Logically, agnosticism is the most rational position

[1137]

I think some sort of immaterial "god" is the only way to address some of the biggest paradoxes I've been faced with, like the mind-body problem.

 

[columbus]

Existence isn't the question. Is it logically possible to discuss what doesn't exist?

Sure.
From the square root of -1, to Gandalf the Wizard, to objective morality, people talk about nonexistent things all the time. We humans are very good at abstract thinking and fiction and deluding ourselves about reality.

I started to include the personal integrity of Clinton or Trump in that sentence, but I couldn't remember which side of the political divide you fell on
Tom

 

[Hawkins]

In terms of beliefs about the supernatural and God, agnosticism seems to be the most rational positions to hold compared to atheism and theism. I am the kind of agnostic where I don't know if God exists, and I don't even know how I would attempt to calculate a probability for God's existence, let alone actually give a probability.

I think the atheistic claim that God is unlikely seems to be an impossible claim. There are way too many possibilities and factors that would be required to actually determine God to be unlikely. Furthermore, theism is equally illogical since it claims that either God's existence is likely, or certain.

I would argue that nobody has anywhere close to enough information that would enable them to formally, or even informally, determine the likelihood of God's existence. Even visions or feelings that people have aren't anywhere near conclusive enough. Visions and feelings could be delusions, or an alien experiment, or a fake deity tricking you such as Satan, or some kind of hallucination, or just wishful thinking. These feelings or visions can't be used to know if God is real due to the unreliability and unverifiability of feelings and visions, especially considering feelings and visions tend to confirm a variety of beliefs that are often mutually exclusive. Anyways, it seems to me that if people were trying to be as logical as possible, they should be agnostics as i've defined them (not knowing the probability of God's existence and not knowing if its possible to get such a probability).

Logically, our science only works in exploring physical things inside the 3D space we are living in, as experiments can only be carried out inside but not outside. If a truth exists outside of our 3D ball, the only hope for us to reach such a truth is being told by a super entity who can reach such a truth. To put it another way, if a super entity tells a truth which is outside the 3D ball we are in. The possible way for such a truth to convey is for the first handed humans to write it down for other humans to believe with faith. If this truth concerns our lives, only those believe correctly will find the escape. They don't seem to be those upholding agnosticism.

 

[loverofhumanity]

...For myself personally, I have ample proof of the existence of Baal. Every atom in existence proves he exists. But behind this statement is my own 33 years of researching and study. It's not just an opinion on blind faith. There are logical proofs and spiritual proofs...

Personal experience and conviction are great for your faith, man. But they say nothing on the reality of the actual existence of a deity.

The Writings of Baha'u'llah. They proved to me beyond a doubt God exists.

 

[loverofhumanity]

What logical proofs are there that don't rely on logical fallacies like God of the gaps arguments (arguing from ignorance)?

Read the Writings of Baha'u'llah. They are from God.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Maybe you could start a new thread where you give some of the "logical proofs" of God.

That's a great idea. I'll keep it in mind. Thanks!

 

[jonathan180iq]

An interesting implication of the "we have no evidence either way" claim: it implies that every single theistic religion is made-up nonsense.

Any reasonable justification for belief in a theistic religion would itself be evidence of a god, so "no evidence" means that all god-belief is rooted in either delusion or lies.

And on the other side, when we say that we can't disprove the existence of gods, it's only in the sense that we can't rule out with certainty that any of these delusions or lies just happened to serendipitously line up with something real that nobody knows about in an "a stopped clock is right twice a day" kind of way.

From where I sit, this is actually a much more anti-theistic and anti-religion position than that of most atheists I know (i.e. something like "I personally haven't seen evidence that will convince me so far").

For lack of a better word... Yep.

 

[McBell]

Read the Writings of Baha'u'llah. They are from God.

So are the writing of Mohammed...
And Peter
and paul
and Matthew....

or so I am told

 

[Sleeppy]

Sure.
From the square root of -1, to Gandalf the Wizard, to objective morality, people talk about nonexistent things all the time. We humans are very good at abstract thinking and fiction and deluding ourselves about reality.

