So if I can dismantle all three other views, just doing that, would PROVE my case for Gods existence, I would not even NEED to build a case FOR God, because by proving the other views WRONG, Gods case would thus already be proved. Because you see, there are only 4 views, there is no 5, there never WAS a 5 and never WILL be a 5. There are variations with all 4 of these views, but there is NOT a 5.
Incorrect. I can think of a fifth and a sixth right off the top of my head:
- some other god, not the god you call "God", created the universe.
- a
group of gods created the universe.
And there are many more possibilities besides these. Here's the problem: before the Big Bang, the laws of physics as we know them break down. We can't say with certainty anything about what came before. Did causality work the way it does for us? We don't know. Was there some other system of forces and laws? We don't know. And we don't currently have any way to find out. Therefore, you can't say with certainty that any set of causes are
all the possible causes. There's always the possibility that there's some other explanation that nobody has thought of.
Now, does this mean I refuse to SHOW why God did it is the most plausible? No, I dont refuse that, but I just want to make the point that if I disprove in a negative sense all the other 3 views wrong, Gods case is already proven right, now take that into the equation and add it to me PROVING in a positive sense HIS existence, then my case is even MORE SUPER STRONG. So I have evidence FOR GODs existence and I have evidence AGAINST all three of the other views. Therefore my case is AIR TIGHT.
No, it's not. You didn't disprove any of the three other views, and you didn't prove that there are only four possibilities.
I absolutely agree that ones like or dislike for a belief has no bearing on whether the belief is true or false. Your absolutely correct there. But my point about agnostics being the WORST position is true because agnostics by definition claim to NOT KNOW the truth and then go on with life. And they keep asserting to not know the truth and many years go by and by and they still dont know. The problem with that is this, by their actions they are CLAIMING to KNOW that whatever the truth is, it certainly wont be harmful to them, and that is why they are so PASSIVE about knowing the truth. But by being passive, that action asserts to know the truth, the truth is for them that nothing will be harmful for them.
I don't know a single agnostic who says that the truth certainly won't be harmful to them. Regardless, this thread is about your case for God, not your case for why you don't like the agnostic position.
Also there is another problem with the position of agnosticism, it asserts that no one can know the truth, that means they are asserting to KNOW that they nor anyone can KNOW. Well, how do they know that? By that very assertion they are claiming to KNOW the truth, the truth being that we cannot know the truth. They dont know that.
Well, I think here we get into ideas like "known unknowns" and "unknown unknowns". Sometimes you can realize that there's a hole in your knowledge; other times, you may have a hole without realizing it.
For instance, say you go out in the yard and see a gopher hole: you can point to the hole and say "I don't know whether there's a gopher in this hole" - this is a "known unknown". However, if there's another gopher hole hidden under a bush, you wouldn't even know that it's there, so you wouldn't be able to point to it and say "I don't know whether there's a gopher in there" - this would be an "unknown unknown".
Effectively, an agnostic is saying that the case for God is like the first example: it's a known unknown. We can formulate a hypothesis, consider the evidence for or against it, and decide that the evidence is inconclusive. While I think individual agnostic claims should be evaluated on their own merits, I don't personally see any inherent logical contradiction in that arrangement.
So really, there are no TRUE agnostics. There are only people who CLAIM they are agnostics without understanding they are NOT.
Enh. If a person tells me that they're either uncertain that God exists or believe that he's unknowable, I'm usually going to accept that this really is what they believe.
Also why would you accuse me of dealing with ones LIKE or DISLIKES if that is what you did to me by saying that I did not LIKE your answer to a question I had? Is that not a double standard going on there?
I'm not saying that we can't talk about people's likes or dislikes at all, I'm saying that whether you like or dislike a thing has no bearing on whether it's true or false.
Right
.but not having enough information to tell which one is right, does not mean you dont have to make a decision. Which one do you PICK or which one do you think is right, and then which one would you LIKE to be right?
Plus there is enough information, I am giving it all here, I am answering all your points and questions and you lack answers to my questions. That should tell you something right there, WHO is right.
"Every complex question has a simple, easy-to-understand wrong answer."