Is agnosticism a valid view?

Let me point out that agnosticism is not a view, but lack of one on the subject of God's existence. So a better approach is to ask, is it valid to say one doesn't know whether God exists or not?

Agnosticism can be divided into two types: "Hard" agnosticism, which asserts that a finite mind it would not be able to "know" the infinite, and "soft" agnosticism, which asserts that God might be knowable but that one personally doesn't know.

My opinion is that both types of agnostic suffer from the incorrect idea that knowledge is certainty. What is not possible to a finite mind is certainty, but that doesn't mean we can't know things.

All we need do to "know" anything is to see that all the credible evidence points in a certain direction.

In the case of God's existence, there is no credible evidence. All we have are traditional religions derived from human superstition and submission instincts and sustained with propaganda and childhood indoctrination.

The history and nature of the universe bespeaks a universe of natural process, without a divine hand. The nature of life bespeaks of the incredible cruelty and suffering brought about by the natural process called natural selection, not the hand of a benign deity.

Logic takes one to similar conclusions--the very idea of infinity leads to self-referential contradictions that have been understood since the Middle Ages but which theists manage to ignore through label rather than rational refutation.

There is, finally, the undeniable evidence of the existence of the non-believer. In a universe inhabited by an infinite being who wants his presence to be known, his existence would be overwhelming. Non-belief would be impossible, free will or no free will.

So, unless one twists the definition of "God" to some other concept alien to the native meaning of the word, one has to conclude that no such being exists. This makes agnosticism untenable. If one says that one is as sure that there is no God as one can reasonably be sure of anything, and this is the only rational position, then one must be an atheist.

In my opinion, "I don't know" is the most honest answer anyone can really give about the existence of God.

Wavy Gravy once asked a Zen Roshi, "What happens after death?"

The Roshi replied, "I don't know."

Wavy protested, "But you're a Zen Master!"

"Yes," the Roshi admitted, "but I'm not a dead Zen Master."

I addressed the problem with the "I don't know" response. I find it surprising that you seem to post a response without reading what you are responding to.

Your understanding of Zen is superficial. Zen masters "know" a lot more than you seem to imagine and do not go around preaching universal uncertainty.

You stated your opinion.

I stated my opinion, which differs from yours.

You should stop being so arrogant as to assume I should give your opinion any more weight than it deserves.

My position is slightly different. I don't give a damn whether a supreme being exists or not. I can't imagine why a Zen master would, either. Too busy bilking people out of money for guided "meditation" sessions.

Lets break this down since you already accused one person of not reading your post thoroughly.

"Is agnosticism a valid view?"
Yes it is. To say with absoluteness that there is an existance of a "god" or supreme being or beings" or not the existance is saying you know everything about the universe. We do not know everything about the Universe the life within it and until we do to say something of this nature exists or not is arrogants.

"Let me point out that agnosticism is not a view, but lack of one on the subject of God's existence. So a better approach is to ask, is it valid to say one doesn't know whether God exists or not?"

LOL agnosticism is not a view. WOW lets break this down. Definition of a view-: a position or perspective from which something is considered or evaluated : STANDPOINT
So in agnositics view or position of perspective the jury is still out so to speak. There is no proof that a god does not exist or does exist.

"Agnosticism can be divided into two types: "Hard" agnosticism, which asserts that a finite mind it would not be able to "know" the infinite, and "soft" agnosticism, which asserts that God might be knowable but that one personally doesn't know."

I guess that would make me a hard agnosticism because I simply believe our tiny little retarded minds couldn't possibly understand or relate to something massive enough to create the Universe.


"My opinion is that both types of agnostic suffer from the incorrect idea that knowledge is certainty. What is not possible to a finite mind is certainty, but that doesn't mean we can't know things."

Incorrect idea ROFLMAO!! yes your think being based on lack of information since we have not fully understand all the secrets of space, time and the Universe is correct thinking. So egotistical it is laughable. Knowlege is certainty? what is that suppose to mean. We can know things only on our levels. A retarded human being cannot comprehend or solve persons of a person with an IQ of 130 an the person of the 130 IQ would seem retarded and cannot solve problems or understand concepts that someone with an IQ of 300 can. We are barely scratching the service on Metaphysics, another planes of existance, parallel Universes. Einstein was able to think in a way that most of us could not and only because he wrote it down that we were able to study and understand it. There are things in this Universe that we could not phantom. IT is beyond us at this point. That is not to say that one day we will evolve enough to become aware and understand more things.

"All we need do to "know" anything is to see that all the credible evidence points in a certain direction. "

There are things we cannot see for example we cannot see in infarred. It wasn't until we built this technology that we could see in that spectrum and found object in outerspace that we had not discovered with our bare eyes. There could be things out there that exist beyond the light spectrum something we haven't thought about yet.