I started to include the personal integrity of Clinton or Trump in that sentence, but I couldn't remember which side of the political divide you fell on
Tom

The fact that you're referring to these things suggests that these things exist, bare minimum. It's not efficient, but rather counterproductive in certain measures, to dismiss outright the perceptual products of the mind as nonexistential. All things that we think and do are accounted for in spacetime; they exist.

 

[loverofhumanity]

So are the writing of Mohammed...
And Peter
and paul
and Matthew....

or so I am told

Yes. They are all the Word of God. I have all of them and read them regularly.

 

[crossfire]

In terms of beliefs about the supernatural and God, agnosticism seems to be the most rational positions to hold compared to atheism and theism. I am the kind of agnostic where I don't know if God exists, and I don't even know how I would attempt to calculate a probability for God's existence, let alone actually give a probability.

I think the atheistic claim that God is unlikely seems to be an impossible claim. There are way too many possibilities and factors that would be required to actually determine God to be unlikely. Furthermore, theism is equally illogical since it claims that either God's existence is likely, or certain.

I would argue that nobody has anywhere close to enough information that would enable them to formally, or even informally, determine the likelihood of God's existence. Even visions or feelings that people have aren't anywhere near conclusive enough. Visions and feelings could be delusions, or an alien experiment, or a fake deity tricking you such as Satan, or some kind of hallucination, or just wishful thinking. These feelings or visions can't be used to know if God is real due to the unreliability and unverifiability of feelings and visions, especially considering feelings and visions tend to confirm a variety of beliefs that are often mutually exclusive. Anyways, it seems to me that if people were trying to be as logical as possible, they should be agnostics as i've defined them (not knowing the probability of God's existence and not knowing if its possible to get such a probability).

My own opinion: the most rational stance (imo) is moving beyond the whole theism/atheism schism and setting the question aside: transtheism. (Your mileage may vary.)

 

[columbus]

The fact that you're referring to these things suggests that these things exist, bare minimum.

Jesus exists the way Gandalf exists. A fictional representative of some abstract concepts.
We can talk about them all we want. They are characters in very sophisticated literature that is drenched in meaning. They do exist, both of them.

The main difference is that modern people know who created Gandalf and attribute magical knowledge to the anonymous authors of the New Testament.
Tom

 

[Willamena]

Sure.
From the square root of -1, to Gandalf the Wizard, to objective morality, people talk about nonexistent things all the time. We humans are very good at abstract thinking and fiction and deluding ourselves about reality.

I started to include the personal integrity of Clinton or Trump in that sentence, but I couldn't remember which side of the political divide you fell on
Tom

Technically, that's impossibility rather than nonexistence. Things exist. The square root of -1 is an indeterminate variable; Gandalf the Wizard is a fiction (not actual)--in these contexts they exist. Taking them out of context makes them impossible, not nonexistent.

But that's neither here nor there.

 

[columbus]

But that's neither here nor there.

Well, really it is in the context of this thread.

Not only do fictitious characters exist in literature, there is no clear division between exists and doesn't exist.
The character Donald Trump, constantly written about on DailyKos, both exists and doesn't exist.

Same with God. Exists and doesn't exist, at the same time.
Ergo, agnostics.
Tom

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Do you know the probability of blue fairies to exist, for instance? i don't.

Does that entail that the most rational position to hold about blue fairies is agnosticism?

I think we are giving religious claims a privileged position, for some reason. Undeserved, in my opinion. If I claim agnosticism about God, people might take me seriously and even respect that. But if I claim agnosticism about blue fairies, they might look at me funny.

I never understood why, since Gods and blue fairies have both a probability that is inscrutable.

Ciao

- viole

Your cite a common refrain. Blue fairies, the Loch Ness monster, invisible pink unicorns, etc....
But what most all of these fail to take into account is the sheer magnitude of what is proposed. -->. God <-- THE One and Only God. The infinite, pan-dimensional, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, omnitemporal is just so much bigger than most theists' (or even atheists') imaginings can remotely begin to grasp. I don't feign to be omnianything. Blue faeies on the other hand are (reportedly) finite, sometimes visible, fallible, and by some peoples' reckoning even catchable. So are Nessy and sasquatch.
Claims for the finite can be tracked down and negated. But a claim about a truly INFINITE entity are beyond mortal confirmation or negation. I agree that so far the search has yielded nul results.....but exactly what percent of the pandimensional omniverse have we extensively studied so far?
Why not just keep an eye open? It can certainly be a "back-burner" sort of item, but marvelling at wonders (followed by intense, and unbiased investigation) is not a bad way to approach our species' expansion into the universe as the millennia roll forward.

