Do you believe; and why?

[GMDino]

(05-17-2019, 01:59 PM)Lucidus Wrote: I watched an interesting discussion some time back that posed the question to non-believers, "What if it was proven, with 100% certainty, that the Christian God does in fact exist; would you worship him?"

After pondering the question for a bit - if the God of the Bible were proven to be real - I don't think I could bring myself to worship him, as I feel I would have to compromise my own morality to do so. 

I suppose I should answer the original question:

I do believe...in...something.

Raised Roman Catholic.  Altar boy.  Youth group.  Retreat leader and teacher.  Still read at my church.

But the physical church lost me a long time ago. 

Catholic guilt won't let me skip out completely, so I attend (irregularly) and sometimes I get something from it and most times I do not.  

Now I "believe" but I wouldn't say it matches any religion enough to qualify me as a member.

That's the short answer.

[Lucidus]

(05-17-2019, 02:26 PM)GMDino Wrote: I suppose I should answer the original question:

I do believe...in...something.

Raised Roman Catholic.  Altar boy.  Youth group.  Retreat leader and teacher.  Still read at my church.

But the physical church lost me a long time ago. 

Catholic guilt won't let me skip out completely, so I attend (irregularly) and sometimes I get something from it and most times I do not.  

Now I "believe" but I wouldn't say it matches any religion enough to qualify me as a member.

That's the short answer.

When you say you believe in "something" - do you mean just something that is bigger than, or beyond, ourselves? 

[GMDino]

(05-17-2019, 02:32 PM)Lucidus Wrote: When you say you believe in "something" - do you mean just something that is bigger than, or beyond, ourselves? 

Yep.  Some "force".

[Beaker]

Ive come to believe that energy is the "source". Matter can arise from energy. And string theory proposes that each type of matter is, at its core energy, with different vibrational frequencies creating the different forms of matter. We all come from the energy that exists in the universe....that is the life "force" and our energy returns to that pool after we are done. There is no judgement involved, everyone comes from and returns to the same "source".

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-16-2019, 10:35 PM)Lucidus Wrote: Agnosticism addresses knowledge, how can we know? Being agnostic is saying that you don't know, and aren't sure if you can know.

Atheism is a subset of agnosticism, simply means you lack a belief in a God or Gods. Within atheism there is "strong" atheism which proclaims there is no God, a stance I do not share. I am an agnostic atheist and feel that is the most honest position I could hold at the moment.

I'm not sure how someone could be anything other than agnostic (whether theistic or atheistic).

That is a really odd statement to make.  You're on a quest to understand what other people believe, but you admit you don't understand why people would believe differently than you?  A card carrying member of the intelligentsia can't understand how someone could be anything other than agnostic?

What is this? Another of your thought experiments?

Quote:No my friend, one does not necessarily follow from the other, especially since I've never claimed "there is NO evidence". As I've said a few times now, I've seen no evidence to date that would warrant a belief in a God. That does not mean no evidence exists. 

Even if one were to say "there is no evidence to support belief a in God" -  it doesn't necessarily follow that "there is no God". The could be no evidence, yet God may still exist.

X has not yet been proven does not mean X cannot be proven. The question is whether you should believe X sans proof / evidence.

Ah, the Donald Rumsfeld "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" defense.  Just because we don't have any evidence to support our claims Iraq is actively seeking WMD programs doesn't mean there isn't the possibility there is evidence out there.

This is the same reasoning anti-vaxxers use to support their beliefs, too. Just because no one has ever repeated Andrew Wakefield's research results, and there is no evidence to support a link between vaccinations and autism, and there is no evidence to suggest the vaccination schedule recommended by the CDC is harmful doesn't mean there is a possibility that one day there might be.

Strange bedfellows; Donald Rumsfeld, an anti-vaxxer, and an agnostic atheist intellectual.

Quote:As to the bold, I can only assume you're being hyperbolic. If not, I'm concerned that you are not at all serious about this discussion. 

What a coincidence because I feel like I'm being Tigerblooded really hard by a guy who admittedly enjoys thought games.

Quote:It seems you are choosing to ignore that not all Christians are operate on faith alone. Some believe they have proofs / evidences that God exists and that we should believe. There are many different factions of Christianity, with many different views and interpretations. 

I'm not ignoring that, you're accusing me of ignoring that.  Twice.

Quote:When someone says to me they are a Christian, I usually try to understand what they mean by that, because if you were to interview 1,000 Christians, I promise you will get a myriad of responses as to what being a Christian entails and what beliefs are correct.

Have you ever met a Christian that didn't believe in Christ? 

Quote:When interacting with Christians of different denominations, they will often use the "No True Scotsman" card when offering why another denomination has it wrong. This is why I try to avoid assuming what they believe, and instead ask what they believe and why.

Seems like an exercise in futility given you're "not sure how someone could be anything other than agnostic (whether theistic or atheistic).

Quote:Except it isn't. Non-belief is the absence or lack or a belief in something. This is a very common, oft-repeated mistake. 

Really? You stated you're an agnostic atheist.  That's a belief.  Now demonstrate the evidence for your belief.  Otherwise, if you don't have evidence to support the belief of agnostic atheism than you can't believe in it; at least according to your logic.

Quote:If you say you believe X and I say I don't believe X, only one of us has an active belief. The fact that I don't believe X doesn't mean that I believe [not] X. Therefore, what would I be offering evidence for exactly?


I'm asking for any proof that X is actually the case, and why people should believe X is the case at all.

You stated that my "non-belief" in X is a belief in and of itself. However, I would only have a burden of proof if I were claiming that my non-belief was correct or true in some way, even if I'm using "faith" to make that assumption. In that case, it would be a belief. However I have never held that position.


Correct, which is why I don't make that claim that I can, and why I think the natural default should be non-belief. It seems reasonable that non-belief would be the initial default with any claim. If you tell me you have a fire breathing dragon in your garage - I can't know 100% if that's the case or not. However, I would take the position of non-belief until it was shown to be the case that you did have said dragon, at which time I would then justifiably believe.


If the proposition is "there is no reason to believe in a God or God's" - then yes, the default would be non-belief for me. People can present a million "reasons" to believe.

If I told you I had a fire breathing dragon in my garage and you accepted it as true then you would believe.

If you were shown, then you would know. 

You're confusing the two. I believe it was you who wrote, "This is a very common, oft-repeated mistake."

Quote:Except, people have changed their minds on both sides. They have been compelled to re-think what they believe. These topics and discussions are quite interesting in my opinion. I think they give some insight to who we are, what we desire, where we find common ground and what we are conflicted about. I dare say an existence without dialogue, inquiry and the exchanging of ideas would be the true definition of meaningless in my book. Luckily, we have these tools and they should be enjoyed and utilized as often as possible.


I'm not sure how you can claim to know where enlightenment can be found? Enlightenment can come in many different forms my friend and can sometimes be found where least expected.