"In the case of God's existence, there is no credible evidence. All we have are traditional religions derived from human superstition and submission instincts and sustained with propaganda and childhood indoctrination."

No crediable evidence that we can study yet with the limited technology that we have built so far.

"The history and nature of the universe bespeaks a universe of natural process, without a divine hand. The nature of life bespeaks of the incredible cruelty and suffering brought about by the natural process called natural selection, not the hand of a benign deity."

Ok please prove how the Universe was started? What ignited it?

"Logic takes one to similar conclusions--the very idea of infinity leads to self-referential contradictions that have been understood since the Middle Ages but which theists manage to ignore through label rather than rational refutation."

HOw is infinity contraditing.. please explain.

"There is, finally, the undeniable evidence of the existence of the non-believer. In a universe inhabited by an infinite being who wants his presence to be known, his existence would be overwhelming. Non-belief would be impossible, free will or no free will."

How do you know this being wants to be known? I do not think god cares about earth or humans or anything else. I think it has more important things to do than worry about piss ants such as ourselves.

"So, unless one twists the definition of "God" to some other concept alien to the native meaning of the word, one has to conclude that no such being exists. This makes agnosticism untenable. If one says that one is as sure that there is no God as one can reasonably be sure of anything, and this is the only rational position, then one must be an atheist."

There is no native meaning of god. Humans have given god many names and many forms. Agnostics are not twisting the image of god just simply making it out of reach of human comprehension.

Agnostics are being mindful not to make quick judgements about something they do not understand or fully comprehend.

and personally I think it is sad that you have to attack agnostics. Your as bad as a christian that you have to demean and demoralize someone who does not believe the same way you do. I mean your insecurities must be wild.

Hey, I actually agree with Dharma and Warrior on something!
I dont claim to know whether there is a God or not, therefore, I am agnostic. Simple as that.

I think this all stems from a contradiction in the way we look at the word "know". Thisin, you say that knowledge is not certainty, but in my opinion "know" implies certainty. And, as you said, a finite mind can never be certain about anything.

God doesn't have to do anything He doesn't want to do. Just because you think and omnipotent omnipresent force would be blatantly obvious, doesn't make it so. Look at gravity: Gravity connects everything (EVERYTHING) in the universe, yet we are only able to sense it's presence on this humble little planet, and to some extent, the moon. "Pick a daisy on earth, and you move the furthest star."

And, as you said, a finite mind can never be certain about anything.
I'm a hundred percent certain that warrior is a blubbering retard. Take that, bitches!

I'm a hundred percent certain that warrior is a blubbering retard. Take that, bitches!
Napster!:mad:

That's mean.

"Pick a daisy on earth, and you move the furthest star."

Sounds like a cosmic version of "a butterfly flaps its wings"...

Agnosticism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Agnosticism (from the Greek a, meaning "without", and Gnosticism or gnosis, meaning knowledge) means unknowable, and is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims—particularly theological claims regarding metaphysics, afterlife or the existence of God, god(s), or deities—is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently unknowable.

Agnostics claim either that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge of God or gods; or, alternatively, that while certainty may be possible, they personally have no knowledge. Agnosticism in both cases involves some form of skepticism.

Demographic research services normally list agnostics in the same category as atheists and non-religious people,[1] although this can be misleading depending on the number of agnostic theists who identify themselves first as agnostics and second as followers of a particular religion

------------------------------------------------------------------

With that all being said how can you state that in your opinion we have a lack of one on the subject of God's existence.
I am agnostic and I believe there is a god but to what extent I am not sure. I have questions and as such I ask questions, to me that is more what an agnostic person is. We have questions.
Are we right to question, Yes I feel we do have that right.
Just like you have the right to your beliefs.
Do I knock you for yours, No.
Should you knock me for mine, NO.
I can agree to disagree and still show respect that you have chosen a different path then me, But I don't see how that invalidates my ideals or position on god and religion.

I'm a hundred percent certain that warrior is a blubbering retard. Take that, bitches!
:lolhit:

Napster!

That's mean.

No, it's an argument. You say that the finite mind cannot be certain of something. Well, I can be absolutely certain that the grass outside is some shade of green. I can be similarly certain that the Coke I'm drinking right now is delicious. I don't buy the finite mind can't know anything argument.

I'm a hundred percent certain that warrior is a blubbering retard. Take that, bitches!

Well I am 100 percent certian you a man with a deformed penis who couldn't get it up with viagra and you like taking it your "disability" on other people.

Well I am 100 percent certian you a man with a deformed penis who couldn't get it up with viagra and you like taking it your "disability" on other people.
Wow. You really told him.:rolleyes: Remember, spellcheck...baby.

