The Agnostic's Issue

[Almagest]

@Doug1o29: I've found that Thomas Aquinas's proofs are exactly like that. Believers will find them convincing, nonbelievers will find them unconvincing.

[Mr Walker]

You forget the "fourth" kind, perhaps the only kind, as simply not having made up one's mind does not represent a position at all, and assuming that the truth about god is unknowable makes the assumption that the universe has a dualistic nature, something that has never been observed.

That fourth kind is the one that has examined the evidence for god and decided it is insufficient to warrant a conclusion that god exists.

I have noticed one thing that all these semantic "proofs" concerning god have in common: they start from an assumption, go through a number of doubtful steps and arrive back at their starting assumption. Doesn't matter whether it's a theist or an atheist offering the "proof."

While we're on the subject of doubtful reasoning, I have two for you.

1. Can "God" make a rock so large He can't lift it?

2. "I am lying." Tell me whether that statement is true or false.

The first demonstrates that there is something God cannot do; therefore, God's powers are finite and by definition, "God" is not God. Therefore, God doesn't exist. But again, that's just playing with semantics, like you are doing above.

The second is more important because it creates a paradox that cannot be resolved with logic. And that means there exists a gap in the system of logic in which god, if one exists, can hide.

So we can demonstrate that god MIGHT exist, be that's a long way from evidence that God DOES exist. Ball's in your court. Present something observable to back up your words.

I think the most telling evidence at this time is that the universe seems to be working fine whether there is a god at the helm or not. God isn't needed to explain Nature.

Doug

The fourth kind IMO (and that is only my opinion) falls within the agnostic position. Such a person is waiting for enough evidence to either chose a position of belief or to move beyond belief to knowledge

I agree with your assertion about semantic proofs for god. For a person to know god exists the evidences have to be of the same qualitative and quantative nature as those by which we know anything/everything exists outside our own mind.

Your first conundrum/paradox is easily sidestepped. God IS the rock, and the rock is an element of god. Thus the question becomes redundant.

Your second does not provide enough information. In the classic logical position/question the assertion is either. I always lie; or i always tell the truth. if you always lie then you are telling the truth and are a liar. if you always tell the truth then you are telling the truth. In both cases you are truthful to your statement. That's my recollection from logic classes at uni, but it was a long time ago so I might have got it wrong.

Finally there are two forms of evidentiary proof for any person. Those available to the individual and those held in common by society. God can be known through personal evidentiary proofs, the same as all things can be known. My assertion that, if god is thus real, physical and of indpendent existence rather than a mental construct, inevitably and logically, he/it is discoverable measurable and assessable by the tools of science.

Indeed god isn't required, to explain nature, and god is not the creator of the universe (or of us) God is an evolved product of the universe just like you or I; only older, more evolved, more knowledgeable, more wise and more technologically capable. God does have the power to create, and to recreate but then, so too will humans should we survive long enough.

Edited May 28, 2013 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

Your definition of agnosticism is contradictory, disbelief by definition is to withhold or reject belief.

No; dis-belief is only to chose NOT to believe. All belief and disbelief must inherently be chosen, to form a belief or disbelief position

Non- belief might fall within agnosticism, as might non- disbelief

A position known in religion as agnosticism, or other wise as the suspenson of belief and disbelief, is that of a person who consciously says, "I do not make the choice of belief and I do not make the choice ot disbelief. I acknowledge that I do not know and that is my position until further evidences turn up. People who believe and disbelieve begin to shape world views, other beliefs, and actions on their choices. Agnostics might do this also, but are less likely to take extreme positions .

[+Liquid Gardens]

Finally there are two forms of evidentiary proof for any person. Those available to the individual and those held in common by society. God can be known through personal evidentiary proofs, the same as all things can be known.

Going with the way you've defined it, God can be 'known' through personal evidentiary proofs but that doesn't mean he actually exists, correct? If not, is there anything that cannot be 'known' through personal evidentiary proofs? I'm just putting scare quotes around 'known' because I'm not sure if you mean that in the sense of it actually being true in our shared reality, or in the way that I 'know' what kind of person James Bond or Quasimodo is.

[Mr Walker]

Going with the way you've defined it, God can be 'known' through personal evidentiary proofs but that doesn't mean he actually exists, correct? If not, is there anything that cannot be 'known' through personal evidentiary proofs? I'm just putting scare quotes around 'known' because I'm not sure if you mean that in the sense of it actually being true in our shared reality, or in the way that I 'know' what kind of person James Bond or Quasimodo is.