Of course, you're right because you found enlightenment in the most unexpected place which is why you aren't here asking for evidence of God.

Oh, wait . . .

[Arturo Bandini]

I absolutely do believe in God, I absolutely don't believe in religions.

I don't see the point between these two. Thinking about the 1st is fantastic, thinking about the second is boring.

[Dill]

(05-18-2019, 06:52 AM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: I absolutely do believe in God, I absolutely don't believe in religions.

I don't see the point between these two. Thinking about the 1st is fantastic, thinking about the second is boring.

LOL I find it just the opposite, Arturo.

I don't believe in god and don't find pursuit of whether he "really" exists all that interesting.

On the other the hand, nothing tells us more about the nature of humans and belief than the extant variety of religions.

People seem unable to get away from projection, anthropomorphism and the like, even when they grow up in secular societies.
They cannot imagine a dead universe.

[Dill]

(05-17-2019, 05:07 PM)Beaker Wrote: Ive come to believe that energy is the "source". Matter can arise from energy. And string theory  proposes that each type of matter is, at its core energy, with different vibrational frequencies creating the different forms of matter. We all come from the energy that exists in the universe....that is the life "force" and our energy returns to that pool after we are done. There is no judgement involved, everyone comes from and returns to the same "source".

You'd agree, though, that the life "force" you are talking about isn't life itself, right? 

When you die YOU are gone, even though whatever energy composed your body takes other forms.

Alive and made of matter/energy. Then dead and made of  matter/energy.  But the matter and energy and energy do not continue to "live" though they may once have been organized to sustain your life. Consciousness extinguished=Beaker gone.

[Dill]

(05-17-2019, 01:15 PM)Lucidus Wrote: When you say you are not agnostic, that would imply that you think it can be "known" that there is or isn't a God. I'm curious as to how we can have knowledge beyond the phenomena of our experience within reality? That is to say, how can we "know" anything about the supernatural if we can't observe, examine or evaluate it? It would seem to me that we can't. If it can't be known or is yet to be known, it would seem that agnosticism would be your parent category, with atheism as the the chosen subset. Unless you're asserting that there is, or can be, knowledge of the supernatural that we can access to determine whether a God exists?

I would agree that there are certain evidences that seem to demonstrate a God is not necessary, and others that suggest that the actual concept of God is highly unlikely to be possible. However, I would not go as far as to say there is any  evidences that prove a God doesn't exist or can't exist. 

Answer to your first question: yes, I think we can know there is no god in the same sense we "know" there is not a McDonalds on the far side of the moon: who would have built it? How could they do so with no one tracking the construction and supply logistics. What customers would it serve? But I cannot "prove" there isn't one, in the same sense I can prove/disprove a claim there is a dragon in your garage. The likelihood there is a god or supernatural realm is impossibly remote, while the human need to believe such things, whether true or not, is incontrovertible.

Breech is right to reject the "prove a negative" requirement in this case. 
Absence of evidence, after centuries of inquiry, IS eventually evidence of absence.

If we cannot observe or examine "the supernatural," then how are we justified in talking about a supernatural at all? For the sake of argument, let's suppose there is no supernatural.  The form of the agnostic's argument would remain the same, still constructing propositions around the ontological status of an "it" which cannot be observed (because it doesn't actually exist), and then arguing about their logical consistency and the likelihood of their truth or falsity.  This only differs from the alternative, in which there is a supernatural, in that it is the questioning/discussion alone which keeps "the supernatural" alive as referent of discussion. Nothing else.

I think we should reject demands for "proof" of god's existence in apodictic form. That was a metaphysical exercise proper to classical and medieval philosophy.

[Lucidus]

(05-18-2019, 01:36 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: That is a really odd statement to make.  You're on a quest to understand what other people believe, but you admit you don't understand why people would believe differently than you?  A card carrying member of the intelligentsia can't understand how someone could be anything other than agnostic?

What is this? Another of your thought experiments?

Agnosticism deals with claims to knowledge, and whether said knowledge is even attainable.

Is there currently a way that we can truly "know" if a God does or doesn't exist?
Is there currently a method that we can use to determine if it's even "knowable"?

If you, or anyone, answered no to those questions, then you - by definition - are agnostic.

However, that only deals with what we can know and if we can know it. That's where the subsets of theism and atheism come into play. They answer the single proposition "God exists". Theists accept [believe] the proposition. Atheists reject [don't believe] the proposition.

Therefore, it seems to me that we would all be agnostic when it comes to whether a God exists or not, unless it can be proven that it is knowable and that we have some reliable method that allows us to know.

A person can claim they're not agnostic, but then there needs to be a request for there methods of determining certainty. If those methods can't be observed or examined, then the claim of not being agnostic seems to defy logical conclusion.

Quote:Ah, the Donald Rumsfeld "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" defense.  Just because we don't have any evidence to support our claims Iraq is actively seeking WMD programs doesn't mean there isn't the possibility there is evidence out there.

This is the same reasoning anti-vaxxers use to support their beliefs, too. Just because no one has ever repeated Andrew Wakefield's research results, and there is no evidence to support a link between vaccinations and autism, and there is no evidence to suggest the vaccination schedule recommended by the CDC is harmful doesn't mean there is a possibility that one day there might be.

Strange bedfellows; Donald Rumsfeld, an anti-vaxxer, and an agnostic atheist intellectual.

The statement, "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" is absolutely true. Just because a murder weapon can't be found, doesn't mean the murder weapon doesn't exist. The question becomes how do you approach that problem. It would seem that you cannot convict on a weapon that has yet to be proven to exist. Therefore, until which time the weapon is found, it can't be used as "evidence".

Quote:What a coincidence because I feel like I'm being Tigerblooded really hard by a guy who admittedly enjoys thought games.

I'm not familiar with the phrase "being Tigerblooded", so you'll need to clarify.

Quote:Have you ever met a Christian that didn't believe in Christ? 

By definition, they believe in Christ. However, there are a myriad of reason for doing so. Some of these are points of contention within the faith itself and sects and belief systems are viewed as flawed or improper by other sects. This is why it is useful to know what a person actually means when they say the are a Christian, if you're wanting to have a fruitful dialogue with them.

Quote:Seems like an exercise in futility given you're "not sure how someone could be anything other than agnostic (whether theistic or atheistic).

Agnosticism has zero to do with what they believe and why they believe it. Should scientists give up and stop trying to understand all things that they don't yet have a way of knowing, and aren't sure if there is a way of knowing?

Quote:Really? You stated you're an agnostic atheist.  That's a belief.  Now demonstrate the evidence for your belief.  Otherwise, if you don't have evidence to support the belief of agnostic atheism than you can't believe in it; at least according to your logic.

Once again, agnosticism deals with knowledge. Atheism deals with non-belief.

If someone tells you and I that there are universe creating pixies that are responsible for our existence.

