It really isn't possible is it?

[Storm]

Upon what do you base your inordinant faith in 'personal experience?'

I'm not placing faith in it, much less "inordinant faith". I'm saying it's a rational basis for belief.

 

[Phasmid]

But what if you DO know?

How could you know? How could you tell a religious experience from smacking your head too hard on a wall?

 

[Phasmid]

Against (a), I've argued that it doesn't matter. Christians hold that belief in God is properly basic, and proving God exists is like proving the universe exists and isn't an illusion.

Fair enough, you could say that it's almost impossible to prove anything completely.

But what do you mean, "belief in God is properly basic"?

 

[Yid613]

I think agnosticism is generally understood to mean that we can't know about a god or gods at all, not that we can know about them only vaguely or partially. The latter position is responsible common sense, not agnosticism.

There is a creation. Therefore there must be a creator. No where do we see thing popping in to existence by themselves. There is always some action put in motion by someone, or thing. There is always a cause. Since we know there is a creator, G-d in religious terms, then by this definition agnosticism does not make sense.

 

[crystalonyx]

True, but they can't prove that God does not exist... in fact, they don't even know what they're looking for. No amount of looking through a telescope at the sky is likey to reveal and old man floating on a cloud for example.

No need to, like in Russell's Celestial Teapot example.

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time"

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There is a creation. Therefore there must be a creator.

Who made up that rule?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

No where do we see thing popping in to existence by themselves. There is always some action put in motion by someone, or thing. There is always a cause. Since we know there is a creator, G-d in religious terms, then by this definition agnosticism does not make sense.

This is atrociously and embarrassingly bad ...

• We do, indeed, see things "popping into existance."
• To posit a creator ("since we know there is a creator") to prove a creator is ridiculous.
• To substitute "God did it" for the agnostic's "I don't know" is hardly a sterling example of making sense.

 

[Phasmid]

There is a creation. Therefore there must be a creator. No where do we see thing popping in to existence by themselves. There is always some action put in motion by someone, or thing. There is always a cause. Since we know there is a creator, G-d in religious terms, then by this definition agnosticism does not make sense.

Neither does God by the same argument. Why's it alright for an all-powerful God to pop into existence and not a much simpler universe?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm not placing faith in it, much less "inordinant faith". I'm saying it's a rational basis for belief.

And why is not the personal experience with pyramid power, crystal power, ghosts, alien abductions, etc. not similarly "a rational basis for belief?"

 

[Magic Man]

There is a creation. Therefore there must be a creator.

You're confusing yourself with language. We do not know whether there is a creation. We know that there is the universe, but it isn't necessarily a creation, even though that word gets used for it quite often. If you don't call it a creation, then the need for a creator dies off.

 

[crystalonyx]

Also, who or what created the creator?

 

[Storm]

And why is not the personal experience with pyramid power, crystal power, ghosts, alien abductions, etc. not similarly "a rational basis for belief?"

Who said it wasn't?

 

[little_monkey]

There is a creation. Therefore there must be a creator. No where do we see thing popping in to existence by themselves. There is always some action put in motion by someone, or thing. There is always a cause. Since we know there is a creator, G-d in religious terms, then by this definition agnosticism does not make sense.

This begs the question, "what caused God?" If the answer is that God always existed, and therefore there is no cause before God, the same reasoning can be put forth by substituting the word "universe" for the word "God".

 

[Apex]

Agnosticism is the only logical stance with regards to religion. Discuss...

I believe it is the only true religion that requires no faith what so ever. So, in a sense, it would be the most logical.

 

[Yid613]

Neither does God by the same argument. Why's it alright for an all-powerful God to pop into existence and not a much simpler universe?

You're confusing yourself with language. We do not know whether there is a creation. We know that there is the universe, but it isn't necessarily a creation, even though that word gets used for it quite often. If you don't call it a creation, then the need for a creator dies off.

Our universe, what we can have knowledge of, can be a creation while what is beyond, what is unknowable, may be eternal. Whatever its nature of existence it certainly need not conform to what we see in our universe.

But it makes no difference if you say the universe was not created. This is also something we do not see in our world, it is unique. Something unique and without beginning or end, sounds like . . .

Saying that we cannot know a god implies knowledge of its existence. So I guess it all matter of degree. Where is the line between agnosticism and religion?

 

[Phasmid]

Saying that we cannot know a god implies knowledge of its existence.

No that's like me talking about a purple monkey. I know a purple monkey... and because I've said purple monkey 3 times you likely have an image of a purple monkey in your head. You have a mental construct of it... nothing more... the same applies to the above quote.

EDIT: I think I get what you said prior to this quote. Let's say before the universe came to be, there was an endless expanse of white. Then all of a sudden the universe expanded into it. This white could continue to infinity in every direction and mingle with what's in the universe. But why would it have intelligence?

 

[Yid613]

No that's like me talking about a purple monkey. I know a purple monkey... and because I've said purple monkey 3 times you likely have an image of a purple monkey in your head. You have a mental construct of it... nothing more... the same applies to the above quote.

"A mental construct", yes knowledge of purple monkeys, nothing more, unless I get a can of spray paint and . . .

EDIT: I think I get what you said prior to this quote. Let's say before the universe came to be, there was an endless expanse of white. Then all of a sudden the universe expanded into it. This white could continue to infinity in every direction and mingle with what's in the universe. But why would it have intelligence?

If you apply any attribute to it then you are limiting it. It would not be white. You cannot say it is intelligence or not intelligence. To be white both possibilities must exist.

Now if you say the white hide itself, a self imposed limitation, you would have an area of limitation, a finite creation. Just an artist removes the parts of the stone that are not the sculpture. Its essence would still be white, it would only appear not white. The true nature of the white would be unknowable to the finite creation. The finite creation could only know the white in terms of itself, those elements of the white that were not hidden.

It you take the above change white to some obscure name of G-d and rewrite it in bad Aramaic you’d haves some good Kabala.

 

[gnomon]

True, but they can't prove that God does not exist... in fact, they don't even know what they're looking for. No amount of looking through a telescope at the sky is likey to reveal and old man floating on a cloud for example.

There is no relevant need to.

 

[Mjolnir]

If you say that nothing can be created from nothing, and there is a creator. You would have to apply that concept to the creator also, and so it is an endless line that leads nowhere. If the universe popped into existence, it would make a lot more sense than an all powerful creator doing the same thing.

 

[logician]

That makes the most sense are the latest multiverse theories - that matter and energy have existed forever - no creation needed thank you.