Logically, agnosticism is the most rational position

[ArtieE]

Doing things against your will affirms free will. If we didn't have that will, nothing we do could be set against it.

The definition of free will is "the ability to choose how to act." God says "I gave you the ability to choose how to act but if you don't act like I say I'll send you to hell."

 

[Willamena]

The definition of free will is "the ability to choose how to act." God says "I gave you the ability to choose how to act but if you don't act like I say I'll send you to hell."

If that's the definition agreed upon for discussion, then okay.

 

[Acim]

Doing things against your will affirms free will. If we didn't have that will, nothing we do could be set against it.

Interesting.

 

[Acim]

The definition of free will is "the ability to choose how to act." God says "I gave you the ability to choose how to act but if you don't act like I say I'll send you to hell."

I wish to be clear that this is not the definition I accept, but am very familiar with it as 'standard definition.' If dictionaries were supreme understanding of these terms, then we could just point to dictionary to see that God does in fact exist, since there is definition of God and (some of) what God does.

 

[ArtieE]

I wish to be clear that this is not the definition I accept, but am very familiar with it as 'standard definition.' If dictionaries were supreme understanding of these terms, then we could just point to dictionary to see that God does in fact exist, since there is definition of God and (some of) what God does.

And that goes for all gods.

Zeus
"the supreme deity of the ancient Greeks, a son ofCronus and Rhea, brother of Demeter, Hades,Hera, Hestia, and Poseidon, and father of anumber of gods, demigods, and mortals; the godof the heavens...
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/zeus

 

[Acim]

And that goes for all gods.

Zeus
"the supreme deity of the ancient Greeks, a son ofCronus and Rhea, brother of Demeter, Hades,Hera, Hestia, and Poseidon, and father of anumber of gods, demigods, and mortals; the godof the heavens...
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/zeus

Exactly. Therefore, atheists or agnostics can't say there isn't any evidence, when the dictionary contains plenty of 'evidence.'

To the degree atheists/agnostics may dispute such an assertion is why I would say the dictionary knows not what it speaks of when it defines free will.

 

[leibowde84]

How can a quality in the branch not be in the root? If we evolved from a lower species they would have had to possess these qualities to be able to pass them onto us.

Only a human foetus can bring forth a human because it is of the same species. A different species cannot bring forth a human because they are of a different species to us.

He was always part of the human kingdom. That is how we understand it.

This is an incorrect understanding of how evolution works. Mutations cause subtle changes over long periods of time. So, of course certain mutations cause traits that aren't present in the previous generation. That's the whole idea. Thus, it is ludicrous to claim that if a trait isn't present in a parent it can't be present in their offspring. Beneficial mutations, the very basis of evolution through natural selection, demands that traits present in offspring weren't present in earlier generations.

For example, polar bears evolved from bears that were brown. A mutation caused some offspring to have white coloring. Although their parents were brown, certain offspring, due to a mutation, were white. Because, in the snow, the white offspring had an advantage, they were more likely to thrive and pass on their genes which included the deviations from their parents that caused white fur. So, a trait that was not present in their parents became more and more prevalent in later generations. After many generations, all polar bears were white.

And, evolution doesn't claim that our ancestors all of a sudden gave birth to humans. The changes were gradual over thousands of generations. So, this is a straw man.

 

[leibowde84]

I believe it would be like someone from the future only finding a few rock songs: Devil in the Blue dress by Mitch Ryder and Running with the Devil by Van Halen and deciding that rock music must have developed from devil worship.

That is seemingly ludicrous, as there are upwards of 10 different links that show a gradual change from our ape-like ancestors to modern humans.

So, with your example, it would be like finding songs from the beginning of the blues in the 1920s, transitional songs from the 1930s and 40s that obviously borrowed from them, rock songs from the 1950s that obviously borrowed from the 1940s melodies, chord structures and licks, and rock & roll songs from the 1960s which obviously borrowed from all of the above, all showing a gradual evolution from the original blues in the 20s to rock and roll in the 60s.

 

[loverofhumanity]

This is an incorrect understanding of how evolution works. Mutations cause subtle changes over long periods of time. So, of course certain mutations cause traits that aren't present in the previous generation. That's the whole idea. Thus, it is ludicrous to claim that if a trait isn't present in a parent it can't be present in their offspring. Beneficial mutations, the very basis of evolution through natural selection, demands that traits present in offspring weren't present in earlier generations.