No, it's an argument. You say that the finite mind cannot be certain of something. Well, I can be absolutely certain that the grass outside is some shade of green. I can be similarly certain that the Coke I'm drinking right now is delicious. I don't buy the finite mind can't know anything argument.

It is not an argument because an argument can be debatable and you said you are 100 percent sure. Also your perspective is hardly the truth and reality. You live in a dilusional world where you think you are better than everyone else. It has been proven many times I am not a retard. Blubbering could be debatable since it is a point of perspective. As for the grass that it is green in reality the grass is actually every color but green. The light that is being sent from the sun the grass is absorbing every color of that spectrum but the color green. The color green is being rejected and reflected back out to our eyes making it appear green but infact the grass is every color but green. See light theory here
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/achenblog/2005/06/why_is_grass_green.html

as for coke. It is delicious for you and your taste buds but to someone else it may be repulsive like your comments.

Wow. You really told him.:rolleyes: Remember, spellcheck...baby.

and you are a troll cheerleader. You never really make stabs yourself because I suppose you are not witty enough to come up with a good attack but you are always on the sideline to give your support when someone makes an actual attack.

Don't you have something better to do like put some bengay on your masterbating arm?

Well I am 100 percent certian you a man with a deformed penis who couldn't get it up with viagra and you like taking it your "disability" on other people.
Nice. :lolhit:

and you are a troll cheerleader. You never really make stabs yourself because I suppose you are not witty enough to come up with a good attack but you are always on the sideline to give your support when someone makes an actual attack.

Don't you have something better to do like put some bengay on your masterbating arm?
Not really.:D

*Grabs for the BenGay*

Well I am 100 percent certian you a man with a deformed penis who couldn't get it up with viagra and you like taking it your "disability" on other people.
My little deformed dick could outwit, outspell, and outwrite your fat ass any day.

You could not outwit or outwrite me. You might be able to outspell me but that is about it. I mean for gods sake you think the grass is actually green

Oh wow, you think that just because you read some shit in third grade about how light works, that grass isn't actually green? Oh wait, I read it in third grade, you're just finding it now. What a retard.

umm ok now I lose all respect for you. You are the one that did not know and I knew the grass was not really green for 8 years now after taking art classes.
If you knew in 3rd grade that the grass was not really green why did you post you know for sure that it is green??

umm ok now I lose all respect for you.
Great, the feeling's finally mutual.

Saying the grass is green is a semantic definition. It matters not how light works. You go outside, look at the grass, when you see it, do you think, "Holy shit, this grass is 'every other color but green'!"? Fuck no. You think, "Oh what a pretty shade of green!" Knowing the exact mechanism behind the action of seeing color doesn't change shit. The grass is still green, the sky is still blue, and you still couldn't beat a monkey at spelling.

So the pigments in the leaf reflect wavelengths of light that we see as green and absorb everything else in the visible light spectrum. Guess what sweetheart. That's what makes it green.

Now go eat a cake.

I do not eat cake or any sweets for that matter. I do not over eat. I have a bowl of cereal for breakfast, a peanut butter sandwich for lunch and a sensible dinner a meat, veggies and noodles.

No cake, no ice cream, no coke, no bon bon, no second servings or anything like that.

I am overwieght because of lack of exercise. I do not have a problem with my wieght but you seem to.

My husband loves me just the way I am and so do my children. So you can take you fat shit and shove it.

Yeah, yeah, whatever. Got any stupendous insights on the nature of color that nobody's heard about yet to go with your crybaby apologetics?

I think this all stems from a contradiction in the way we look at the word "know". Thisin, you say that knowledge is not certainty, but in my opinion "know" implies certainty. And, as you said, a finite mind can never be certain about anything.

Well, then, by your definition we cannot "know" anything; yet somehow we manage to find our way to work.

Great, the feeling's finally mutual.

Saying the grass is green is a semantic definition. It matters not how light works. You go outside, look at the grass, when you see it, do you think, "Holy shit, this grass is 'every other color but green'!"? Fuck no. You think, "Oh what a pretty shade of green!" Knowing the exact mechanism behind the action of seeing color doesn't change shit. The grass is still green, the sky is still blue, and you still couldn't beat a monkey at spelling.

So the pigments in the leaf reflect wavelengths of light that we see as green and absorb everything else in the visible light spectrum. Guess what sweetheart. That's what makes it green.

Now go eat a cake.
You make a point I knew and have even argued but seem to have forgotten when I posted the beginning of this thread. We do know some things for a certainty--the things that are experiential. We don't have certainty that the grass is green, but we do have a certainty that "green" is the color we perceive when we look at green grass.

I am suffering at the moment from some kind of rash, probably from something I ate. I don't know what caused it, but I do know with absolute certainty that I itch.

