Does a belief in a god show lack of education?

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, and Shakespeare said it best, "more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy".

Omniscience implies you know there are neither dragons nor gods anywhere, but your omniscience makes you god, so you must be an agnostic.

I know the world is natural.
I know the world is from God.

I don't know neither, and thus I am a skeptic, more than I am an agnostic. But I don't believe in either one. So that makes me something else than most non-religious people.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Can you name something in the universe of knowledge that nearly everyone believes falsely (other than God/metaphysics) or not? It's not only a simple question, it allows you to name anything in the known universe.

Well, do you allow to be narrowed down to current culture? Then yes, but for all humans, I can't do it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, but that would be one of several hundred logical responses to what you wrote:

"I always find it strange when theists retreat to "yeah, but you can't prove my god doesn't exist!""

You actually CANNOT prove my God doesn't exist . . . without omniscience (for example, your point implied that there may have been a God who was active on the Earth but not now active).

You are either an agnostic or an omniscient atheist, omniscience making you a god, eliminating atheism yet again.

I'm much more interested in whether a belief is justified than absolutely disproving it.

If the best you can say about your god is that there's no evidence either proving or disproving it, then you're telling me that virtually everything else in your religion - all the stuff that would be evidence for your god if the stuff were true - is false.

And all that aside, I can't absolutely disprove the existence of all sorts of ridiculous crap. If you want to count it as a "win" that your god is in the same company as claims like:

- leprechauns are real.
- Gods really do live at the top of Mount Olympus (they're just invisible to the people they decide not to reveal themselves to).
- the Pokemon cartoon stories all actually happened, just on a different planet.
- the Christian religion was made up by a trickster-god to mess with people.

... and you're satisfied with that, well, you do you. If it makes you feel better to call me an agnostic, then you go ahead and call me an agnostic. It won't be the thing you got most wrong today.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm much more interested in whether a belief is justified than absolutely disproving it.

If the best you can say about your god is that there's no evidence either proving or disproving it, then you're telling me that virtually everything else in your religion - all the stuff that would be evidence for your god if the stuff were true - is false.

And all that aside, I can't absolutely disprove the existence of all sorts of ridiculous crap. If you want to count it as a "win" that your god is in the same company as claims like:

- leprechauns are real.
- Gods really do live at the top of Mount Olympus (they're just invisible to the people they decide not to reveal themselves to).
- the Pokemon cartoon stories all actually happened, just on a different planet.
- the Christian religion was made up by a trickster-god to mess with people.

... and you're satisfied with that, well, you do you. If it makes you feel better to call me an agnostic, then you go ahead and call me an agnostic. It won't be the thing you got most wrong today.

As far as I can tell, justification of any belief run into Agrippa's Trilemma. And that is not limited to religion.

 

[Sheldon]

You actually CANNOT prove my God doesn't exist

No, but that would be one of several hundred logical responses to what you wrote:

No it certainly isn't a logical response as has been explained to you exhaustively. To claim remotely that that validates the belief in any way, is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, no matter how many times you ignore this, it remains an irrational claim.

 

[Sheldon]

As far as I can tell, justification of any belief run into Agrippa's Trilemma. And that is not limited to religion.

Are you implying that all beliefs are equally valid / invalid?

So the earth is not flat is not more or less valid a claim than the earth is flat?

Philosophical razors aside, I think that it is clear claims can be judged on a scale, and the more objective evidence we have for a claim or belief, the more it seems to stand up to reality.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Are you implying that all beliefs are equally valid / invalid?

So the earth is not flat is not more or less valid a claim than the earth is flat?

Philosophical razors aside, I think that it is clear claims can be judged on a scale, and the more objective evidence we have for a claim or belief, the more it seems to stand up to reality.

Yes, they are equal as beliefs in terms of Agrippa's Trilemma.

As for what you think it is what you think. And that means nothing in regards to what objective reality is. That applies to you and all other who think including me. I just don't treat my thinking as special. Just different from other forms of thinking if different.

 

[Sheldon]

So the earth is not flat is not more or less valid a claim than the earth is flat?

Yes, they are equal as beliefs in terms of Agrippa's Trilemma.

If that is a true reflection of the Münchhausen trilemma, then it would seem to be flawed, as the two claims are not equality valid, nor I suspect do you believe them to be.

As for what you think it is what you think. And that means nothing in regards to what objective reality is.