1] Is there a way that we can know 100% for sure that these pixies do or don't actually exist?
2] Are there currently any means for us to even access these pixies for observation, examination or evaluation?
3] Can we make any definitive evidence based claims on the existence on nonexistence of these fairies sans 1 and 2?

If we answered no / I don't know to all three questions; would we not both not be agnostic as to whether we can actually "know" if these pixies exist or not? So, does that mean we "believe" in something now? The 3 questions - if answered "no/I don't know" lead to a conclusion which doesn't require belief, as it simply provides the logical default - "we currently don't / can't know" - therefore agnosticism.

Now there comes the question of whether we will accept or reject the assertion of universe creating pixies, with the understand that we can't be 100% certain either way.

Let's say I accept (believe) that they do exist. Let's say that you don't accept (believe) that they exist.

Who has the "belief" in this situation?

If you don't accept the proposition that these fairies exist, then what exactly are your "beliefs" that would need to be demonstrated?

Quote:If I told you I had a fire breathing dragon in my garage and you accepted it as true then you would believe.

If you were shown, then you would know. 

You're confusing the two. I believe it was you who wrote, "This is a very common, oft-repeated mistake."

Concerning the dragon in the garage claim, my natural default position would be agnostic in nature because I have no way of knowing if dragons are actually real or if it's even possible to get one into your garage.

From there, I must then decide if I should "believe" your claim or not, without the "knowledge" of whether it's true or not. That does not mean I believe there isn't a dragon or couldn't be a dragon.

Because of the extraordinary nature of the claim, I would chose to withhold belief until which time you took me into the garage and showed me the dragon.

At that point I would have the "knowledge" needed to justify now believing you.

Quote:Of course, you're right because you found enlightenment in the most unexpected place which is why you aren't here asking for evidence of God.

Oh, wait . . .

Is this not a section of the site dedicated entirely to politics and religion? So, tell me what exactly is off limits when it comes to religious discussion here? Perhaps there are rules on this that I'm unaware of? The thread itself has been a very good discussion, and the posters have been incredibly civil and respectful. I'm not sure what your issue is with asking questions and letting people answer for themselves?

[Lucidus]

(05-18-2019, 02:53 PM)Dill Wrote: Answer to your first question: yes, I think we can know there is no god in the same sense we "know" there is not a McDonalds on the far side of the moon: who would have built it? How could they do so with no one tracking the construction and supply logistics. What customers would it serve? But I cannot "prove" there isn't one, in the same sense I can prove/disprove a  claim there is a dragon in your garage.

In my opinion you're speaking of "know" in a very practical / colloquial sense. When I speak of "know" in regards to agnosticism, I'm referring to the truth or factuality of something, as to it's demonstrable certainty.

In your McDonald's example, I would ask how you wouldn't be agnostic as to the proposition that "there is no McDonald's on the far side of the moon"? How can we demonstrate that we can know factually, and with certainty, that it couldn't be the case? What if it's undetectable by us for some reason? It seems to be the most reasonable position would be to say both:

We can't yet prove (or know with certainty) there isn't a McDonalds on the moon.
and
Neither have we seen conclusive (factual and certain) evidence that it couldn't be the case.

That is to say, I might assume that I "know" it won't rain tomorrow based off what I think based on my perception that weather forecasts are generally accurate predictors. However, I can't actually know (factually and for certain) if my assumption is true until tomorrow gets here and I have a way to verify it. Once that happens, only then can I truly know if I was correct in my assumption or not.

Quote:The likelihood there is a god or supernatural realm is impossibly remote, while the human need to believe such things, whether true or not, is incontrovertible.

It could be the case a supernatural realm exists and we currently just have no way of detecting or examining it.
However, I see no justification to actively "believe" it is the case until which time it can be demonstrated.

Quote:Breech is right to reject the "prove a negative" requirement in this case. 
Absence of evidence, after centuries of inquiry, IS eventually evidence of absence.

What if the evidence has existed all along, and we've simply haven't found it yet? As I said in response to this before, just because a murder weapon has yet to be found doesn't mean there isn't a murder weapon. In that case, the evidence is only "absent" in the sense that it hasn't been discovered yet.

Quote:If we cannot observe or examine "the supernatural," then how are we justified in talking about a supernatural at all?

If we weren't able to talk about things that couldn't be observed or examined at the time they were being talked about, science would have missed out on a rather sizable amount of discoveries.

Quote:For the sake of argument, let's suppose there is no supernatural.  The form of the agnostic's argument would remain the same, still constructing propositions around the ontological status of an "it" which cannot be observed (because it doesn't actually exist), and then arguing about their logical consistency and the likelihood of their truth or falsity.  This only differs from the alternative, in which there is a supernatural, in that it is the questioning/discussion alone which keeps "the supernatural" alive as referent of discussion.  Nothing else.

This is all true in the narrow confines of "supposing" for the sake of argument. Once said argument is finished, you're still left with the same issue as before you started "supposing".

We currently do not know if a supernatural realm exists or not, and we don't know if we will ever, or can ever, find out. That, it seems to me, is the reality (if you will) of the situation and in order for one to say the supernatural is or isn't possible, we must determine if we have the proper knowledge available to us to make that call one way or another. I don't feel we do, which is why I'm agnostic concerning the existence of a God or supernatural.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-18-2019, 03:59 PM)Lucidus Wrote: Agnosticism deals with claims to knowledge, and whether said knowledge is even attainable.

Is there currently a way that we can truly "know" if a God does or doesn't exist?
Is there currently a method that we can use to determine if it's even "knowable"?

If you, or anyone, answered no to those questions, then you - by definition - are agnostic.

However, that only deals with what we can know and if we can know it. That's where the subsets of theism and atheism come into play. They answer the single proposition "God exists". Theists accept [believe] the proposition. Atheists reject [don't believe] the proposition.

Therefore, it seems to me that we would all be agnostic when it comes to whether a God exists or not, unless it can be proven that it is knowable and that we have some reliable method that allows us to know.

A person can claim they're not agnostic, but then there needs to be a request for there methods of determining certainty. If those methods can't be observed or examined, then the claim of not being agnostic seems to defy logical conclusion.

I don't need any of this explained to me.  You claimed you didn't understand how anyone could be anything other than agnostic, not me.  That is just a failure to understand another person's point of view.  You've have claimed many Christians believe based upon evidence at least twice.  That's just one example of why someone isn't agnostic.  They have evidence to support their belief therefore they aren't agnostic. Pretty simple.  Somehow you have explained why some Christians aren't agnostic while simultaneously ignoring your own explanation.  That's impressive.

Quote:The statement, "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" is absolutely true. Just because a murder weapon can't be found, doesn't mean the murder weapon doesn't exist. The question becomes how do you approach that problem. It would seem that you cannot convict on a weapon that has yet to be proven to exist. Therefore, until which time the weapon is found, it can't be used as "evidence".