That we do not have such experiential existence of God is obvious enough. Of course there are those who claim otherwise, but they are liars who have expressed that lie so often now they believe it.

(I say that because they have to assume there is some reason they are given the Holy Spirit and others aren't without sounding arrogant, so they end up either saying God chooses at a great cosmic roulette wheel called "grace" or we somehow reject him--as though an infinite being could be rejected.)

the finite mind can't know anything argument.An argument often used by the absolutely certain, amusingly.

I look at it as a different way of knowing. To take the example earlier, a leaf is green. Yet it reflects green light, and absorbs every other wavelength. One does not make the other false.

Understanding that one thing is true does not make seemingly contradictory statements false. I push my car to the side of the road. The car is also pushing me back with an equal and opposite force. Yet I am moving the car, the car is not moving me. Why is this? The car is much heavier than me, and is pushing me just as hard. Should not the car be moving me? These questions are semantic in nature. No matter how much you go around and debate, the same reality will be extant regardless of the solution.

Religion and ultimate meaning are ultimately meaningless because they are semantic questions, not real questions. Ultimately all we're playing with is words. So, not only is agnosticism an untenable stance, so is both atheism and theism. Ultimate meaning is a null set.

I'm glad this thread redirected back to topic.

It's amazing how these threads can all of a sudden really take off.



When there's a fight.

I'm glad this thread redirected back to topic.
I don't know that it is really back to topic, but I also don't care that much. It seems to have moved to the topic of the nature of certainty and of knowledge. These are interesting subjects too.

Except for one rather idiotic response, there has been no one to take on with any seriousness the reasons I posted for being an atheist--to bring these out was my objective.

Now I understand that no theist is able to talk about these arguments reasonably, but I figured attacking agnosticism might get a discussion going, since I feel that the agnostic position is not tenable either.

Let me briefly restate the atheist view:

1. The idea of God leads to self-contradictory self-referential logical contradictions.

2. An objective look at the physical universe shows no evidence of anything intelligent in it. It is all natural process without purpose.

3. An objective look at life has a similar conclusion; evolution is not directed but has moved in fits and starts and creates a cruel existence for all living things.

4. The same look at humanity is similar. While we are able to mitigate the suffering and we are able often enough to overrule the physical nature of our existence and find happiness regardless, there is nothing in our existence that speaks of anything other than harsh natural processes.

With these lines of evidence, I think that any reasonable person is going to conclude that there is no God. Of course there remain ways to rationalize around these arguments, but rational people do not base their views on rationalization.

I look at it as a different way of knowing. To take the example earlier, a leaf is green. Yet it reflects green light, and absorbs every other wavelength. One does not make the other false.
Ugh! An off-puttingly new-agey start. ;)
Understanding that one thing is true does not make seemingly contradictory statements false. I push my car to the side of the road. The car is also pushing me back with an equal and opposite force. Yet I am moving the car, the car is not moving me. Why is this? The car is much heavier than me, and is pushing me just as hard. Should not the car be moving me? These questions are semantic in nature. No matter how much you go around and debate, the same reality will be extant regardless of the solution.
I hear ya. Circular reasoning is much maligned, but is essential for any practical and useful grasp of truth.

Religion and ultimate meaning are ultimately meaningless because they are semantic questions, not real questions. Ultimately all we're playing with is words. So, not only is agnosticism an untenable stance, so is both atheism and theism. Ultimate meaning is a null set.
You seem to be saying that what applies to everyday things such as cars does not apply to "ultimate" things such as gods. Or at least that to do so is meaningless; empty words devoid of daily experience.

But equally daily experience is devoid of meaning without words to talk about it. And if daily experience can be made meaningful through words why not "ultimate" things too?

Except for one rather idiotic response, there has been no one to take on with any seriousness the reasons I posted for being an atheist--to bring these out was my objective.

If the reason for your post was to bring out your reasons for being an athiest then you should not have titled the thread "the case against agnosticism".

You need to learn to write more clearly.

But equally daily experience is devoid of meaning without words to talk about it. And if daily experience can be made meaningful through words why not "ultimate" things too?
When I said "meaningless," perhaps I should have said, "useless," or perhaps, "worthless." Semantics as a pursuit is the study of meaning, and words have meaning no matter whether what they are referring to has any veracity or not.

Stephen King's novels refer to nothing, but contain all kinds of meaning. Entire worlds of meaning. Reality created with words is the "different way of knowing" which I spoke about earlier.

When I said "meaningless," perhaps I should have said, "useless," or perhaps, "worthless." Semantics as a pursuit is the study of meaning, and words have meaning no matter whether what they are referring to has any veracity or not.Nice answer. "Meaning" is a slippery bugger.
Reality created with words is the "different way of knowing" which I spoke about earlier.I agree with that, and would suggest it counts for other symbols from mathematical notation through to movies.

