Originally posted by rwingettFrom the dictionary definition, I don't think it can be extrapolated to a "just as likely", i.e. agnosticis are 50/50. It seems from the definition, agnostics are simply well aware of the fact that they do not know if god exisits but do not actively disbelive in God(s). This is equivalent to one form of 'atheist' using Ringwett's previous definition (one which I found very reasonable) "Lacking belife in God(s)".
You can split hairs over defining hard atheism, soft atheism, agnosticism, etc., and any other subset thereof.
The definition of "agnostic" in my dictionary says:
"One who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable."
Or to put it another way; an agnostic would be one who thinks it is just as likely for ...[text shortened]... Of course, different people will put forth varying degrees of probability on his non-existence.
I would say however that theists do not 'know' either. We believe in Gods existance, but we do not know. We'll never give you a 'proof' of God(s) existance 'cos we don't have one.
Of course, atheists also cannot 'know' there is no God(s) either. How can one 'prove' there is not an entity that can do anything? An impossble task. You might be able to show incompatibilities in a defined religeous structure, but not in the ideology of a 'greater' being.
The word 'angnostic' is quite a new one in fact, but seems to have been invented for the distinction of an atheist who believes there is no god (otherwise known within this thread as a 'Strong Athiest'😉 and those who just shrug and get on with living (also a member of the Athiest clan, but not wanting to be associated with stong athiesm, which is a belife structure the agnosic does not hold to).
Which all boils down to: 'Athiesm' as a singluar term incorperates two different groups of people. Which is why agnosticism as a term was made up in the first place. Unfortunately, we didn't change the definition of Athiest when agnosticism was introduced: queue confusion.
1 edit
Originally posted by FeivelYou seem to not know the difference between logic and sophistry. You claim that although we don't know what perfection means when applied to God, we are nonetheless justified in attributing perfection to him. One more time, because you just can't seem to grasp this incredibly simple point. If we don't know what the property of perfection amounts to when applied to God, (To the extent that any assessment of the acuracy of our attribution is doomed to failure by our limited understanding) we are not justified in attributing it to God.
Correct, we are justified in claiming God is perfect.
This is a majorly false staement and and attempt at an argument based on sophistry. I never claimed that any arguments were based on anything. What I said (please read this sentence ca ...[text shortened]... IT APPLIES TO US.
Amici Sumus
Feivel the HardcoreFreethinker
Feivel, if you can't just admit that you have posted yourself into a whole, then this whole exercise is pointless. Read the following:
"What I said (please read this sentence carefully) is that our limited understanding can't define perfection that is applicable to God, therefore we can't claim god is other than the ultimate in perfection.
"
You are saying that because we have a limited understanding of ultimate perfection, we can't say anything about him other than that he is the ultimate in perfection. Again, it is just obvious that if we have such a limited understanding of what it means to be ultimately perfect, then we aren't justified in saying that God has that property. If you can't see that we have to have some grasp on what our predicates mean in order to be justifed in predicating them to this or that, then you're hopeless.
To answer the original question of this thread: Yes, God does exist. God created everything that was needed for live on earth and then God created all living things. That is one piece of the proof I offer. Therefore I am saying that live did not start through evolution.
It is very important to define "evolution". Evolution very simply put means "change". I suggest that we be more specific and use microevolution (change within a species) and macroevolution (change between species).
Science has shown us many examples of microevolution (Darwin's Natural selection; the peppered moth example etc.) Christians believe that microevolution is a part of God's amazing programming that allows species to adapt to changing circumstances.
That leaves us with the question did live on earth start with macroevolution? This theory assumes that favorable characteristics somehow develop and allows one species to develop into another (dinosaur into bird).
Now there is no existing DNA programming for species change (A dog has only DNA to be a dog, there is no DNA to be anything else but a dog). Now to explain this, the macroevolution group developed the idea of mutation. They theorise that some input of energy like radiation could change DNA sufficiently to cause a series of favourable mutations to allow simpler live-forms to become more complex ones. And further that these mutations were passed on to offspring. Unfortunately, microbiology now proves that this is not possible.
