Originally posted by dottewell I believe there is not an elephant in my bedroom. (Shortly I will be able to verify...)
If you think the odds of a Christian God existing are approaching zero, surely you believe there is no Christian God? (Not the same as knowing there is no Christian God.)
He (and I) do not believe that a christian god exists.
That is not the same as saying that we believe a christian god does not exist.
It is an extremely important distinction. The former is an absence of belief for the christian claim that "god exists." The burden of proof, after all, rests entirely upon the christian. All knowledgable atheist will take this position.
The latter is an active claim that the christian's statement is false. I take 'believing' and 'knowing' to be synonymous for all intents and purposes. This distributes the burden of proof between both parties. Most theists (and agnostics) will try to claim that this is what atheists really think so their own position will look better by comparison.
Originally posted by dottewell I think most defintions of agnosticism are that the TRUTH of claims about God, etc., is unknowable.
If the concept of God is meaningless, I don't see how you can be an agnostic.
You need to at least have some concept of what it is, whose existence you cannot determine.
This could be a specific idea of a God or something more general (e.g. a creator).
Not that the concept of god is meaningless, but that it is unknowable. If you can't know what god is, then you can't say whether he exists, can you? One could claim to be an atheist in relation to a specifically christian God, but an agnostic to the concept a god in general.
I suppose someone can say they believe the probability or X is 50%. But that does not tell us if they believe X. Can someone have a 50% belief in X?
So even if one could definitively assign a probability to X, would this tell us anything about if one believes X is true or false? Is it possible to believe the probabilty of X is 10%, and still believe X is true or false?
AThousandYoung had an interesting question. Is to not to believe X mean the same as to believe not X? I would think to believe not X would be to believe the contradiction of X.
Originally posted by rwingett If you can't know what god is, then you can't say whether he exists, can you? One could claim to be an atheist in relation to a specifically christian God, but an agnostic to the concept a god in general.
If you can't know what God is - and if by that you mean you cannot have a meaningful concept of God - you can't even ask whether he exists or not.
[EDIT - Is this, in fact, your position? To me "agnostic" is the wrong label; "atheist" is little better]
Originally posted by rwingett He (and I) do not believe that a christian god exists.
That is not the same as saying that we believe a christian god does not exist.
It is an extremely important distinction. The former is an absence of belief for the christian claim that "god exists." The burden of proof, after all, rests entirely upon the christian. All knowledgable atheist will this is what atheists really think so their own position will look better by comparison.
Let us say that there is a complete absence of proof that a Christian God exists, yet we allow that the concept is meaningful.
Why on earth would you not conclude: I believe a Christian God does not exist?
In this case the burden of proof is indeed on the Christian, who is making a very specific ontological claim. If there is no evidence for this claim, is that not a reason to believe it is false?
[Apologies for the repeated drunken edits; have been working late]
Originally posted by dottewell If you can't know what God is - and if by that you mean you cannot have a meaningful concept of God - you can't even ask whether he exists or not.
Originally posted by no1marauder A quibble: I said there is a "reasonable possibility of a Creator" of the universe. Whether that would necessarily be a "God" as generally understood is by no means certain.
Is there something like "God as generally understood"? Even among Christians, there are widely differing views of "God", and "as generally understood" implies that it wouldn't only refer to the Christian God.
Originally posted by rwingett That's right. The question is meaningless.
As I said in a drunken edit above, to me agnosticism is NOT the correct label for this position (which I tend to share).
It is not correct to say the truth-value of a meaningless statement cannot be known. It simply doesn't make sense to talk of such a statement having a truth-value.
ergo - not agnosticism (at least as I understand it).
Originally posted by dottewell Let us say that there is a complete absence of proof that a Christian God exists, yet we allow that the concept is meaningful.
Why on earth would you not conclude: I believe a Christian God does not exist?
The burden of proof is indeed on the Christian, who is making a very specific ontological claim. If there is no evidence for this claim, is that not a reason to believe it is false?
You can't prove a negative.
But there's no reason to believe it's true. Consequently, an atheist will behave as though the christian's claim is false, but he will always stop short of claiming that it is false.
Originally posted by dottewell As I said in a drunken edit above, to me agnosticism is NOT the correct label for this position (which I tend to share).
It is not correct to say the truth-value of a meaningless statement cannot be known. It simply doesn't make sense to talk of such a statement having a truth-value.
ergo - not agnosticism (at least as I understand it).
Originally posted by rwingett You can't prove a negative.
But there's no reason to believe it's true. Consequently, an atheist will behave as though the christian's claim is false, but he will always stop short of claiming that it is false.
Not sure I agree - IF the concept is meaningful.
Suppose someone tells you they believe that there is a planet, exactly 500m light years away, populated entirely by 10ft tall blue men.
We cannot see it, and the person admits he has no evidence whatsoever.
Would you not believe his claim to be false?
[EDIT - Agnosticism- the truth-value of statements about God cannot be determined.]
Originally posted by dottewell Not sure I agree - IF the concept is meaningful.
Suppose someone tells you they believe that there is a planet, exactly 500m light years away, populated entirely by 10ft tall blue men.
We cannot see it, and the person admits he has no evidence whatsoever.
Would you not believe his claim to be false?
[EDIT - Agnosticism- the truth-value of statements about God cannot be determined.]
That's a little different. You could disprove that a tangible thing exists at a specific location. But you can't prove, for example, that invisible pink unicorns do not exist somewhere. Or magic elves. Or god. You cannot disprove the existence of these things. But the point is that you don't need to. It is incumbent upon the person making the claim to provide evidence for that claim. Failure to do so does not prove his claim false. But the claim can safely be treated as though it were false.
Originally posted by Coletti AThousandYoung had an interesting question. Is to not to believe X mean the same as to believe not X? I would think to believe not X would be to believe the contradiction of X.
No. To not believe X is not the same as to believe not X.
Originally posted by dottewell Let us say that there is a complete absence of proof that a Christian God exists, yet we allow that the concept is meaningful.
Why on earth would you not conclude: I believe a Christian God does not exist?
In this case the burden of proof is indeed on the Christian, who is making a very specific ontological claim. If there is no evidence for this cla ...[text shortened]... on to believe it is false?
[Apologies for the repeated drunken edits; have been working late]
A complete absence of proof - I agree. But that is not the same as a complete absence of evidence. There is a great deal of evidence for the existence of God -for instance: the order of the universe, the transcendental nature of logic, the mind, the Bible, the testimonies of witnesses to miracles, the complexity of life, life itself.
But none of this evidence can prove that God is real. But there are very few things we believe that are actually proven, so the belief in something without proof does not invalidate the truth of a belief.
Originally posted by rwingett But the claim can safely be treated as though it were false.
So, to an outside observer, one could not distinguish between a person who acts as though some claim is false, and a person who acts as though some claim is false AND believes it is false, correct?
Agnosticism - bit of a cop-out?
31 Dec '05 01:10
Back to Top