In fact if we go so far as to include sensory input per se as symbolic the distinction between experiential knowing and wordy knowing blurs a little.

When I got myself involved in new-agism, never did I force myself to reconcile the utter preposterousness of what I was being taught, (I actually had lessons) and the sensory inputs I was receiving psycho-somatically. It felt good to be a new-ager. I played the game. Not in a tongue-in-cheek manner either. I actually tried all that witchy stuff. So the created meaning of new-ageism (psycho-somatic aura seeing and such junk) didn't interfere at all with the rock-certain understanding that it was all BS.

I think people try to reconcile all their different understandings in differing realms of human experience entirely too much. Ideas just don't mix all that well.

If the reason for your post was to bring out your reasons for being an athiest then you should not have titled the thread "the case against agnosticism".

You need to learn to write more clearly.

You need to learn to read. Look at the thread title again.

When I said "meaningless," perhaps I should have said, "useless," or perhaps, "worthless." Semantics as a pursuit is the study of meaning, and words have meaning no matter whether what they are referring to has any veracity or not.

Stephen King's novels refer to nothing, but contain all kinds of meaning. Entire worlds of meaning. Reality created with words is the "different way of knowing" which I spoke about earlier.
I take it you are pointing out that Stephen King's novels are fiction, meaning that they have no connection with reality. The novel creates its own world and deals with meaning entirely within that world. When we come to a novel, we may or may not apply it to our world.

The world is also a closed system, although much larger--maybe even infinite. Just as in a novel, we can only talk about events within the context the author provides; so in the universe we can only talk about events in terms of other events--the context the universe provides.

However, we can truly "know" things in terms of our personal experience. One "knows" the route to and from work from personal experience. I "know" that I detest durian, because I have tasted it (until I tasted it, I would have had no way to know--no matter how many accounts by others having tasted it I might read).

Can a finite being have any experience of the infinite? Obviously even a God determined to reveal Himself could not do so (self-referential contradiction) because the human mind cannot experience it: therefore a self-revealing God does not exist and reports of revelation are by definition bogus.

What would we perceive if an infinite being were to try to reveal itself? We would only perceive an object without boundary as far as our perception went--but we could never know if for real it was without boundary.

Can a finite being have any experience of the infinite?Yes, through mathematical imagery. The infinite can occupy small spaces, a single centimetre can be divided over and over again in the mind. We can imagine large infinities such as the set of all numbers and small infinities such as the set of whole numbers. We can even exploit limits at infinity to develop systems such as calculus, and these systems in turn provide mathematical imagery for further, deeper experiences of abstract entities such as "the infinite".

The notion of endlessness particularly seems innate to human experience - many do not so much as imagine one day there will be an end to their existence.

Yes, through mathematical imagery.

I understand your point, but mathematics does not give us experiential understanding. What it does is allow us to manipulate concepts symbolically (without reference to physical meaning) and thereby make deductions.

Take for example the best known paradox involving an infinite set--"Hilbert's Hotel." I am sure you are familiar with it. To us it is a paradox and seems impossible (I once had an extended conversation with an individual that asserted that this paradox "proved" that infinite sets cannot exist).

We have no intuitive understanding of a hotel with an infinite set of rooms--no experience of such a thing--and we cannot extend our experiential understanding of actual hotels to encompass the idea.

We draw the conclusions we draw using algorithms that can be set to "run forever." Then we cheat and go to the "end" of the calculation and get our answer--even though in theory the calculation can have no end.

I would suggest that if you think you have an experiential understanding of infinity out of, say, the calculus, that you suffer from the error of thinking of infinity as the "other" end point of the number line. This is not what it is--there is no point on the number line that is "infinity," although this is how we tend to picture it.

We can see something really really really really big, but still nowhere close to infinity. We can't even fully grasp our own tiny size in the universe.

Can a finite being have any experience of the infinite? Obviously even a God determined to reveal Himself could not do so (self-referential contradiction) because the human mind cannot experience it: therefore a self-revealing God does not exist and reports of revelation are by definition bogus.

What would we perceive if an infinite being were to try to reveal itself? We would only perceive an object without boundary as far as our perception went--but we could never know if for real it was without boundary.How do you 'know' 'god' is infinite? How could you possible know anything about 'god'? God is a subjective term. I could claim that 'god' is/are the rules of the universe which governs all objects. They certainly have control over everything and anything as well as being responsible for the evolution of planets and life. They also routinely break the observable boundries we have proclaimed for them when they are on an extremely large or extremely small scale. How are they not 'god?'