Descartes position was that only our own conscious awareness can be truly known (I think ergo i must exist)

I do not hold that philosophical poistion. I believe from science that I can know that my wife and my dog have real, physical and independent existences outside my mind just as my own body does.

And I extend that to every element of reality, to which consistent evidences and proofs must be applied to establish their physical and independent existence.

So in my life, I KNOW god as I know my wife and my dog. They all offer the same physical evidentiary proofs for their existence. if i had a camera with me i could photograph an avatar of god when it appeared. If i had a recorder. I could record the words he speaks to me and so on.

I judge the physicality of god by things such as; if others can see and hear him when I do, and by whether his actions leave physical traces and evience in the environment like any other physicla entity. For example one proof of my dogs physicality is the poop he leaves behind, and that I have to clean up One proof of gods physicality is the physical alteration he makes in the universe, like turning a night into day, generating electric power where none exists, healing physical damage to a body, or manifesting in human form witnessed by many then dematerialising.

So no; I mean known in the way we know and define all indpendent physical reality, not in the way we know something limited to our mental constructs.

Reality (noun) Definition

• The world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them: "he refuses to face reality".
  
• A thing that is actually experienced or seen, esp. when this is grim or problematic: "the harsh realities of life".
  

http://www.google.co.....0.K6PP1iPbdPo

Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined.^[1] In a wider definition, reality includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. A still more broad definition includes everything that has existed, exists, or will exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality

When I say god is real. I mean in the sense of these definitions.

Edited May 29, 2013 by Mr Walker

[Rlyeh]

No; dis-belief is only to chose NOT to believe. All belief and disbelief must inherently be chosen, to form a belief or disbelief position

Refusal or reluctance to believe.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disbelief

A position known in religion as agnosticism, or other wise as the suspenson of belief and disbelief, is that of a person who consciously says, "I do not make the choice of belief and I do not make the choice ot disbelief. I acknowledge that I do not know and that is my position until further evidences turn up. People who believe and disbelieve begin to shape world views, other beliefs, and actions on their choices. Agnostics might do this also, but are less likely to take extreme positions .

You're describing a position of unable to believe (which is disbelief) and not disbelieving. These are mutually exclusive.

[spartan max2]

Im agnostic because I believe that some things are just out of human comprehension.

like how a dog can only understand so much i feel it is the same with humans. We have a limit.

Is the universe never ending or does it end? for example that question is immposible for us to grasp. We cant grasp something going on forever but at the same time we cant grasp something ending, if it ends is there just like a wall? then whats behind the wall? lol

So that is why i am agnostic, i think life and the start of it is something that we can not really understand with our human brains.

[Frank Merton]

No; dis-belief is only to chose NOT to believe. All belief and disbelief must inherently be chosen, to form a belief or disbelief position

This assertion of yours that we choose what to believe or not to believe is self-serving (within the agenda you are pursuing here) and completely off base. When your boss tells you that you are fired, and must clean out your desk and leave, you do not "choose" belief or disbelief. When we become persuaded something is true or not true, we have a built-in system that compels acceptance of reality -- only the insane get around this.

[Mr Walker]

Refusal or reluctance to believe.

http://www.thefreedi...y.com/disbelief

You're describing a position of unable to believe (which is disbelief) and not disbelieving. These are mutually exclusive.

Your first point is correct. Disbelief is a conscious refusal or reluctance to believe (to chose belief). i do not see the differnce between disbelief and disbelieving . The choice of disbelief leads to disbelieving. A person who finds them self unable to believe choses a position of disbelief. Even if by default, it remains a choice.

[Mr Walker]

This assertion of yours that we choose what to believe or not to believe is self-serving (within the agenda you are pursuing here) and completely off base. When your boss tells you that you are fired, and must clean out your desk and leave, you do not "choose" belief or disbelief. When we become persuaded something is true or not true, we have a built-in system that compels acceptance of reality -- only the insane get around this.

Covered this before. The two positions are not the same. Belief and disbeleif can only exist where factual evidence and knowledge is not available You know your boss fired you, so neither belief or disbelief enter into it.

Acceptance of reality is called knowledge not belief. I dont believe i am married, i know i am. If someone asked me if i was married and I answered "I believe so" they would look at me strangely.