LMAO

This is just a really poor example and just plain ol' bad logic.  Gee, someone was murdered.  How? Let's say gunshot wound to the chest, for arguments sake.  By the manner in which the victim was murdered we know they were murdered with a firearm.  Just because they police don't have the firearm in their possession doesn't mean that firearm doesn't exist.  And we know the firearm does exist from the bullet wound in their chest.

By your logic, we could never determine that Iraq wasn't actively pursuing WMDs (they weren't) or Andrew Wakefield isn't a fraud (he is) by the complete lack of evidence.  Ever. At some point, an overwhelming lack of evidence is evidence.

BTW, you just created an argument for the existence of God by substituting "God" for "murder weapon."  Just because [evidence of] God can't be found, doesn't mean God doesn't exist.

Also, look at the two bold sentences.  In the first sentence, you argue the weapon exist.  In the second, you argue the weapon doesn't exist.  Obviously, you aren't paying a bit of attention to your own argument or you've confused even yourself.

Quote:I'm not familiar with the phrase "being Tigerblooded", so you'll need to clarify.

Tigerblood is your former screen name.  Oh, but I don't have evidence to support that claim?  Doesn't mean that evidence doesn't exist and you're not Tigerblood.  Right?  Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence?

Quote:By definition, they believe in Christ. However, there are a myriad of reason for doing so. Some of these are points of contention within the faith itself and sects and belief systems are viewed as flawed or improper by other sects. This is why it is useful to know what a person actually means when they say the are a Christian, if you're wanting to have a fruitful dialogue with them.

But, you're an agnostic atheist asking for evidence when thousands of years of human history haven't produced a single shred of evidence for you.  Fruitful dialogue?  C'mon.

Quote:Agnosticism has zero to do with what they believe and why they believe it. Should scientists give up and stop trying to understand all things that they don't yet have a way of knowing, and aren't sure if there is a way of knowing?

Let me quote you, "agnosticism deals with knowledge."  So knowledge has zero to do with what they believe and why the believe?

You've officially jumped the shark if you hadn't done so already.  

Quote:Once again, agnosticism deals with knowledge. Atheism deals with non-belief.

If someone tells you and I that there are universe creating pixies that are responsible for our existence.

1] Is there a way that we can know 100% for sure that these pixies do or don't actually exist?
2] Are there currently any means for us to even access these pixies for observation, examination or evaluation?
3] Can we make any definitive evidence based claims on the existence on nonexistence of these fairies sans 1 and 2?

If we answered no / I don't know to all three questions; would we not both not be agnostic as to whether we can actually "know" if these pixies exist or not? So, does that mean we "believe" in something now? The 3 questions - if answered "no/I don't know" lead to a conclusion which doesn't require belief, as it simply provides the logical default - "we currently don't / can't know" - therefore agnosticism.

Now there comes the question of whether we will accept or reject the assertion of universe creating pixies, with the understand that we can't be 100% certain either way.

Let's say I accept (believe) that they do exist.  Let's say that you don't accept (believe) that they exist.

Who has the "belief" in this situation?

If you don't accept the proposition that these fairies exist, then what exactly are your "beliefs" that would need to be demonstrated?

Do you have evidence to support your belief? Yes or no?

Quote:Concerning the dragon in the garage claim, my natural default position would be agnostic in nature because I have no way of knowing if dragons are actually real or if it's even possible to get one into your garage.

From there, I must then decide if I should "believe" your claim or not, without the "knowledge" of whether it's true or not. That does not mean I believe there isn't a dragon or couldn't be a dragon.

Because of the extraordinary nature of the claim, I would chose to withhold belief until which time you took me into the garage and showed me the dragon.

At that point I would have the "knowledge" needed to justify now believing you.

Yes, you must decide to believe or not.  It's a choice.  You do.  Or you don't.  The rest of your post is about informed decision making.  They are called faith based religions, not informed decision making religions, for a reason.

Quote:Is this not a section of the site dedicated entirely to politics and religion? So, tell me what exactly is off limits when it comes to religious discussion here? Perhaps there are rules on this that I'm unaware of? The thread itself has been a very good discussion, and the posters have been incredibly civil and respectful. I'm not sure what your issue is with asking questions and letting people answer for themselves?

What's you're issue with me asking you questions?  You can ask others these question, but they can't be asked of you?

[Dill]

(05-18-2019, 05:58 PM)Lucidus Wrote: In my opinion you're speaking of "know" in a very practical / colloquial sense. When I speak of "know" in regards to agnosticism, I'm referring to the truth or factuality of something, as to it's demonstrable certainty.

In your McDonald's example, I would ask how you wouldn't be agnostic as to the proposition that "there is no McDonald's on the far side of the moon"? How can we demonstrate that we can know factually, and with certainty, that it couldn't be the case? What if it's undetectable by us for some reason? It seems to be the most reasonable position would be to say both:

We can't yet prove (or know with certainty) there isn't a McDonalds on the moon.

and
Neither have we seen conclusive (factual and certain) evidence that it couldn't be the case.

Actually, I am speaking of "know" with an eye to the history of philosophy, and of "demonstrable certainty"--the latter term begging the question of "demonstrable."

In my view you are framing the question of whether god/the supernatural exists as an empirical test, while at the same time adopting a conception of "certain" knowledge (and agnosticism regarding which) embedded in a long (Ancient and Medieval) metaphysical discourse about matters beyond experience. The latter poses answers to questions of knowledge--e.g., can two angels can occupy the same space?--in apodictic terms on the order of analytic (e.g., mathematical and/or logical) necessity. 

This metaphysical discourse continues into modern times, but as theology, alongside a modern philosophy which breaks from it rather decisively from it in the 17th-18th centuries, e.g., Spinoza, Hume, Kant.  The cumulative effect of their work is to move questions about the existence of god/the supernatural out of the realm of possible knowledge.

You might respond--"well there you go: agnostics!" But its more than that. It is the death of "god" as a living philosophical question.

Because the ground of knowledge has shifted from metaphysical deduction to  induction based upon experience, which deals with probability, you can always claim that such knowledge is never 100% certain.

But in this context, the claim "we cannot know for certain" can have pernicious effects, especially the confusion of empirical and non empirical "knowledge," which hampers our ability to form judgments of relevance and priority--or worse embrace equivocations which run counter to the ends of philosophical and scientific inquiry.

Below is an example

(05-18-2019, 05:58 PM)Lucidus Wrote: That is to say, I might assume that I "know" it won't rain tomorrow based off what I think based on my perception that weather forecasts are generally accurate predictors. However, I can't actually know (factually and for certain) if my assumption is true until tomorrow gets here and I have a way to verify it. Once that happens, only then can I truly know if I was correct in my assumption or not.

It could be the case a supernatural realm exists and we currently just have no way of detecting or examining it.
However, I see no justification to actively "believe" it is the case until which time it can be demonstrated.