How do you 'know' 'god' is infinite? How could you possible know anything about 'god'? God is a subjective term. I could claim that 'god' is/are the rules of the universe which governs all objects. They certainly have control over everything and anything as well as being responsible for the evolution of planets and life. They also routinely break the observable boundries we have proclaimed for them when they are on an extremely large or extremely small scale. How are they not 'god?'
Congratulations on getting the booby prize. I figured someone would come along and quibble about the definition of "God." That seems to be the most common way of avoiding actual intelligent thought about the subject.

If "God" is not infinite, then whatever it is is not "God."

This is the superman problem--any sufficiently advanced technology seems divine to the naive. A being floating about throwing thunderbolts is perhaps a god, but it is not "God." Unless it is something infinite it is only technology.

Infinity and the various omni-'s are not the same. Something can contain an infinite amount of something without containing all there is of that something.

"God," to be "God" also has to be a person: not some force or energy stream, but a person. This does not mean hands and feet, but it does mean purpose and will and sentience and mind.

Atheism is the idea that such a being--an infinite person--does not exist.

We can see something really really really really big, but still nowhere close to infinity. We can't even fully grasp our own tiny size in the universe.

That is right on. The infinite nature of a being presenting itself as "God" has a parallel to the situation of the astromer trying to determine if the universe is invinite.

The COBE measurements of the microwave background radiation give us a clue as to the curvature of space-time. As long as it is flat (curvature=0) or negative, space-time is infinite. However, if we measure it to have positive curvature, then space-time is necessarily finite (curves in on itself).

This has been measured out to 10^32 power, with no sign of any curvature. This means that the universe is, at a minimum, 10^32 times bigger than the "Einsteinian universe" (that which we might in theory be able to see before we look so far that light has not had time since the Big Bang to reach us).

It looks that the universe is infinite. But wait a minute--what will we see if we refine the accuracy of our measurments by an order of magnitude and can measure to 10^33? Is it possible that in a ten-fold increase in our accuracy, we might begin to detect positive curvature?

Obviously the situation is such that we might one day detect if the universe is finite but we can never know for sure that it is infinite (if it is).

I understand your point, but mathematics does not give us experiential understanding.Doing maths is a human experience.
I would suggest that if you think you have an experiential understanding of infinity out of, say, the calculus, that you suffer from the error of thinking of infinity as the "other" end point of the number line.I think that's a gross simplification of the role of infinity in enabling calculus and the role of calculus in enabling the exploration of infinity.

Indeed your posts seem to be making the error of thinking of infinity as "really big".

Congratulations on getting the booby prize. I figured someone would come along and quibble about the definition of "God." That seems to be the most common way of avoiding actual intelligent thought about the subject.Why do you do that, thislin? Why do you get all uppity and sarcastic at the drop of a hat? Why do you accuse people of low intelligence continually?

The moment I put aside my previous reservations about you, and think to myself "hey this guy could be interesting to chat with after all" you go and pull some shit like that and remind me why most the time I don't bother with you.

You need to learn to read. Look at the thread title again.

You haven't changed it. I am still right.

You need to learn to communicate more clearly.

God is Windows for the universe.

No, really.

Agnostics are often Atheists in reality.

I used to call self agnostic, for about a year of high school and a year of college. Then I realized that the belief in an immortal god is just so incredibly unrealistic that I just plain didn't believe it, with or without absolute proof.

The way I see it is that there is no way to disprove the existance of God since he is omnipotent, right? But then again, there is no way to prove that the Son of Sam wasn't obeying the instructions of a dog with a demon's soul, is there? Well, I don't believe that a dog was directing the Son of Sam's actions, and I don't believe that there is an immortal god, even though I can't prove either wrong. Why? Because everything in my experience shows that dogs can't talk and everything in my experience shows that God doesn't exist.

That's why I'm an atheist, not an agnostic.

That's why I'm an atheist, not an agnostic.I am an atheist and not an agnostic because I find snobbier definitions more useful than the commonly employed extreme meanings of "rabidly absolutely certain" and "ain't got a clue, mate" respectively.

Agnosticism is actually a strong claim in my book. It is the assertion that if a god exists, it is unknowable. Agnosticism must conclude that monotheists are lying or deluded.

Atheism is a far more relaxed position. Monotheists might be right, but they have not convinced me to date.

"God," to be "God" also has to be a person: not some force or energy stream, but a person. This does not mean hands and feet, but it does mean purpose and will and sentience and mind.

Atheism is the idea that such a being--an infinite person--does not exist.

A minor quibble here;

Atheism does not make any claim that god "does not exist".

Atheism is simply the recognition that no proof for "god" has been presented.

A subtle distinction, but a very important one.

Why do you do that, thislin? Why do you get all uppity and sarcastic at the drop of a hat? Why do you accuse people of low intelligence continually?