[Frank Merton]

Factual knowledge is the only possible realistic basis for belief or disbelief. You draw a convenient distinction that doesn't exist.

[Rlyeh]

Your first point is correct. Disbelief is a conscious refusal or reluctance to believe (to chose belief). i do not see the differnce between disbelief and disbelieving . The choice of disbelief leads to disbelieving. A person who finds them self unable to believe choses a position of disbelief. Even if by default, it remains a choice.

Never said there was a difference between disbelief and disbelieving.

Is your agnostic able to believe or not? According to what you just wrote, an agnostic who can't believe must therefore disbelieve.

[Mr Walker]

Factual knowledge is the only possible realistic basis for belief or disbelief. You draw a convenient distinction that doesn't exist.

No the opposite is true. If a person has factual knowledge they cannot chose a belief position, either to believe or to disbelieve without being both illogical and a little crazy. Beliefs (and disbeliefs which are a form of belief) are constructs of the human mind which exist indpendent of any evidence. They can truly only exist in an arena wherelknowledge is non existent or non compelling.

For example I know that my chair will support me. It is then logically impossible for me to construct a belief position that it will hold me, or to construct a belief position that it will not. I know I am 61 years old. It is logically impossible for me to chose to believe that I am 30 or that I am 70. But if i was not certain of my birthdate or my age, I could chose an age that approximated mine and chose to believe I was that age. I know that if I walk off a cliff, gravity will pull me down at 32 feet per second squared. I cannot logically believe that i will not fall, nor can I believe that I will fall. Again, my knowledge of what will happen precludes either a belief or a disbelief about it.

You KNOW the earth is "spherical" It is thus IMPOSSIBLE without being irrational for you to chose to believe it is a cube But it is also impossible for you to chose to believe it is a sphere because that option is precluded by your knowledge.

The problem may arise if you have studied philosophy. That discipline uses slightly different definitions based on plato's concept of knowledge being a "justified true belief." Outside of philosophy, and in normal usage, knowledge is;

a familiarity with someone or something, which can include facts, information, descriptions, or skills acquired through experience or education.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge

While belief is;

the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.

^1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief

As you can see, these are mutually exclusive and disparate concepts/entities. You cannot "hold" a proposition or a premise to be true, if you KNOW it is true. It just is, and you would use the word know, not believe.

To give one final real example. I do not know that there are sleepy lizards in our garden at present.

I have seen them in the past but not for a while. Thus I can rightly, logically and sensibly, choose to believe that there ARE sleepy lizards in my garden, or I can just as rightly, logically and sensibly, choose to disbeliev that there are NOT. As soon as I see a sleepy lizard in my garden, neither of those options are open to me. I now KNOW that at least one sleepy lizard is inhabiting my garden.

Edited May 29, 2013 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

Never said there was a difference between disbelief and disbelieving.

Is your agnostic able to believe or not? According to what you just wrote, an agnostic who can't believe must therefore disbelieve.

An agnostic is a person who choses not to chose. He/she is capable of belief/disbelief (any human being is capable of this) They just chose not to believe or disbelieve

[Doug1029]

Your first conundrum/paradox is easily sidestepped. God IS the rock, and the rock is an element of god. Thus the question becomes redundant.

The first paradox says more about the inadequacies of language than it says about anything else. It really doesn't matter how one attempts to resolve it, the paradox remains. And paradox is a part of Nature, so either we have a problem with the system of logic, or there are issues in Nature that simply can't be resolved.

Your second does not provide enough information. In the classic logical position/question the assertion is either. I always lie; or i always tell the truth. if you always lie then you are telling the truth and are a liar. if you always tell the truth then you are telling the truth. In both cases you are truthful to your statement. That's my recollection from logic classes at uni, but it was a long time ago so I might have got it wrong.

If I am lying, my words are false, the statement cannot be true and I must be telling the truth. But if I am telling the truth, then my words are false, so the statement has to be true. It is called Geodel's Theorem. It cannot be resolved with logic, thus demonstrating that the logic system is incomplete: there exists truth that is inaccessible to logic and reason.

Finally there are two forms of evidentiary proof for any person. Those available to the individual and those held in common by society. God can be known through personal evidentiary proofs, the same as all things can be known. My assertion that, if god is thus real, physical and of indpendent existence rather than a mental construct, inevitably and logically, he/it is discoverable measurable and assessable by the tools of science.

