhaps our world simply happens to exist, and the many other logically possible worlds happen not to exist.
Perhaps, yes, but my point was that IF this world was created it would be different from what it would be IF it was not created.

Best wishes,

Titus

[Titus Rivas]

Another late reply, to Adam this time:

The first sentence is how I would characterize Atheism, I agree that an Atheist thinks they know it is reasonable not to believe in any Gods. But this doesn't mean that they know there is no Gods.

I'm an Atheist, I don't think it's reasonable to claim I know there is no God(s).

So I agree that an Atheist claims to know something, but not that there is no God(s), only that it is rational to not believe in any God(s). [with a disclaimer that the reason it's rational in my experience is a lack of evidence, if someone has experienced evidence of God(s) it's different] Okay, you're right about this. Atheism may be of two types: absolute atheism, which claims it has been absolutely proven that there can be no God, and parsimonious atheism which just holds there is as of yet no conclusive evidence for the existence of a God.

I believe such a philosophical position is possible of course, but I don't think I've ever heard it said it was the theist philosophical position. As far as I know it would be the theist position within the philosophy of religion.

But I don't think it really matters, it's probably just usage, and usage varies across territories. Did you know there are a fair number of people on these boards that were taught 'W' is sometimes a vowel, in the same way 'Y' is? I'd never heard of that before! No, I didn't know. I did know however that the W evolved from two Vs which were originally pronounced as oo in Latin as V en U was really the same letter in the Latin alphabet.

I'm really surprised by that one though! How would a deist claim to know this? The situation of the world is exactly the same whether he's right or wrong, what is his reasoning for knowing a Deist position to be the case?? Subjective revelation? Not at all, a deist does hold that there are plenty of signs in the natural world that it was created. Remember that deism was formulated in the days of the French Encyclopedia, long before contemporary evolutionar biology or cosmology.

Just curious. I've met only two people who called themselves a Deist, one is on this board (Joshua) and the other was in RL. I've not asked Josh, but the guy I met in school certainly didn't think he 'knew' Deism was true, he was in philosophy also. Then why is he a Deist?

Kind regards,

Titus