-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
It really isn't possible is it?
- Thread starter Phasmid
- Start date
crystalonyx
Well-Known Member
Certainly not, atheists claim that there is no evidence sufficient to lead them to believe in god concepts, certainly a logical stance.
Phasmid
Mr Invisible
True, but they can't prove that God does not exist... in fact, they don't even know what they're looking for. No amount of looking through a telescope at the sky is likey to reveal and old man floating on a cloud for example.
methylatedghosts
Can't brain. Has dumb.
Unless I'm mistaken...
It comes from Gnosis (or gnosos?) which means "knowledge" or something, and the "A" in front of it is "not"
so.... is "I dunno" a real logical stance?
or maybe I'm way off... lol
It comes from Gnosis (or gnosos?) which means "knowledge" or something, and the "A" in front of it is "not"
so.... is "I dunno" a real logical stance?
or maybe I'm way off... lol
Dunemeister
Well-Known Member
Who cares what people can PROVE, especially if by that word you mean something like "advance an argument of such strength that it cannot be disbelieved except on pain of insanity." In that sense, you can't prove anything, not even the intellectual appropriateness of agnosticism.
Besides, as a Christian, I don't think it's necessary to prove Christianity is true. I take belief in God, for example, to be properly basic. Properly functioning cognitive faculties are designed to generate belief in God (as well as all other beliefs) under the right circumstances. In those circumstances, belief in God is properly basic, just as are physical perceptual beliefs. I can't prove to you that there's a red binder sitting beside my computer, but that's nothing against my belief that there's a red binder sitting beside my computer. Similarly, I know that there's a Creator who is responsible for all that exists, that the Creator is ontologically distinct from creation yet intimately relates with it, that the creation is good and not to be despised, that he will eventually set the world to rights through the man Jesus, whom God has confirmed in this role by raising him from the dead. All this I know as surely as the red binder there. I know it because my cognitive faculties were designed to generate such beliefs under the right circumstances (which have obtained). And my knowledge of these things does not hinge on my being able to prove them to anyone.
Besides, as a Christian, I don't think it's necessary to prove Christianity is true. I take belief in God, for example, to be properly basic. Properly functioning cognitive faculties are designed to generate belief in God (as well as all other beliefs) under the right circumstances. In those circumstances, belief in God is properly basic, just as are physical perceptual beliefs. I can't prove to you that there's a red binder sitting beside my computer, but that's nothing against my belief that there's a red binder sitting beside my computer. Similarly, I know that there's a Creator who is responsible for all that exists, that the Creator is ontologically distinct from creation yet intimately relates with it, that the creation is good and not to be despised, that he will eventually set the world to rights through the man Jesus, whom God has confirmed in this role by raising him from the dead. All this I know as surely as the red binder there. I know it because my cognitive faculties were designed to generate such beliefs under the right circumstances (which have obtained). And my knowledge of these things does not hinge on my being able to prove them to anyone.
Dunemeister
Well-Known Member
Good, because that's not what (Christian) theists believe in, anyway.
Phasmid
Mr Invisible
I certainly think so... since it's the truth.
Phasmid
Mr Invisible
I know... I used to be one! I was just using it as an example that people can't even define God, let alone find proof of His existence.
Dunemeister
Well-Known Member
What do you mean we can't define God? It certainly seems to me that we can define our terms.
Truth and logic are different things. Logic requires an argument, so is "I don't know" an argument?
Great! Please define God.
Phasmid
Mr Invisible
I don't know.
Yid613
Member
In that our knowledge of an infinite G-d can never be complete, as we are finite then, yes agnosticism is logical. This does not preclude defining some aspects of G-d. So one can be religious, have a limited knowledge of G-d, and be agnostic not know Him completely.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
I think that, in the absence of personal experience, agnosticism is the only PURELY logical stance with regards to the existence of God.
In the absence of personal experience, strong atheism commits the fallacy of saying that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, and religious devotion is blind faith. EDIT: They are both valid options, of course.
Dunemeister
Well-Known Member
I wouldn't mind doing so, but I don't want to derail the thread. The claim seems to be that agnosticism is the most appropriate theological position to take. The positive arguments so far seem to be:
(a) We can't prove God's existence one way or the other.
(b) Part of the reason for (a) is an inability to get our terms of debate straight.
Against (a), I've argued that it doesn't matter. Christians hold that belief in God is properly basic, and proving God exists is like proving the universe exists and isn't an illusion. It's weird. I could launch into a full-blown defense of this view, but it would derail the thread -- make it about something other than the superiority of agnosticism as a theological position.
Against (b), I've said it's possible. I could provide a definition, but that would get us into another debate about whether the Christian definition is the appropriate one and so on and so forth. But I suppose to be fair I should say that I have in mind the God described in the Christian ecumenical creeds.
It's worth pointing out that Antony Flew seems now to think that it's possible to affirm God's existence based on the philosophical implications of what we have come to know from science. His book There Is a God is a real eye-opener, especially since it comes from a man who has spent 50+ years arguing in favor of atheism. (I know we're talking about agnosticism, but it the book is relevant insofar as it shows that it's possible to define our terms and change our minds based on the evidence.)
Upon what do you base your inordinant faith in 'personal experience?'
Dunemeister
Well-Known Member
I think agnosticism is generally understood to mean that we can't know about a god or gods at all, not that we can know about them only vaguely or partially. The latter position is responsible common sense, not agnosticism.
methylatedghosts
Can't brain. Has dumb.
But what if you DO know?