For example, polar bears evolved from bears that were brown. A mutation caused some offspring to have white coloring. Although their parents were brown, certain offspring, due to a mutation, were white. Because, in the snow, the white offspring had an advantage, they were more likely to thrive and pass on their genes which included the deviations from their parents that caused white fur. So, a trait that was not present in their parents became more and more prevalent in later generations. After many generations, all polar bears were white.

And, evolution doesn't claim that our ancestors all of a sudden gave birth to humans. The changes were gradual over thousands of generations. So, this is a straw man.

Mutation is an interesting theory but there is no record of any prophet monks or ape scientists that founded religions or sciences.

And you can go back as far as science can take us but only man possesses version qualities of which other doe cues never had any share proving man was always a distinct species intellectually, scientifically and spiritually.

 

[viole]

Mutation is an interesting theory but there is no record of any prophet monks or ape scientists that founded religions or sciences.

And you can go back as far as science can take us but only man possesses version qualities of which other doe cues never had any share proving man was always a distinct species intellectually, scientifically and spiritually.

All scientists and prophets are (great) apes. So, it is not clear what your point is.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

The definition of free will is "the ability to choose how to act." God says "I gave you the ability to choose how to act but if you don't act like I say I'll send you to hell."

An offer we could not possibly refuse.

Ciao

- viole

 

[loverofhumanity]

All scientists and prophets are (great) apes. So, it is not clear what your point is.

Ciao

- viole

Only that man was always man and didn't evolve from a lower species that's all.

 

[viole]

Only that man was always man and didn't evolve from a lower species that's all.

Well, I wonder what you mean with "lower". And please note: denying evolution today is the cultural equivalent of denying that the the earth is not flat.

But we do not biology, do we? We do not need high science, either.

Look how chimps and gorillas are so similar to us. Even a kid would find more sympathy for an orangutan than, say, for a spider.

So, why is that? Why is the image of God closer to a gorilla than to a spider?

Ciao

- viole

 

[loverofhumanity]

Well, I wonder what you mean with "lower". And please note: denying evolution today is the cultural equivalent of denying that the the earth is not flat.

But we do not biology, do we? We do not need high science, either.

Look how chimps and gorillas are so similar to us. Even a kid would find more sympathy for an orangutan than, say, for a spider.

So, why is that? Why is the image of God closer to a gorilla than to a spider?

Ciao

- viole

By lower I really am just saying man is unique. Well he is. In all existence there's nothing else like man. I understand that God only made man in His Image not any other creation but very good point.

That's another 'religious' argument that God never made anything but man in His Image so even the Scriptures confirm also man is a one of a kind species.

Thanks. How did I miss that?

 

[ArtieE]

By lower I really am just saying man is unique. Well he is. In all existence there's nothing else like man. I understand that God only made man in His Image not any other creation but very good point.

That's another 'religious' argument that God never made anything but man in His Image so even the Scriptures confirm also man is a one of a kind species.

Thanks. How did I miss that?

I do see what you mean. Both God and some humans do have a penchant for genocide for example. Like father like son.

 

[serp777]

agnosticism is the most rational position

@serp777
I don't agree with you. Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism are all most irrational, none exception.
If no, then give any good and positive reason from the one one believes in.
Regards

So you have access to special knowledge then. Can you prove to anyone that your special knowledge is valid? How can you determine that your special knowledge of God's existence isn't a delusion, or a deception by Satan, or an alien experiment, or etc? There are so many other equally valid possibilities that can neither be proved nor disproved based on your individual special knowledge that can't be demonstrated. Remember, this thread I was speaking about from a logical perspective, so your anecdotes will be worthless in a logical, objective analysis.

But I did give a good, positive reason for agnosticism being the most rational position if you read my post. I said that I didn't have special knowledge from God, and that given the number of possibilities I can't even calculate the probability of God's existence, and so therefore I don't exist. How would you, logically, calculate the probability of God's existence?

 

[serp777]

I'm thinking this is also speaking to free choice, but will answer it anyways. Doing anything that counters our (inherent) freedom would be a violation of that freedom.