"Proof" does not really exist in Nature, at least in most instances. In most situations, we cannot hope to reach the ultimate Truth. But we can make an estimate of what truth is. And for us mere mortals, that is the best we can do.

The problem arises when people try to substitute a guess for an estimate. Then we end up with all sorts of strange things - just read through UM for a sampling.

As long as we remember that our concepts of god are a guess, we retain a little humility. The beginning of knowledge, whether about god or Nature, is the realization that we don't and can't know everything.

Doug

[Frank Merton]

Whether or not you believe in sleeping lizards in your garden depends on whether or not you can see them. If you can't, you don't believe in them. That you tell me otherwise is not credible. I repeat myself, the only basis for belief is what you know. If your knowledge is erroneous, then you may have erroneous beliefs, but that is poor education or false indoctrination, not belief based on choice.

[Rlyeh]

An agnostic is a person who choses not to chose. He/she is capable of belief/disbelief (any human being is capable of this) They just chose not to believe or disbelieve

By chosing not to believe is disbelief.

[Doug1029]

By chosing not to believe is disbelief.

One can suspend judgment when there is insufficient evidence to warrant a conclusion. It is a third choice, between belief and non-belief. Unlike the others, it is rationally based.

Doug

[Rlyeh]

One can suspend judgment when there is insufficient evidence to warrant a conclusion. It is a third choice, between belief and non-belief. Unlike the others, it is rationally based.

You've just described disbelief.

"Refusal or reluctance to believe."

There is a third option though, apathy.

Edited May 29, 2013 by Rlyeh

[Doug1029]

You've just described disbelief.

"Refusal or reluctance to believe."

There is a third option though, apathy.

I could choose to believe that there is no god and that would be disbelief. But I don't. I simply suspend judgment pending the day that better evidence comes to light. And that is simply a delayed consideration.

Apathy is the same thing. Decision is post-poned until a day when apathy is no longer dominant. That, again, is not disbelief because there is no decision not to believe.

You are judging from a god-centered viewpoint. Your definitions are loaded ones with a strong theistic bias.

Doug

[+Liquid Gardens]

I believe from science that I can know that my wife and my dog have real, physical and independent existences outside my mind just as my own body does.

And I extend that to every element of reality, to which consistent evidences and proofs must be applied to establish their physical and independent existence.

So in my life, I KNOW god as I know my wife and my dog. They all offer the same physical evidentiary proofs for their existence.

I'm not sure if 'in my life' is supposed to be a significant qualifier so I'm going to assume that just means 'in reality' since we agree on how that is defined. I disagree, no, god does not offer the same evidentiary proofs as your wife and dog. Have you ever encountered anyone who has disagreed that your wife and dog exist once they were in their presence? I'll go on record as saying I don't believe your god exists, although I of course could be wrong, and I'd guess I'm not the first to express that doubt? You could provide me or anyone solid evidentiary proofs that your dog exists, but no one has yet been able to provide any good evidentiary proofs that any god exists; to me that doesn't seem to be the 'same' at all.

if i had a camera with me i could photograph an avatar of god when it appeared. If i had a recorder. I could record the words he speaks to me and so on.

Hmmm, given that most cell phones these days come equipped with both of those technologies, as well as a video recorder, I'm not sure why you have not done so as it would be the most amazing piece of evidence ever produced. I have no idea how you happen to know that what you are seeing and hearing can be recorded, how have you determined this?

I judge the physicality of god by things such as; if others can see and hear him when I do, and by whether his actions leave physical traces and evience in the environment like any other physicla entity. For example one proof of my dogs physicality is the poop he leaves behind, and that I have to clean up One proof of gods physicality is the physical alteration he makes in the universe, like turning a night into day, generating electric power where none exists, healing physical damage to a body, or manifesting in human form witnessed by many then dematerialising.

What is the evidence that god has done any of those things? Those all sound like beliefs to me, not evidence, and it seems odd that knowledge of reality is based on the lower standard of beliefs about reality (using what I understand to be your definitions of 'beliefs', 'knowledge', and 'reality').

Did Mary miraculously appear at Fatima? Three children sure seemed to know she did, they saw her. Do you believe the things that other people justify with their own personal proofs and experiences (and most importantly, their interpretations thereof) even though they say that physical evidence existed that you nonetheless cannot verify, much as I can't verify your physical evidence? I would guess not as some of what people believe based on these 'proofs' are mutually contradictory. If not, then why do you think that you are any more immune to mistaken interpretations than they are or anyone including myself is, since many people have come to incorrect conclusions using this epistemological methodology?