Objective reality? It doesn't exist, you just said so. Though have also said the opposite of course before now??

That applies to you and all other who think including me.

Apparently not, you just implied there is such a thing as objective reality, and not for the first time.

What happens when you submit this thought experiment to it's conclusion? It seems it negate itself?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, and Shakespeare said it best, "more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy".

Omniscience implies you know there are neither dragons nor gods anywhere, but your omniscience makes you god, so you must be an agnostic.

Classic dodging of the actual point being made.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Can you name something in the universe of knowledge that nearly everyone believes falsely (other than God/metaphysics) or not?

Everybody used to believe the sun orbits the earth instead of the earth the sun.
And it was based on observation. They saw the sun come up one side, move across the sky and settle at the other side. Come next morning, the same. And again. And again....
Meanwhile the earth felt and looked very "stationary".

The earth being the center and the sun orbiting the earth, was actually a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence at their disposal.

Later on, new data came up that couldn't be explained with this geocentric model. This new data ultimately lead to a revision of said model and it was replaced a heliocentric model.

It's called learning and progress.




Now... any time you wish to rise up to @night912 's challenge and prove that negative...

 

[muhammad_isa]

..The earth being the center and the sun orbiting the earth, was actually a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence at their disposal..

That is true..
The same applies to religion. People in days gone by did not have access to religious knowledge like we do now.
..but a lot of people would rather dismiss it as "not provable".

I consider it proved "beyond reasonable doubt", yet if somebody would rather not take it seriously, they can convince themselves that any proof is not reliable, and we need absolute proof of a physical nature, as the Abrahamic God could be all part of a conspiracy.
We all have the choice to take whatever path we desire. Different paths lead to different outcomes. That is reality.

 

[Sheldon]

The same applies to religion. People in days gone by did not have access to religious knowledge like we do now.
..but a lot of people would rather dismiss it as "not provable".

What "knowledge"?

 

[muhammad_isa]

What "knowledge"?

That which I have learnt about G-d.
Didn't you know? One can actually learn something about religions?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What "knowledge"?

Depends on your subjective and cultural definition of knowledge. And that is not an absolute. Neither is mine, I just have another one for knowledge.

 

[Sheldon]

That which I have learnt about G-d.
Didn't you know? One can actually learn something about religions?

Ah so there is none then, thought so given you've failed to demonstrate anything. That's why you are resorting to ad hominem again.

 

[Sheldon]

Depends on your subjective and cultural definition of knowledge. And that is not an absolute. Neither is mine, I just have another one for knowledge.

It was a bare claim to possess knowledge, until we're offered more I don't care to make unevidenced assumptions as you are doing here.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It was a bare claim to possess knowledge, until we're offered more I don't care to make unevidenced assumptions as you are doing here.

Yeah, that is the difference. I consider that subjective and a choice in you for which you could care differently and then get a different understanding.
We are doing in effect limited cognitive relativism and notice I said limited. We are both in part subjective for our cognitions, we just deal with it differently.

 

[muhammad_isa]

It was a bare claim to possess knowledge,.

One can study for a PhD in Theology or Philosophy, for example.
I suppose that is not included in your definition of knowledge

 

[Sheldon]

One can study for a PhD in Theology or Philosophy, for example.
I suppose that is not included in your definition of knowledge

I'm asking you what knowledge you've gained about a deity? One can study and become an expert in Harry Potter novels, this does not make wizardry real of course. So if all you meant was secular knowledge of a religion, and it's claims, then fair enough. That's why I asked.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I'm much more interested in whether a belief is justified than absolutely disproving it.

If the best you can say about your god is that there's no evidence either proving or disproving it, then you're telling me that virtually everything else in your religion - all the stuff that would be evidence for your god if the stuff were true - is false.

And all that aside, I can't absolutely disprove the existence of all sorts of ridiculous crap. If you want to count it as a "win" that your god is in the same company as claims like:

- leprechauns are real.
- Gods really do live at the top of Mount Olympus (they're just invisible to the people they decide not to reveal themselves to).
- the Pokemon cartoon stories all actually happened, just on a different planet.
- the Christian religion was made up by a trickster-god to mess with people.

... and you're satisfied with that, well, you do you. If it makes you feel better to call me an agnostic, then you go ahead and call me an agnostic. It won't be the thing you got most wrong today.

There is excellent evidence for God, and also excellent evidence that most persons are rational (my original point).