An interesting implication of the "we have no evidence either way" claim: it implies that every single theistic religion is made-up nonsense.

Any reasonable justification for belief in a theistic religion would itself be evidence of a god, so "no evidence" means that all god-belief is rooted in either delusion or lies.

Yes.




.....and related to @viole 's note....the churches of mankind are finite, and therefore wrong. I would consider deism, or rather a Deism conceptualizing a Laissez Faire Diety, to be the closest estimation of what might be out there (and everywhere in between).

But in the end, a Buddhistic tac is how I personally tend to move. If IT or THEY or WHATEVER does exist, it really is of no concern to any of us. So everybody can just chill out and stop griping about it. When we die, we just might find out.

And on the other side, when we say that we can't disprove the existence of gods, it's only in the sense that we can't rule out with certainty that any of these delusions or lies just happened to serendipitously line up with something real that nobody knows about in an "a stopped clock is right twice a day" kind of way.

From where I sit, this is actually a much more anti-theistic and anti-religion position than that of most atheists I know (i.e. something like "I personally haven't seen evidence that will convince me so far").

Theism and Atheism require at least a little faith, agnosticism is truly faithless.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

.....and related to @viole 's note....the churches of mankind are finite, and therefore wrong. I would consider deism, or rather a Deism conceptualizing a Laissez Faire Diety, to be the closest estimation of what might be out there (and everywhere in between).

Deism? So much for "most rational".

Theism and Atheism require at least a little faith, agnosticism is truly faithless.

Atheism requires no faith at all. Agnosticism requires either faith or the ability to see the future if it's of the strong variety.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Deism? So much for "most rational".


Atheism requires no faith at all. Agnosticism requires either faith or the ability to see the future if it's of the strong variety.

I think you have Atheism and Agnosticism reversed. But I'll not get into yet another round of "strong" vs "weak" this or that.

As for Deism. Again I'm confused by your apparent interpretation. My understanding is that while Deists may believe that some supreme creator entity exists, this creature does not seem to involve itself with human/material concerns. There are no scriptures, vows, ceremonies, churches, preachers, etc.... But, still they believe without evidence, so you're right in that regard....its still not a rational system of thought.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Agnosticism can't really compete for position in the old Atheist/theist dichotomy because it's a different category of thing.

Atheism deals with what one believes about deities.

Agnosticism deals with whether deity can be 'known'

You can believe in deity while also believing deity can't be 'known'.

You can disbelieve in deity while believing deity can't be 'known'.

And vice versa, on all counts.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think you have Atheism and Agnosticism reversed. But I'll not get into yet another round of "strong" vs "weak" this or that.

No, I don't have them reversed. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. Agnosticism is the assertion that the existence of gods is unknowable. Agnosticism has a claim; atheism doesn't.

As for Deism. Again I'm confused by your apparent interpretation. My understanding is that while Deists may believe that some supreme creator entity exists, this creature does not seem to involve itself with human/material concerns. There are no scriptures, vows, ceremonies, churches, preachers, etc.... But, still they believe without evidence, so you're right in that regard....its still not a rational system of thought.

Effectively, deism is the belief that a god exists while also believing that any effects of this god that could serve as a justification for believing in this god do not exist. It undermines its own foundation.

At least with the theists who believe in an interventionist god, even if we disagree on their premises, I can recognize that - usually - their conclusion of a god logically flows from the premises they think are true.

Deists don't have that. They don't have any way to start at some set of premises and through some logical argument, end up at "therefore, God exists". Not without violating their own premises, anyhow.

 

[leibowde84]

Read the Writings of Baha'u'llah. They are from God.

How do you know they are from God? Many writings make that claim.

What writing includes the logical proof for God's existence?