What if the evidence has existed all along, and we've simply haven't found it yet? As I said in response to this before, just because a murder weapon has yet to be found doesn't mean there isn't a murder weapon. In that case, the evidence is only "absent" in the sense that it hasn't been discovered yet.

If one has already experienced rain, then wondering whether it will rain tomorrow is rather different from wondering whether the supernatural exists, though one can pose conditions for determining the truth or falsity of such claims with equal ease.

In your sense of the word "know," one can posit a multiplicity of claims which cannot be proven 100% false--there is not only a dragon in your garage, but an invisible mouse in your pocket, and both used to work at that McDonald's on the far side of the moon. It is possible the evidence for these claims has "existed all along" but we have not found it yet. That we have not found it yet does not mean it does not exist. etc. The number of such "possible" truths is infinite and, I would add, infinitely IMprobable.

The problem of sorting knowledge/truth claims is especially acute now, I think, in the age of Trump, when absence of evidence proves no barrier to conspiracy theories in a public sphere where no one can be "100% sure" that the Clinton's didn't kill Vince Foster and Obama wasn't born in Kenya, but they can doubt there was a moon landing or that Russians interfered with the US elections.
NB: enjoying the discussion, Lucidus. I think you raise serious questions that I hope I am not dismissing.

[Lucidus]

(05-21-2019, 01:37 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I don't need any of this explained to me.  You claimed you didn't understand how anyone could be anything other than agnostic, not me.  That is just a failure to understand another person's point of view.  You've have claimed many Christians believe based upon evidence at least twice.  That's just one example of why someone isn't agnostic.  They have evidence to support their belief therefore they aren't agnostic. Pretty simple.  Somehow you have explained why some Christians aren't agnostic while simultaneously ignoring your own explanation.  That's impressive.

Having perceived "evidence" that you feel justifies a belief, says nothing about whether you feel the truth of what you believe can be known factually and with certainty, or whether you feel you even have the means to know if said truth can be known. 

Offering evidences in support of a claim is not an assertion that you know for a fact, and with certainty, that said claim is true. That claim - that you can know for sure - would be quite a different conversation requiring a explanation of how you can know for sure.

Quote:This is just a really poor example and just plain ol' bad logic.  Gee, someone was murdered.  How? Let's say gunshot wound to the chest, for arguments sake.  By the manner in which the victim was murdered we know they were murdered with a firearm.  Just because they police don't have the firearm in their possession doesn't mean that firearm doesn't exist.  And we know the firearm does exist from the bullet wound in their chest.

Correct. We know there is a gun because the wound and other factors that are all "evidence" demonstrating that it is indeed a gunshot wound, therefore coming from a "gun". Now, what if the body is missing and it can't be examined? The gunshot wound would still exist and the gun is still the murder weapon, but until we find the body, we have no means of making that determination as we currently don't have access to it. 

When it comes to a God, my position is that we can't simply dismiss the possibility that there could be one simply because we don't currently have that type of evidence. I would also offer that there is no real justification to actively believe that there is a God until such evidence is available for us to evaluate, just as we should not "believe" there is a gun responsible for a murder if there is no evidence to support such a conclusion. 

Quote:By your logic, we could never determine that Iraq wasn't actively pursuing WMDs (they weren't) or Andrew Wakefield isn't a fraud (he is) by the complete lack of evidence.  Ever. At some point, an overwhelming lack of evidence is evidence.

Again, absence of evidence is not demonstrable evidence itself. However, I would offer that it is a rationally valid reason to not actively believe until which time there is evidence to justify that belief.

Quote:BTW, you just created an argument for the existence of God by substituting "God" for "murder weapon."  Just because [evidence of] God can't be found, doesn't mean God doesn't exist.

In the case of the murder weapon, we have demonstrable proof that there must be a gun via the evidence (gunshot wound). To this point, the same doesn't apply to God. However, that doesn't mean the possibility that God exists is automatically eliminated. 

Quote:Also, look at the two bold sentences.  In the first sentence, you argue the weapon exist.  In the second, you argue the weapon doesn't exist.  Obviously, you aren't paying a bit of attention to your own argument or you've confused even yourself.

In the first bold sentence; the lack of an actual murder weapon does not mean we don't know (through demonstrable means) know what the murder weapon was. Therefore, we know it must exist or at the very least, existed at one point (even if it were destroyed).

In the second; it would be difficult to get a conviction based simply on the assertion that is a murder weapon. First, it must be proven that (via the evidence) that the asserted murder weapon is the cause. Once that happens, it's perfectly justifiable to believe that there must be a murder weapon.

Quote:Tigerblood is your former screen name.  Oh, but I don't have evidence to support that claim?  Doesn't mean that evidence doesn't exist and you're not Tigerblood.  Right?  Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence?

Again, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Is "tigerblood" meant as a pejorative towards me in some way?

Quote:But, you're an agnostic atheist asking for evidence when thousands of years of human history haven't produced a single shred of evidence for you.  Fruitful dialogue?  C'mon.

Correct in that I'm not sure if it can be known (agnosticism) and I've yet to be shown that there's a reason to "believe" (atheism).

That does not mean there couldn't be evidence that I'm unaware of, haven't been presented with or might not have access to currently. That is a very audacious claim to make, as I'm not privy to all knowledge that can be known, or even that has been known.

Apart from that point however, my objective is more along the lines of engaging with people as to the why's and what's of their beliefs. People are free to offer any evidences that they may find compelling if they choose to do so. You seem to find my dialogue with believers somehow problematic, but don't seem to share those same concerns with your own exchanges with them. 

Quote:Let me quote you, "agnosticism deals with knowledge."  So knowledge has zero to do with what they believe and why the believe?

You've officially jumped the shark if you hadn't done so already.  

Again, agnosticism deals with whether you can know and how you can know it. If one says they know for certain that there is or isn't a God, they must demonstrate how they know that for certain and by what means they used to make a factual determination.

Atheism is simply the rejection of the proposition "there is a God" due to not feeling you have a justification for believing it's the case.

To say that I don't know that X is the case or can be known to be the case is admitting that I don't have the factual /certain knowledge to make such a determination.

To say that I reject the claim that X is the case, or even likely to be the case, is to state that I have not yet seen reason to justify actively believing in the claim. 

By the same token, if one says the believe, they can do so while also admitting that they can't know 100% for sure what they're believing is indeed true, which many do.

Quote:Do you have evidence to support your belief? Yes or no?

By answering the questions posed, the answer to your question should be provided.

Quote:What's you're issue with me asking you questions?  You can ask others these question, but they can't be asked of you?

I have no problem with that at all. Quite the contrary, I encourage it, by all. I don't get offended by questions, nor feel the need to tell others what questions they should or shouldn't ask, what topics of discussion they should be interested in or suggest that I know the intent behind people's curiosity or pursuits of dialogue with those of different perspectives.

[Lucidus]

(05-21-2019, 02:44 PM)Dill Wrote: Actually, I am speaking of "know" with an eye to the history of philosophy, and of "demonstrable certainty"--the latter term begging the question of "demonstrable."

