05-23-2019, 03:28 PM
(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.
