05-24-2019, 02:30 PM
(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?
