05-18-2019, 05:58 PM
(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.