[Mr Walker]

The first paradox says more about the inadequacies of language than it says about anything else. It really doesn't matter how one attempts to resolve it, the paradox remains. And paradox is a part of Nature, so either we have a problem with the system of logic, or there are issues in Nature that simply can't be resolved.

If I am lying, my words are false, the statement cannot be true and I must be telling the truth. But if I am telling the truth, then my words are false, so the statement has to be true. It is called Geodel's Theorem. It cannot be resolved with logic, thus demonstrating that the logic system is incomplete: there exists truth that is inaccessible to logic and reason.

"Proof" does not really exist in Nature, at least in most instances. In most situations, we cannot hope to reach the ultimate Truth. But we can make an estimate of what truth is. And for us mere mortals, that is the best we can do.

The problem arises when people try to substitute a guess for an estimate. Then we end up with all sorts of strange things - just read through UM for a sampling.

As long as we remember that our concepts of god are a guess, we retain a little humility. The beginning of knowledge, whether about god or Nature, is the realization that we don't and can't know everything.

Doug

You (and the philosophers) are incorrect in their interpretation of those paradoxes. They are artificial unreal paradoxes which can easily be sidestepped via/within, reality.

For example the first makes assumptions about the nature of god based only on one common variant of god. If god is neither omnipotent nor omniscient then he cannot construct such a rock but that doesn't not preclude him /it from being god unless we decide it does.

If god IS the universe, including the rock, then whether or not he created the rock, he can lift it as easily as he can "jump his body up and down" or 'raise his little finger"

The second is not really a paradox at all. lt expresses the intent of the speaker. When the liar says he is truthful he is intending to deceive ie. lie. But an observer who knows that he always lies/intends to deceive, can reverse his statement and get the truth from the statement and his knowledge of the speaker.

In the original puzzle the observer knows that one man always tells the truth and the other always lies. The observer's role is to determine which is intending to deceive and which is truthful.

I take your point about degrees of proof and evidence. No one knows precisely how tall mt everest is for example, yet we know it exists and how tall it is, to a fair degree of accuracy.

My point is that; whether dealing with cats and dogs, gods ghosts and goblins, or anything else, we need to use the same forms of evidences and proofs.

[Mr Walker]

Whether or not you believe in sleeping lizards in your garden depends on whether or not you can see them. If you can't, you don't believe in them. That you tell me otherwise is not credible. I repeat myself, the only basis for belief is what you know. If your knowledge is erroneous, then you may have erroneous beliefs, but that is poor education or false indoctrination, not belief based on choice.

I'm sorry but this view is so weird and apparently illogical that I cannot understand how you came to it.

You have a completely mistaken view of what belief is, and how it is different to knowledge. If i see a lizard in the garden I KNOW it is there Thus i cannot form a belief position on its existence. I can choose to believe a lizard exists within my garden becuase it is an entirely logical and credible belief position. It is also, and equally, entirely logical and credible to believe there is NOT one there at the present time.

As i said, i think you are taking/working with the platonic concept of belief, which does not work and is not the definition of belief outside of a particular philosophical viewpoint.

ps a sleepy lizard is a particular species of australian lizard found in our area. It is similar to but different from, a blue tongue lizard. SO I am chosing to believe a certain species of lizard lives in my garden at the present time (or not) ratherr than that a "sleeping" lizard lives there.

Edited May 30, 2013 by Mr Walker

[Rlyeh]

I could choose to believe that there is no god and that would be disbelief. But I don't. I simply suspend judgment pending the day that better evidence comes to light. And that is simply a delayed consideration.

In other words you don't believe, why is it so hard to admit?

Apathy is the same thing. Decision is post-poned until a day when apathy is no longer dominant. That, again, is not disbelief because there is no decision not to believe.

Apathy is not caring if it is true or not. Suspend judgment is a decision not to believe for the time being.

You are judging from a god-centered viewpoint. Your definitions are loaded ones with a strong theistic bias.

Doug

My definition comes from the dictionary.

[starchild1976]

If we're all being honest.. people have their prayers answered..people from many different religions feel their prayers have been answered. Therefore we all in my opinion must be speaking to the same God and calling him/her by various names.