In my view you are framing the question of whether god/the supernatural exists as an empirical test, while at the same time adopting a conception of "certain" knowledge (and agnosticism regarding which) embedded in a long (Ancient and Medieval) metaphysical discourse about matters beyond experience. The latter poses answers to questions of knowledge--e.g., can two angels can occupy the same space?--in apodictic terms on the order of analytic (e.g., mathematical and/or logical) necessity. 

This metaphysical discourse continues into modern times, but as theology, alongside a modern philosophy which breaks from it rather decisively from it in the 17th-18th centuries, e.g., Spinoza, Hume, Kant.  The cumulative effect of their work is to move questions about the existence of god/the supernatural out of the realm of possible knowledge.

You might respond--"well there you go: agnostics!" But its more than that. It is the death of "god" as a living philosophical question.

Because the ground of knowledge has shifted from metaphysical deduction to  induction based upon experience, which deals with probability, you can always claim that such knowledge is never 100% certain.

But in this context, the claim "we cannot know for certain" can have pernicious effects, especially the confusion of empirical and non empirical "knowledge," which hampers our ability to form judgments of relevance and priority--or worse embrace equivocations which run counter to the ends of philosophical and scientific inquiry.

Below is an example
If one has already experienced rain, then wondering whether it will rain tomorrow is rather different from wondering whether the supernatural exists, though one can pose conditions for determining the truth or falsity of such claims with equal ease.

In your sense of the word "know," one can posit a multiplicity of claims which cannot be proven 100% false--there is not only a dragon in your garage, but an invisible mouse in your pocket, and both used to work at that McDonald's on the far side of the moon. It is possible the evidence for these claims has "existed all along" but we have not found it yet. That we have not found it yet does not mean it does not exist. etc. The number of such "possible" truths is infinite and, I would add, infinitely IMprobable.

The problem of sorting knowledge/truth claims is especially acute now, I think, in the age of Trump, when absence of evidence proves no barrier to conspiracy theories in a public sphere where no one can be "100% sure" that the Clinton's didn't kill Vince Foster and Obama wasn't born in Kenya, but they can doubt there was a moon landing or that Russians interfered with the US elections.
NB: enjoying the discussion, Lucidus. I think you raise serious questions that I hope I am not dismissing.

As to the rain example: 

I was attempting to demonstrate the difference in certain knowledge and justified belief, or lack thereof. 

I must been agnostic in terms of whether I know for sure that it will rain tomorrow because I lack certain knowledge that it will.

However, I can have a justifiable "belief" that it will rain tomorrow based on evidence based conclusions.

You are correct that my view posits that no claim can be proven to be 100% false. However, it does not automatically follow that that any one of all possible claims can in fact be true. 

Stating that no instance of X can be proven impossible, does not state that any possible instance of X is true. 

My interest is more in terms of what is most reasonable and justified to believe in the absence of 100% certainty. In the case of God, my position is to say that we can't currently know, and may never be able to know, if a God actually exists or not. If I accept that I can't know with 100% certainty, then I must decide if I have a solid justification and reasoning process to believe in God, without said certainty. If I can't do so, then I can't actively believe in God, but it doesn't necessarily follow that I believe there is no God.

I feel we must admit that we can't know things with 100% certainty. Once we accept that reality, we must then rely on as many evidences and demonstrable proofs as possible in order to formulate active beliefs. If we don't have those available as proper justification, I think we should avoid actively believing something until which time there is reason to reasonably cause such belief.

I can't establish that gravity is 100% real. However, it seems to be demonstrable, repeatable and predictable in a way that suggest it's rationale and justifiable to believe it is extremely likely to be real. 

On the other hand, I can't establish with 100% certainty that Trump is not a great, moral, empathetic human being somewhere deep inside. However, based on his words, actions and behaviors, there would certainly seem to be evidence and reasonable justification to think that it's extremely unlikely to be the case. 

I would also like to address Kant in my next post, when I have more time, if you would open for that, as there are things I completely agree with him on and other areas where I (and many others) part ways with him conclusions.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-22-2019, 01:34 PM)Lucidus Wrote: Having perceived "evidence" that you feel justifies a belief, says nothing about whether you feel the truth of what you believe can be known factually and with certainty, or whether you feel you even have the means to know if said truth can be known.

Offering evidences in support of a claim is not an assertion that you know for a fact, and with certainty, that said claim is true. That claim - that you can know for sure - would be quite a different conversation requiring a explanation of how you can know for sure.

Yet, they still believe with certainty based upon evidence which they believe is a fact and can be known with certainty. Again, we're talking about why someone who believes isn't agnostic because you don't understand why they aren't agnostic.

Quote:Correct. We know there is a gun because the wound and other factors that are all "evidence" demonstrating that it is indeed a gunshot wound, therefore coming from a "gun". Now, what if the body is missing and it can't be examined? The gunshot wound would still exist and the gun is still the murder weapon, but until we find the body, we have no means of making that determination as we currently don't have access to it. 

OMG  The premise is we know the murder weapon exists because we have a dead body with a GSW to examine.  If we don't have a body that is a completely different premise.

Quote:When it comes to a God, my position is that we can't simply dismiss the possibility that there could be one simply because we don't currently have that type of evidence. I would also offer that there is no real justification to actively believe that there is a God until such evidence is available for us to evaluate, just as we should not "believe" there is a gun responsible for a murder if there is no evidence to support such a conclusion. 

In the premise being discussed, there was a body with a GSW so we have every reason to believe that a gun was involved.  If there is not body then that is a totally different premise in which there is no reason to believe a murder was even committed.

Since you picked the murder weapon premise, let's use that again.  Many family members believe they know who killed the victim without sufficient evidence to know "factually and with certainty."  Yet, they still believe.

Let's use another example: you're a parent of 6 year old girl who tells you another student punched in the abdomen at school.  You're not going to have evidence to know "factually and with certainty" if your daughter is telling you the truth.  So you will be faced with a choice: 1) choose to believe her or 2) choose not to believe her.  It's that simple.

Quote:Again, absence of evidence is not demonstrable evidence itself. However, I would offer that it is a rationally valid reason to not actively believe until which time there is evidence to justify that belief.

False.  The fact Andrew Wakefield's research results have never been reproduced IS demonstrable evidence his conclusions were false.

Quote:In the case of the murder weapon, we have demonstrable proof that there must be a gun via the evidence (gunshot wound). To this point, the same doesn't apply to God. However, that doesn't mean the possibility that God exists is automatically eliminated. 

I've never argued against that possibility.

Quote:In the first bold sentence; the lack of an actual murder weapon does not mean we don't know (through demonstrable means) know what the murder weapon was. Therefore, we know it must exist or at the very least, existed at one point (even if it were destroyed).

