It really isn't possible is it?

[little_monkey]

"I know my mind says no but my heart says yes"

Then you are speaking of feelings, and feelings are rarely logical. That misses completely the OP, Agnosticism is the only logical stance with regards to religion.

 

[BucephalusBB]

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

Yes, except..
If you saw "proof" of God, it no longer applies. If he spoke to you and you saw him as clear you see your screen right now, it would be more rational to believe and keep the option open that your mind is deceiving you. the theistic side of the agnost.

And if you just can't find any reason for God to exist and never saw proof, it would be more rational to asume he therefor does not exist. Without proof again, you would still have to keep in mind that you can be wrong. However, I think that an agnostic atheist is more an atheist than agnost as you decided that the chance for God's unexistance is bigger than the chance of him existing. You didn't give the name "atheistic" for nothing. Same applies to theism.

It all comes down to your own experiences. Not only with the world, but also your experiences with statistics, numbers and experiences of others, etc..

 

[Jeremiah]

Then you are speaking of feelings, and feelings are rarely logical. That misses completely the OP, Agnosticism is the only logical stance with regards to religion.

In the case of God it would be illogical not to take emotions in to account. Btw I believe you misunderstood me and sorry if I offended.

 

[little_monkey]

In the case of God it would be illogical not to take emotions in to account. Btw I believe you misunderstood me and sorry if I offended.

But one can counter that a logical stand means to set aside all feelings in the process of obtaining that stand. So, yes, in a way, we can talk in some objective way about feelings -- their roles, how to deal with them, etc. But if you were taking a course on Logic, you would find that feelings are not part of the discourse. The OP addresses to a logical stand. So to defeat that premise, I would think that one must counter it on logical grounds, that is, show there is a logical contradiction.

BTW, no offense taken.

 

[BucephalusBB]

But one can counter that a logical stand means to set aside all feelings in the process of obtaining that stand. So, yes, in a way, we can talk in some objective way about feelings -- their roles, how to deal with them, etc. But if you were taking a course on Logic, you would find that feelings are not part of the discourse. The OP addresses to a logical stand. So to defeat that premise, I would think that one must counter it on logical grounds, that is, show there is a logical contradiction.

BTW, no offense taken.

You are answering in the atheists stance.. If god showed himself to you, spoke to you, cured all people around you, made it storm and pinched you in your arm, it would be very illogical to say all that does not matter to be logical.

 

[little_monkey]

You are answering in the atheists stance.. If god showed himself to you, spoke to you, cured all people around you, made it storm and pinched you in your arm, it would be very illogical to say all that does not matter to be logical.

That is true, if God would show up, say, at the UN or the WH, in front of cameras and all the eyes of the world to see, the logical stand would be theism.

But where is God showing up? That is one of the logical argument presented.

 

[BucephalusBB]

That is true, if God would show up, say, at the UN or the WH, in front of cameras and all the eyes of the world to see, the logical stand would be theism.

But where is God showing up? That is one of the logical argument presented.

That's not what I mean. What I mean is showing up purelly for you. No tv's and no other opinions.
That does not mean you should immidiatly believe it, you should take it in consideration. All considerations combined would be your stance. And seeing him, hearing him etc would be leaning to the theistic stance. It would be irrational to remain in the middle is you got tons of information in one direction. It would no longer be rational, but denial.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

...(a) We can't prove God's existence one way or the other.

Against (a), I've argued that it doesn't matter.

As a Christian, how can you possibly say that it doesn't matter if God exists or not?

If God does not exist, how do you justify all of the money, time, and effort that goes into worshipping Him?

The very existence of God is what is under debate here. At the very least, let's give that question it's due.

 

[little_monkey]

That's not what I mean. What I mean is showing up purelly for you. No tv's and no other opinions.
That does not mean you should immidiatly believe it, you should take it in consideration. All considerations combined would be your stance. And seeing him, hearing him etc would be leaning to the theistic stance. It would be irrational to remain in the middle is you got tons of information in one direction. It would no longer be rational, but denial.

That would not be very logical for a Deity to show up purely for me, now, wouldn't it???

As to the tons of information, written by humans who are frailed, fickled and none the least trustable, hmmm...to believe in that is certainly not rational.

 

[Autodidact]

Who cares what people can PROVE, especially if by that word you mean something like "advance an argument of such strength that it cannot be disbelieved except on pain of insanity." In that sense, you can't prove anything, not even the intellectual appropriateness of agnosticism.

Besides, as a Christian, I don't think it's necessary to prove Christianity is true. I take belief in God, for example, to be properly basic. Properly functioning cognitive faculties are designed to generate belief in God (as well as all other beliefs) under the right circumstances. In those circumstances, belief in God is properly basic, just as are physical perceptual beliefs. I can't prove to you that there's a red binder sitting beside my computer, but that's nothing against my belief that there's a red binder sitting beside my computer. Similarly, I know that there's a Creator who is responsible for all that exists, that the Creator is ontologically distinct from creation yet intimately relates with it, that the creation is good and not to be despised, that he will eventually set the world to rights through the man Jesus, whom God has confirmed in this role by raising him from the dead. All this I know as surely as the red binder there. I know it because my cognitive faculties were designed to generate such beliefs under the right circumstances (which have obtained). And my knowledge of these things does not hinge on my being able to prove them to anyone.

As I have often said, all Christian (theist, actually) apologetics are circular, revealing their inadequacy. Dune has assumed what he wants to prove.

As for your binder, Dune, if I go to your house, will I see the binder? Case closed. Can you show me God?

 

[BucephalusBB]

That would not be very logical for a Deity to show up purely for me, now, wouldn't it???

Not enough information. Showing up one by one seems just as logical as showing all at the same time.

As to the tons of information, written by humans who are frailed, fickled and none the least trustable, hmmm...to believe in that is certainly not rational.

There are rational and unrational religions..
The OP asked about agnostism as most rational. To me taking parts of religion seems just as rational.

 

[little_monkey]

Not enough information. Showing up one by one seems just as logical as showing all at the same time.


There are rational and unrational religions..
The OP asked about agnostism as most rational. To me taking parts of religion seems just as rational.

1. There's a word you seemed to have missed: most.

2. As to taking parts of religion being rational, you need to show which parts, and why these are rational. The burden is on you.

3. Lastly, a Deity showing up one by one to each of us reduces the evidence, as when we speak to each other about it, we wouldn't know if it is an illusion or not, and it would raise the question, Is it the same Deity? Chances are, we would not agree. To wit: the number of religions/denominations is in the thousands, (34,000 separate Christian groups) each claiming to have the absolute truth.

 

[BucephalusBB]

1. There's a word you seemed to have missed: most.

2. As to taking parts of religion being rational, you need to show which parts, and why these are rational. The burden is on you.

3. Lastly, a Deity showing up one by one to each of us reduces the evidence, as when we speak to each other about it, we wouldn't know if it is an illusion or not, and it would raise the question, Is it the same Deity? Chances are, we would not agree. To wit: the number of religions/denominations is in the thousands, (34,000 separate Christian groups) each claiming to have the absolute truth.

1. I did, I still can't find it

2. That shows that you don't get me. Listen, I am atheist myself, I can't and won't give you parts of religion that are right. By taking a stance you make it personal. but for an example, It is not unrational to think that there is a creator. You see about everything in this world having a creator or being created, why not the entire universe? And once the entire world, or at least the biggest part of it, thinks killing is bad, it is not unrational to think it's part of a standard moral-system.

3. We have lived on this planet for a long long time. God speaking to everybody at the same time right now seems less rational than speaking to everybody in person. He would have done so before.