So when I say I reject evolution, I refer to "macroevolution". What strikes me always when I read these supposed scientific "thruths", is that there are a large group of people who are trying everthing to disprove the Bible. And the pits is that our children are now taught evolution. That's a good win for satan.
Let me share another interesting thing, because I know some of you find the Bible an objectionable book. Moses wrote the first 5 books of the Bible. It was God inspired. Moses wrote the first book, "Genesis" around 1450 b.C. In Genesis 1 the account of creation is found. Now if we break the account of creation down into 10 basic events, the odds ONLY that Moses could guess the correct order of those 10 events is 1:4000000, a little better than winning a lottery. Further if you look at all other holy books of other religions, they attest to vast misconceptions of creation.
Even further, how did Moses even know which events to pick in the first place?
So atheist are saying that they would rather believe Moses was a lottery winner of around 1450 b.C and not inspired by God.
Originally posted by bbarrYou really are trying your best to make a point based on nothing more than semantics. I really think you should consider what other people here are seeing from your posts. one more time i will ask you (using the example from Chemistry i posted) if you understand that beta decay releases an electron from a nucleus that only contains protons and nuetrons, than either your understanding is limited or it is totally false (like your argument). Now you can claim it is totally false and you can argue till your blue in the face but I can come along and explain beta decay because I have more knowledge (better understanding)than you. Granted our understanding of perfection (and imperfection) is limited AS FAR AS GODS CONCERNED but that no way implies that we can't attribute perfection to God. I'll tell you what Bennett, since our concept is inapplicable to God, let's not call God perfect by human standards. Now please tell me if you are able how that says God is not perfect by God's standards?
You seem to not know the difference between logic and sophistry. You claim that although we don't know what perfection means when applied to God, we are nonetheless justified in attributing perfection to him. One more time, because you just can't seem to grasp this incredibly simple point. If we don't know what the property of perfection amounts to when ...[text shortened]... s mean in order to be justifed in predicating them to this or that, then you're hopeless.
Now I will say again that I do not appreciate your sophistic attempt at twisting my words to fit your ill concieved argument. I will also say that if you think I am the only one who sees your shameless attempts at semantical twisting, you are totally blind.
Amici Sumus
Feivel the HardcoreFreethinker
Originally posted by bbarrI think God's perfection is supposed to be axiomatic, or an article of faith, and is not the only one required by Christianity. In any case perfection is not a very sensible concept unless it is very narrowly defined, eg a perfect square. Optimality is better, though you would still need to define the set over which something is optimal.
You seem to not know the difference between logic and sophistry. You claim that although we don't know what perfection means when applied to God, we are nonetheless justified in attributing perfection to him. One more time, because you just can't seem to grasp this incredibly simple point. If we don't know what the property of perfection amounts to when ...[text shortened]... s mean in order to be justifed in predicating them to this or that, then you're hopeless.
Originally posted by ToeYes, if you look at the root meaning of the words, it breaks it down pretty well. Agnosticism is derived from the Greek word gnosis which means "knowledge". An agnostic would be someone without knowledge (of god). They see the question as being unknowable. Atheism comes from the Greek word theos which means "god". A theist would be someone who believes in the existence of a god or gods. An atheist would be someone without the belief in a god.
From the dictionary definition, I don't think it can be extrapolated to a "just as likely", i.e. agnosticis are 50/50. It seems from the definition, agnostics are simply well aware of the fact that they do not know if god exisits but do not actively disbelive in God(s). This is equivalent to one form of 'atheist' using Ringwett's previous definition (one w ...[text shortened]... idn't change the definition of Athiest when agnosticism was introduced: queue confusion.
As I have pointed out numerous times, the atheist can't "know" there is no god. He does not (or should not) claim to be able to prove there is no god. He merely denies the validity of the claims put forward by the theists, and thinks that based on the evidence he has received thus far, the probability of god existing is very low.
Of course, as you point out there are many shades of agnosticism/atheism, ranging from agnostic theism to strong atheism. Ultimately, trying to classify them all quickly devolves into little more than an exercise in semantics.