In the second; it would be difficult to get a conviction based simply on the assertion that is a murder weapon. First, it must be proven that (via the evidence) that the asserted murder weapon is the cause. Once that happens, it's perfectly justifiable to believe that there must be a murder weapon.

Unfortunately, my wife enjoys watching true crime shows. You would be surprised what can get a person convicted of murder.

Quote:Again, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Is "tigerblood" meant as a pejorative towards me in some way?

Really? What can you deduce from "Tigerblood is your former screen name"?

Quote:Correct in that I'm not sure if it can be known (agnosticism) and I've yet to be shown that there's a reason to "believe" (atheism).

That does not mean there couldn't be evidence that I'm unaware of, haven't been presented with or might not have access to currently. That is a very audacious claim to make, as I'm not privy to all knowledge that can be known, or even that has been known.

Apart from that point however, my objective is more along the lines of engaging with people as to the why's and what's of their beliefs. People are free to offer any evidences that they may find compelling if they choose to do so. You seem to find my dialogue with believers somehow problematic, but don't seem to share those same concerns with your own exchanges with them. 

1) If anyone had definitive proof that could "be known factually and with certainty" at any point during the history of Christianity of God's existence it would be the single greatest news story ever.  And I believe with 100% certainty (despite a complete lack of evidence) a simple Google search with a smart phone would connect you with that information in less than one second if it existed.

2) If someone as interested in this "growing" debate as yourself was indeed interested in evidence of God's existence you would certainly be aware of it if 1 was true.

I find you and your arguments to be completely disingenuous, at best, if you expect me believe 1 and 2 are false.  And if 1 and 2 were true we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Quote:Again, agnosticism deals with whether you can know and how you can know it. If one says they know for certain that there is or isn't a God, they must demonstrate how they know that for certain and by what means they used to make a factual determination.

Atheism is simply the rejection of the proposition "there is a God" due to not feeling you have a justification for believing it's the case.

To say that I don't know that X is the case or can be known to be the case is admitting that I don't have the factual /certain knowledge to make such a determination.

To say that I reject the claim that X is the case, or even likely to be the case, is to state that I have not yet seen reason to justify actively believing in the claim. 

By the same token, if one says the believe, they can do so while also admitting that they can't know 100% for sure what they're believing is indeed true, which many do.

You wrote, "Agnosticism has zero to do with what they believe and why they believe it."  Except your agnosticism affects your belief because you don't believe because of your agnosticism.  And if you had the evidence you were seeking you would no longer be agnostic or atheist.

Quote:By answering the questions posed, the answer to your question should be provided.

Do you have evidence to support your belief?  Yes or no?

Quote:I have no problem with that at all. Quite the contrary, I encourage it, by all. I don't get offended by questions, nor feel the need to tell others what questions they should or shouldn't ask, what topics of discussion they should be interested in or suggest that I know the intent behind people's curiosity or pursuits of dialogue with those of different perspectives.

If you encourage everyone to ask questions, why are you asking me why I'm asking you questions?  That makes no sense.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-22-2019, 03:02 PM)Lucidus Wrote:  If I accept that I can't know with 100% certainty

In other words, you chose to believe something.  You made a decision to believe.

Once we strip away all the superfluous words; you chose to believe.

[Lucidus]

(05-23-2019, 12:56 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Yet, they still believe with certainty based upon evidence which they believe is a fact and can be known with certainty. Again, we're talking about why someone who believes isn't agnostic because you don't understand why they aren't agnostic.

You seem to be confusing if/how/what we can "know" with if/how/what we can "believe". 

If one states that they do not know, and perhaps cannot know, with absolute certainty, that God does or doesn't exist -- then by definition they are agnostic. I've come across very few people that are so bold as to claim a special access to absolute knowledge, and even fewer who attempt to explain such access and how they are privy to it. 

Either a person admits they don't have access to special knowledge that would offer absolute certainty or they claim that they do have access, which would require a significant demonstration of how that is the case. 

Quote:OMG  The premise is we know the murder weapon exists because we have a dead body with a GSW to examine.  If we don't have a body that is a completely different premise.

In the premise being discussed, there was a body with a GSW so we have every reason to believe that a gun was involved.  If there is not body then that is a totally different premise in which there is no reason to believe a murder was even committed.

Since you picked the murder weapon premise, let's use that again.  Many family members believe they know who killed the victim without sufficient evidence to know "factually and with certainty."  Yet, they still believe.

So, to make this analogous to the God proposition -- if they acknowledge they don't know factually and with certainty, then they are agnostic as to the proposition of "knowing for sure".

The question becomes what they choose to "believe". Even though they may lack the required knowledge to claim certainty, they can still formulate an opinion / conclusion as to whether they believe they know who killed the victim. If they believe they do know , it would seem reasonable to wonder what rational and justifications they used to reach that decision.

Quote:Let's use another example: you're a parent of 6 year old girl who tells you another student punched in the abdomen at school.  You're not going to have evidence to know "factually and with certainty" if your daughter is telling you the truth.  So you will be faced with a choice: 1) choose to believe her or 2) choose not to believe her.  It's that simple.

Since there would be no way for me to "know" if it actually happened with absolute certainty -- I'm assuming your example is meant to be absent witnesses, video, etc -- I would be agnostic as to having the proper knowledge to know for sure. 

As to whether I believe her claim or not, it would depend on various factors. 

However, even if I choose to not believe (lack belief) in her claim, it doesn't mean automatically mean I believe her claim is false. Withholding belief until such time as it seems reasonably warranted is not the same as asserting that the claim is false or that I can't be mistaken for not believing in the claim.

If you then assert that not finding the claim to be worthy of belief is a belief, in and of itself, I would ask you to explain what it is that you think I would be actively believing? 

Quote:1) If anyone had definitive proof that could "be known factually and with certainty" at any point during the history of Christianity of God's existence it would be the single greatest news story ever.  And I believe with 100% certainty (despite a complete lack of evidence) a simple Google search with a smart phone would connect you with that information in less than one second if it existed.

2) If someone as interested in this "growing" debate as yourself was indeed interested in evidence of God's existence you would certainly be aware of it if 1 was true.

I find you and your arguments to be completely disingenuous, at best, if you expect me believe 1 and 2 are false.  And if 1 and 2 were true we wouldn't be having this conversation.

As to 1:

If thus far, X has never been the case -- does it follow that X can never be the case? 
Was penicillin "known" to exist prior to 1928 when discovered by Fleming while examining colonies of Staphylococcus? While people had used things like moldy bread in the past, there was no understanding of how or why it had an effect on wounds, for example. It wasn't until Fleming's discovery that the phenomenon could be tested, verified, demonstrated and explained.

As far as 2:

I refer you back to my response to 1.

Quote:You wrote, "Agnosticism has zero to do with what they believe and why they believe it."  Except your agnosticism affects your belief because you don't believe because of your agnosticism.  And if you had the evidence you were seeking you would no longer be agnostic or atheist.