I'm yet to find example of anything that counters our inherent freedom that actually exists.

How about statistics? Growing up in an abusive, low income family is more likely to make you a criminal. It doesn't necessarily mean you're going to be a criminal, you could "choose" to be better, but its guaranteed that a large percentage of those kids that were raised under those conditions will be significantly influenced. Its necessarily true. So people follow probabilities and data averages, which doesn't reflect free will. It reflects more that our brains run a kind of algorithm that often leads to deterministic behavior on average in large data sets. This shows that free will is a fuzzy and nebulous concept since we are always influenced by our genes, the environment, how we were raised, our mental state and brain chemistry, etc. Once you have a huge number of influences that are affecting you, in what sense can you have a fully free choice? I mean if someone's body is producing too much adrenaline, then their free choice is affected similarly if the CIA gives drugs to remove restraint and choice from people they're interrogating. Chemistry and other factors have a powerful influence on what choices you make, and may even determine most decisions that most people make. Free will has never been proven either--there's no way to know if we have actual free will or whether our brains just run complicated algorithms that incorporate some pseudo randomness.

 

[interminable]

In terms of beliefs about the supernatural and God, agnosticism seems to be the most rational positions to hold compared to atheism and theism. I am the kind of agnostic where I don't know if God exists, and I don't even know how I would attempt to calculate a probability for God's existence, let alone actually give a probability.

I think the atheistic claim that God is unlikely seems to be an impossible claim. There are way too many possibilities and factors that would be required to actually determine God to be unlikely. Furthermore, theism is equally illogical since it claims that either God's existence is likely, or certain.

I would argue that nobody has anywhere close to enough information that would enable them to formally, or even informally, determine the likelihood of God's existence. Even visions or feelings that people have aren't anywhere near conclusive enough. Visions and feelings could be delusions, or an alien experiment, or a fake deity tricking you such as Satan, or some kind of hallucination, or just wishful thinking. These feelings or visions can't be used to know if God is real due to the unreliability and unverifiability of feelings and visions, especially considering feelings and visions tend to confirm a variety of beliefs that are often mutually exclusive. Anyways, it seems to me that if people were trying to be as logical as possible, they should be agnostics as i've defined them (not knowing the probability of God's existence and not knowing if its possible to get such a probability).

Simply think
How could u forget causality??
How could u reject it???

Two ways are ahead for u to gain certainty
1 holy quran that is a permanent miracle of prophet muhammad and Noone could bring even 1 verse like it after 14 centuries and this proves it is a miracle as it claims itself

2 your reason

Every creatures need a creator

And the only existence that has no creator is god
Simply because if God needs a creator too he isn't god anymore and is like other creatures

Besides how could u overlook the orderliness of cosmos and even your body???
If u are seeker after the truth u should know that accident isn't a logical theory about creation

And evolution in its modern meaning that nowadays is common is nothing but accident
Who gave us power of thinking power of smelling ,seeing , to love each other
And gender
Evolution created female and male????
How strange idea!!!!!

And consider that u can't continue being in doubt forever

 

[Willamena]

I wish to be clear that this is not the definition I accept, but am very familiar with it as 'standard definition.' If dictionaries were supreme understanding of these terms, then we could just point to dictionary to see that God does in fact exist, since there is definition of God and (some of) what God does.

I too prefer to define will in terms of intent, desire or being instead of action.

 

[viole]

By lower I really am just saying man is unique. Well he is.

Every species is unique. Butterflies are unique, too. If they weren't, we might confuse them with elephants. But we do not, for elephants are unique too.

In all existence there's nothing else like man. I understand that God only made man in His Image not any other creation but very good point.

Like elephants. I am not aware of other instances of elephants in all existence. For what we know.

That's another 'religious' argument that God never made anything but man in His Image so even the Scriptures confirm also man is a one of a kind species.

Oh, well, if Scriptures confirm that, who am I to challenge it? But again, most species, if not all, are one of a kind. I think this kind thing is also biblical. So, it is still not clear what He meant. If He meant the look, then he made gorillas in His image too, by transitivity.

Thanks. How did I miss that?

You are welcome. I have no idea...

Ciao

- viole