Originally posted by dfm65There is sufficient evidence to cast a reasonable doubt upon the validity of the theistic claims about the existence of a god.
OK, so we have your Webster's definitions, and your original statement:
'To state unequivocably that there is no god would be to overstep the bounds of what atheism can offer. It would be more correct for the atheist to say that there is very little probability that god exists'.
Exactly what evidence comes into play? If we can agree that there are no e ...[text shortened]... existence or non-existence of God, how is 'probability', as defined by Webster's, relevant?
There is the "problem of evil", that Bbarr has talked about at length in this thread. There are geological and paleontological data which contradict various parts of the biblical legends. There are numerous other contradictions, inconsistencies, and errors within the bible itself.
If I really thought it would do any good I could expand on this list some more. Unfortunately, I think it would accomplish little and require much effort, so I will leave it as it stands.
1 edit
Originally posted by FeivelAlthough you use the term 'semantics' to denote merely a quibbling type of argument, it would be beneficial for you to recall what a semantical argument actually is, and that is an argument based upon the meaning of terms. You're claiming that God is perfect, but you also admit that the term 'perfect' is one of which we have a limited understanding when applied to God. You claim that although we know what 'perfect' means when applied in mundane, human affairs, we do not know what it entails, or indeed what it means when applied to God. So, again, I ask you: If it is the case that we do not know what the term 'perfect' means when applied to God, what justification have we for claiming that God is perfect?
You really are trying your best to make a point based on nothing more than semantics. I really think you should consider what other people here are seeing from your posts. one more time i will ask you (using the example from Chemistry i post ...[text shortened]... re totally blind.
Amici Sumus
Feivel the HardcoreFreethinker
This is a strightforward question, and one that I have been pressing upon you for quite some time now. If you fail to even attempt to answer this question, then I really can't take you at all seriously in this debate.
About your chemistry analogy: All this analogy shows is that there are times when we have false beliefs, and that there are times when those false beliefs can be corrected by those with a more comprehensive knowledge of the relevant subject matter. This is completely irrelevant to the issue here. All this example shows is that there are cases where humans are fallible because they do not have all the information. Nobody is arguing this point. To make your analogy an actual argument, you would have to do what the hypothetical chemist does in your example, and that is to explain to me where I've gone wrong. But you have not done this, you have merely attributed a property which you do not understand to something called "God" which you refuse to even admit is a being.
Your position is intellectually bankrupt, and you seem to lack even a rudimentary understanding of what constitutes rigorous argument. You really ought to admit that your position is merely an article of faith (as Acolyte claimed above), and as such has no rational basis.
Originally posted by rwingettI would be interested in this discussion. Is this something for a new thread? or if we can try to idenfy areas of dispute it would save some time and effort.
There is sufficient evidence to cast a reasonable doubt upon the validity of the theistic claims about the existence of a god.
There is the "problem of evil", that Bbarr has talked about at length in this thread. There are geological and paleontological data which contradict various parts of the biblical legends. There are numerous other contradiction ...[text shortened]... y, I think it would accomplish little and require much effort, so I will leave it as it stands.
Originally posted by ToeOf course, we have confined our definition of atheism as it applies solely to the christian god. But humanity has conceived of hundreds of gods throughout history (Greco-Roman, Norse, Hindu, etc.) that neither you nor I believe in. If these other gods and religions are not worthy of belief, then why are any? The case could be made that the only difference between you and I is that I simply believe in one fewer god than you.
From the dictionary definition, I don't think it can be extrapolated to a "just as likely", i.e. agnosticis are 50/50. It seems from the definition, agnostics are simply well aware of the fact that they do not know if god exisits but do not actively disbelive in God(s). This is equivalent to one form of 'atheist' using Ringwett's previous definition (one w ...[text shortened]... idn't change the definition of Athiest when agnosticism was introduced: queue confusion.