Agnosticism doesn't necessarily lead one to believe or not believe. Agnosticism only addresses whether we can know or not. 

I don't lack belief in God based on not knowing with certainty that he exists or not. I lack belief because I've yet to find compelling reason to rationalize or justify such a belief. For example, I would be agnostic in terms of knowing with certainty if I'll live to be 100 years old or not, but that doesn't mean I couldn't choose to believe I would if there was valid reason and justification such as a long history of family members living to be 100 or more. 

Quote:Do you have evidence to support your belief?  Yes or no?

Please state the specific belief or beliefs that you are asserting that I hold, then we can be far more precise and eliminate the circular aspect of the particular topic of discussion. 

I'm also rather curious as to why you are avoiding the questions that were posed. I would be very interested to see your answers.

Quote:If you encourage everyone to ask questions, why are you asking me why I'm asking you questions?  That makes no sense.

I'm not sure where you found a question in the response you quoted, as I clearly stated why I encourage questions and why they shouldn't be avoided.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-23-2019, 03:28 PM)Lucidus Wrote: You seem to be confusing if/how/what we can "know" with if/how/what we can "believe". 

If one states that they do not know, and perhaps cannot know, with absolute certainty, that God does or doesn't exist -- then by definition they are agnostic. I've come across very few people that are so bold as to claim a special access to absolute knowledge, and even fewer who attempt to explain such access and how they are privy to it. 

Either a person admits they don't have access to special knowledge that would offer absolute certainty or they claim that they do have access, which would require a significant demonstration of how that is the case. 

No, I'm not.  Remember you stated you don't know why anyone could be anything other than agnostic.  I reminded you of your claim that many Christians believe based upon evidence.  Remember when you stated you couldn't know I had a dragon in my garage until you saw it?  They have seen the dragon in my garage, so to speak, which is why they aren't agnostic.

You understand so enough with the thought experiment already.

Quote:So, to make this analogous to the God proposition -- if they acknowledge they don't know factually and with certainty, then they are agnostic as to the proposition of "knowing for sure".

The question becomes what they choose to "believe". Even though they may lack the required knowledge to claim certainty, they can still formulate an opinion / conclusion as to whether they believe they know who killed the victim. If they believe they do know , it would seem reasonable to wonder what rational and justifications they used to reach that decision.

I believe my favorite color is blue.  I don't need a rationale or justification for that belief.  I just need a choice. Nor do I need to show you evidence of to justify my belief so you believe my belief.

Quote:Since there would be no way for me to "know" if it actually happened with absolute certainty -- I'm assuming your example is meant to be absent witnesses, video, etc -- I would be agnostic as to having the proper knowledge to know for sure. 

As to whether I believe her claim or not, it would depend on various factors. 

However, even if I choose to not believe (lack belief) in her claim, it doesn't mean automatically mean I believe her claim is false. Withholding belief until such time as it seems reasonably warranted is not the same as asserting that the claim is false or that I can't be mistaken for not believing in the claim.

If you then assert that not finding the claim to be worthy of belief is a belief, in and of itself, I would ask you to explain what it is that you think I would be actively believing? 

"I choose"

Despite the word games you inadvertently admitted it is a choice.  This argument has reached its conclusion.

Quote:As to 1:

If thus far, X has never been the case -- does it follow that X can never be the case? 
Was penicillin "known" to exist prior to 1928 when discovered by Fleming while examining colonies of Staphylococcus? While people had used things like moldy bread in the past, there was no understanding of how or why it had an effect on wounds, for example. It wasn't until Fleming's discovery that the phenomenon could be tested, verified, demonstrated and explained.

As far as 2:

I refer you back to my response to 1.

I never stated it couldn't be the case.  I stated if someone had evidence of God's existence you would be aware of that evidence given your interest in this topic.  How many people with an interest in medicine and access to the internet in 2019 are unaware of antibiotics in less than a century we have been aware of them?

You're really going to compare the accidental discovery of penicillin to the search for evidence of God for thousands of years especially given the recent "growing" debate?  Suggesting others have evidence of God's existence which you aren't aware of is like suggesting current day doctors are unaware of the evidence of the existence of antibiotics.  That suggestion is evidence which leads me to believe this conversation is not at all sincere.

Quote:Agnosticism doesn't necessarily lead one to believe or not believe. Agnosticism only addresses whether we can know or not. 

I don't lack belief in God based on not knowing with certainty that he exists or not. I lack belief because I've yet to find compelling reason to rationalize or justify such a belief. For example, I would be agnostic in terms of knowing with certainty if I'll live to be 100 years old or not, but that doesn't mean I couldn't choose to believe I would if there was valid reason and justification such as a long history of family members living to be 100 or more. 

And if you had videotape of your 6 y/o daughter being punched by a classmate would you know if she was punched? Yes.  Would you believe her based upon the evidence? Yes.

Quote:Please state the specific belief or beliefs that you are asserting that I hold, then we can be far more precise and eliminate the circular aspect of the particular topic of discussion. 

I'm also rather curious as to why you are avoiding the questions that were posed. I would be very interested to see your answers.

Agnostic atheist.

Which questions?

Quote:I'm not sure where you found a question in the response you quoted, as I clearly stated why I encourage questions and why they shouldn't be avoided.

(05-18-2019, 03:59 PM)Lucidus Wrote: Is this not a section of the site dedicated entirely to politics and religion? So, tell me what exactly is off limits when it comes to religious discussion here? Perhaps there are rules on this that I'm unaware of? The thread itself has been a very good discussion, and the posters have been incredibly civil and respectful. I'm not sure what your issue is with asking questions and letting people answer for themselves?

Does that ring a bell?

[Arturo Bandini]

(05-18-2019, 02:15 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL I find it just the opposite, Arturo.

I don't believe in god and don't find pursuit of whether he "really" exists all that interesting.

On the other the hand, nothing tells us more about the nature of humans and belief than the extant variety of religions.

People seem unable to get away from projection, anthropomorphism and the like, even when they grow up in secular societies.
They cannot imagine a dead universe.

There is nothing else but God.

I had the privilege ( usually people laugh at me with that but I don't care ) to have a chat with the Boss on 02 may 2013 and Bro it's just unbelievable ... You can hardly explain this with words. It lasted almost 2 hours and he answered all my questions.

That was so much incredible that I forgot half of it ( because some things can't be told by words )

There is no Hell, there is no specific religion and he loves even those who you consider evil. There is no good and bad either, it's just our perception which is biased.

I can talk about this all life long. 

Best day of my life.

Funny thing. When I was younger I learn serbo croat language ( for no reason ) and I had these red dots alarm clock. For some reasons, it only worked backflipped and for me 9:08 was God's hour because in serb God is BOG and it's 9:08 backwards

Imagine how I felt when I realized this whole experience happened on Road 908 ...

Heaven is just "Home". There is no other place.

That day it was just the universe giving me the best hug ever. never felt that much loved during my whole life.