Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
I'm not placing faith in it, much less "inordinant faith". I'm saying it's a rational basis for belief.Upon what do you base your inordinant faith in 'personal experience?'
Last edited:
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I'm not placing faith in it, much less "inordinant faith". I'm saying it's a rational basis for belief.Upon what do you base your inordinant faith in 'personal experience?'
But what if you DO know?
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.
There is a creation. Therefore there must be a creator. No where do we see thing popping in to existence by themselves. There is always some action put in motion by someone, or thing. There is always a cause. Since we know there is a creator, G-d in religious terms, then by this definition agnosticism does not make sense.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.
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.
Who made up that rule?There is a creation. Therefore there must be a creator.
This is atrociously and embarrassingly bad ...No where do we see thing popping in to existence by themselves. There is always some action put in motion by someone, or thing. There is always a cause. Since we know there is a creator, G-d in religious terms, then by this definition agnosticism does not make sense.
There is a creation. Therefore there must be a creator. No where do we see thing popping in to existence by themselves. There is always some action put in motion by someone, or thing. There is always a cause. Since we know there is a creator, G-d in religious terms, then by this definition agnosticism does not make sense.
And why is not the personal experience with pyramid power, crystal power, ghosts, alien abductions, etc. not similarly "a rational basis for belief?"I'm not placing faith in it, much less "inordinant faith". I'm saying it's a rational basis for belief.
There is a creation. Therefore there must be a creator.
Who said it wasn't?And why is not the personal experience with pyramid power, crystal power, ghosts, alien abductions, etc. not similarly "a rational basis for belief?"
There is a creation. Therefore there must be a creator. No where do we see thing popping in to existence by themselves. There is always some action put in motion by someone, or thing. There is always a cause. Since we know there is a creator, G-d in religious terms, then by this definition agnosticism does not make sense.
I believe it is the only true religion that requires no faith what so ever. So, in a sense, it would be the most logical.Agnosticism is the only logical stance with regards to religion. Discuss...
Neither does God by the same argument. Why's it alright for an all-powerful God to pop into existence and not a much simpler universe?
You're confusing yourself with language. We do not know whether there is a creation. We know that there is the universe, but it isn't necessarily a creation, even though that word gets used for it quite often. If you don't call it a creation, then the need for a creator dies off.
Saying that we cannot know a god implies knowledge of its existence.
"A mental construct", yes knowledge of purple monkeys, nothing more, unless I get a can of spray paint and . . .No that's like me talking about a purple monkey. I know a purple monkey... and because I've said purple monkey 3 times you likely have an image of a purple monkey in your head. You have a mental construct of it... nothing more... the same applies to the above quote.
If you apply any attribute to it then you are limiting it. It would not be white. You cannot say it is intelligence or not intelligence. To be white both possibilities must exist.EDIT: I think I get what you said prior to this quote. Let's say before the universe came to be, there was an endless expanse of white. Then all of a sudden the universe expanded into it. This white could continue to infinity in every direction and mingle with what's in the universe. But why would it have intelligence?
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.