Originally posted by bbarrIt is irrelevant because you want it to be irrelevant Bennett. You already admitted that there are times when we have false beliefs, I wouldn't call them false in the above case. I would say they are in error BASED on the knowledge you have. As far as you (the knowledge holder) and everybody else that learned the same, your conclusion is correct. It is even something you might "die" to uphold as truth (much like your foolish argument) but unfortunately as you learn more you find you are in error. Now as towards your claim of "bankrupcy," i have asked you questions in this thread (go back and reread my posts to find them) that YOU have deftly and convienently ignored. Unless YOU address them, I can only conclude that your entire line of reasoning and hence your argument is faulty. You have done nothing more than blow alot of hot air on a topic with no substance. You have only repeated your same claims over and over again. There have been plenty of posts here with much more substance than the mere semantical claptrap you have posted. To be totally honest, I would have your professors desperately tutor you and I am sure they would recommend that action if they were to read your posts here.
there are times when we have false beliefs, and that there are times when those false beliefs can be corrected by those with a more comprehensive knowledge of the relevant subject matter. This is completely irrelevant to the issue here.
Amici Sumus
Feivel the HardcoreFreethinker
3 edits
Originally posted by bbarr"If God is omniscient, then he knows exactly what you will be doing ten minutes from now, a month from now, a year from now, etc. Since his knowledge is perfect, his beliefs about your future actions can never be in error. But this means that all your actions have already been determined. Given the apparent choice between action A and action B, God already knows which you will "choose". Since God is always correct, it is impossible for you to choose action B if he knew, prior to your choice, that you would choose action A. Hence, God's omniscience is incompatible with your ability to do otherwise than that which you in fact will do. So, God's omniscience is incompatible with the existence of your free will. So Free Will cannot serve as an adequate defense to the problem of evil. If you truly believe in an omniscient God, and you truly believe that you have free will, than you believe a contradiction and are thereby irrational. It's your choice which belief to give up." Bbarr. 15 aug. '03 12:14 page 5.
If God is omniscient, then ..........It's your choice 😀 which belief to give up. Bbarr 15 aug.'03 12:14.
Allow me to emphasise: " But this means that all your actions have already been determined." Bbarr.
"About your chemistry analogy: All this analogy shows is that there are times when we have false beliefs, and that there are times when those false beliefs can be corrected by those with a more comprehensive knowledge of the relevant subject matter. This is completely irrelevant to the issue here. All this example shows is that there are cases where humans are fallible because they do not have all the information. Nobody is arguing this point."
Bbarr 27 aug.'03 16: 57.
Allow me to emphasise : "This is completely irrelevant to the issue here". Bbarr.
and: "Nobody is arguing this point". Bbarr.
IvanH.
Originally posted by FeivelYou still haven't answered my question, Feivel. And this question is the one you have to answer, lest your position be revealed as merely an article of faith.
It is irrelevant because you want it to be irrelevant Bennett. You already admitted that there are times when we have false beliefs, I wouldn't call them false in the above case. I would say they are in error BASED on the knowledge you have. As far as you (the knowledge holder) and everybody else that learned the same, your conclusion is correct. It is even ...[text shortened]... at action if they were to read your posts here.
Amici Sumus
Feivel the HardcoreFreethinker
To be totally honest, I would have your teachers horse-whipped for taking whatever native intelligence you originally possessed and deforming it with obscurantist dogmatism. Or did you arrive at incoherence all on your own?
See how easy it is to make it personal? Do you also see how distasteful it is? How's about you refrain from these types of comments, and I will too.
Originally posted by bbarrAh, but Bennett, personal may be the only way to go that preserves the entertainment value of this conversation. See, as was said in "The Art of Debating", conversations like this will not really advance much further, since regardless of your arguments, Feivel will not change his position. Thus the conversation from which any interesting and legitimate conclusions can be drawn or spread is quite clearly over. I'd recommend either dropping it or (please!) indulging in a no-holds-barred inflated rhetoric flame war.
You still haven't answered my question, Feivel. And this question is the one you have to answer, lest your position be revealed as merely an article of faith.
To be totally honest, I would have your teachers horse-whipped for taking whatever native intelligence you originally possessed and deforming it with obscurantist dogmatism. Or did you arrive at ...[text shortened]... e how distasteful it is? How's about you refrain from these types of comments, and I will too.