The moment I put aside my previous reservations about you, and think to myself "hey this guy could be interesting to chat with after all" you go and pull some shit like that and remind me why most the time I don't bother with you.
I will not be talked into making myself a hypocrite. He earned and I gave him the boobyprize. Do you suggest I not be honest: the cliche is "He doesn't tolerate fools," and I don't.

Doing maths is a human experience.
I think that's a gross simplification of the role of infinity in enabling calculus and the role of calculus in enabling the exploration of infinity.

Indeed your posts seem to be making the error of thinking of infinity as "really big".
Infinity is not bigness and that was my point. I think you have a certain inability, not uncommon around here, to read. At any rate ascribing errors to me when I have explicitly stated the opposite is outrageous.

You haven't changed it. I am still right.

You need to learn to communicate more clearly.
No you just don't understand. You need to go back and re-read things more carefully. I see no need to get into a useless discussion with you over what I actually said, so if you want to push this bit of inanity, I will no longer go with you.

Agnostics are often Atheists in reality.

I used to call self agnostic, for about a year of high school and a year of college. Then I realized that the belief in an immortal god is just so incredibly unrealistic that I just plain didn't believe it, with or without absolute proof.

The way I see it is that there is no way to disprove the existance of God since he is omnipotent, right? But then again, there is no way to prove that the Son of Sam wasn't obeying the instructions of a dog with a demon's soul, is there? Well, I don't believe that a dog was directing the Son of Sam's actions, and I don't believe that there is an immortal god, even though I can't prove either wrong. Why? Because everything in my experience shows that dogs can't talk and everything in my experience shows that God doesn't exist.

That's why I'm an atheist, not an agnostic.
There is no way to disprove the existence of anything. Therefore the fact that there is no way to disprove the existence of God is not relevant.

All we as human beings can do is infer and deduce. Our inferences are only as good as our data; our deductions are only as good as our premises and logic. In neither case can anything be known with certainty.

But that does not mean we cannot know things--we can, as it were, approach certainty asymptotically. Those familiar with the calculus will recognize this--we don't know the answer, but the differential between our knowledge and the fact is an infinitesimal.

Take for example the contradiction found in the idea of an infinite being revealing his existence to finite beings.

1. It should be able to do so since it is able to do "anything."

2. It can't do so because the finite mind cannot encompass infinity.

There you have it. An infinite being both can and cannot reveal itself. This is a reductio ad absurdum and therefore serves to invalidate the premise that such a being exists.

There remains the possibility that there is a flaw in this logic--but I think an infinitesimal possibility.

A minor quibble here;

Atheism does not make any claim that god "does not exist".

Atheism is simply the recognition that no proof for "god" has been presented.

A subtle distinction, but a very important one.

Well, the usual distinction is between "hard" atheism, which makes the assertion that God does not exist and "soft" atheism which only says "I don't see enough evidence of God to say yea and the default is nay." The former has a burden of proof since it is an affirmative assertion; the latter (which to me is indistinguishable except in emphasis from soft agnosticism) has no such burden.

My approach is that of the hard atheist, and I have assumed the burden this implies--God does not exist. To that end I have twice now presented both empirical evidence (in the form of the nature of the universe and the history of life) and in logical evidence (self-referential contradictions that can be deduced from the premise of God).

No you just don't understand.

If not, then the fault is at least partially yours for not explaining yourself well enough.

However, I see no indication in any of your posts that I did indeed misunderstand you.

You could simply explain where I misunderstood you and correct me. Instead, you simply seem to be reflecting your irrational, unfounded, personal dislike of me again.

He earned and I gave him the boobyprize. Do you suggest I not be honest: the cliche is "He doesn't tolerate fools," and I don't.
...
I think you have a certain inability, not uncommon around here, to read. At any rate ascribing errors to me when I have explicitly stated the opposite is outrageous.
...
No you just don't understand. You need to go back and re-read things more carefully. I see no need to get into a useless discussion with you over what I actually said, so if you want to push this bit of inanity, I will no longer go with you.Why do I bother?

If not, then the fault is at least partially yours for not explaining yourself well enough.

However, I see no indication in any of your posts that I did indeed misunderstand you.

You could simply explain where I misunderstood you and correct me. Instead, you simply seem to be reflecting your irrational, unfounded, personal dislike of me again.

Whether we like each other or not is irrelevant; if you are worried about being popular you can become a hypocrite.

You accused me of not being clear in my writing; that coin has two sides--I may have muddled the way I expressed something or you may have either misunderstood or not be able to understand the point.

Regardless, it is a trivial distraction that gets no one anywhere.

Why do I bother?
I think he's off his meds.

Why do I bother?

His arrogance is really getting out of hand lately.

I think he's off his meds.
It seems people are not interested in exploration around here, but only in personal spitting matches.

His arrogance is really getting out of hand lately.
Look, what you did was the equivalent of correcting my spelling or grammar. It was just simple cattiness to post a message saying I don't know how to express myself well.

If you really didn't understand and wanted clarification, you would have either asked a question or said something like, "Do you mean . . .?" You did neither.

So I react in kind. I suppose if I wanted to convert you to something, this would be counterproductive, but I don't give a damn what you believe. I am just interested in finding intelligent and open-minded people to discuss things with. You are not someone I care to exchange with at all. You are to me the equivalent of the drunk who persists in inserting himself in a social gathering where he is not wanted. You have the right to be here and I have every right to be blunt with you.

It seems people are not interested in exploration around here, but only in personal spitting matches.
*Hocks a big ole loogie at Thislin*

Look, what you did was the equivalent of correcting my spelling or grammar.

Look yourself,

This is what happened.
You posted your opinion about why you are an athiest and I posted my opinion that "I don't know" is the most honest answer to whether there is a God.

You over-reacted and responded rudely, saying:

I addressed the problem with the "I don't know" response. I find it surprising that you seem to post a response without reading what you are responding to.

Your understanding of Zen is superficial. Zen masters "know" a lot more than you seem to imagine and do not go around preaching universal uncertainty.

You attacked me unnecessarily. You didn't have to respond at all since I did not ask or answer any questions. I did not attack you. You attacked me.
I made a comment, that is all.


I don't give a damn what you believe. I am just interested in finding intelligent and open-minded people to discuss things with. You are not someone I care to exchange with at all.

You just completely contradicted yourself and proved me right about your arrogant, irrational personal dislike of me.


You are to me the equivalent of the drunk who persists in inserting himself in a social gathering where he is not wanted.

On the contrary, I have received numerous messages thanking me for coming to the boards and complimenting me on raising the quality of debate since coming here. When I just came back after leaving for a few days I got more messages thanking me for coming back. If you don't like me fine, but you shouldn't pretend that everyone feels exactly as you do because you are simply wrong.


You have the right to be here and I have every right to be blunt with you.

You are not "blunt".

You are arrogant and unnecessarliy rude.

On the contrary, I have received numerous messages thanking me for coming to the boards and complimenting me on raising the quality of debate since coming here. When I just came back after leaving for a few days I got more messages thanking me for coming back. If you don't like me fine, but you shouldn't pretend that everyone feels exactly as you do because you are simply wrong.
Thirty PMs from OD? Wow, color me impressed.

Thirty PMs from OD? Wow, color me impressed.
:lolhit:

:lolhit:

Cute.

As usual, Napster is wrong.

Cute.

As usual, Napster is wrong.
And so are you!

Maybe you two can join a club. Or at least start dating.

C'mon dharma, let's bury the hatchet! Among other things...

Cute.

As usual, Napster is wrong.
Of course he's wrong. It was a joke.

Yeah, there's only fifteen.

C'mon dharma, let's bury the hatchet! Among other things...
No... Nappy... just... no.

Ewwwww.

What a laugh riot he is. :rolleyes:

A real laugh riot:
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o146/InsanityFirst/riot.jpg

*Hocks a big ole loogie at Thislin*

I've decided this forum is not worth participating in, when one member can spit on another and the monitor does nothing, I don't need it. There are plenty of boards much better run.

I've decided this forum is not worth participating in, when one member can spit on another and the monitor does nothingBullshit. Vilepagan told me off one time for taunting you.

I have to admit, I've visited a few boards, and this one is easily the most contentious.

I've decided this forum is not worth participating in, when one member can spit on another and the monitor does nothing, I don't need it. There are plenty of boards much better run.

Typing that you spit on someone is not the same as actually spitting on someone. The fact that you cannot tell the difference makes me very glad you'll no longer be posting on these boards.

I've decided this forum is not worth participating in, when one member can spit on another and the monitor does nothing, I don't need it. There are plenty of boards much better run.

Thislin:
This is a forum where a multitude of opinions are ideas are going to be shared. I you don't want someone to challenge you don't post and if you do post have the back bone to fight for your conviction. If you choose to roll over then you will get thrashed upon heavily because you can not articulate your train of thought so as to kick some arse.
But hey that is just my opinion.

Thislin's posts are always a good read, even if you disagree with him. His posts are one of the things that attracted me to this forum.

It seems people are not interested in exploration around here, but only in personal spitting matches.

I notice that YOU aren't interested in exploring the facts (with regard to your absurd fantasies about my life). The fact that you're not willing to investigate your whacked-out accusations against me speaks volumes, and only gives lie to your claims about pursuing "reality" and "exploration" in general.


http://www.looseleafnotes.com/images/parkway%20boot.png

Good riddance! :thumbs:

Thislin's posts are always a good read, even if you disagree with him. His posts are one of the things that attracted me to this forum.

Yeah. I was actually learning about things from his posts. :(