Agnosticism is the only non-faith.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Zhavric What else would you call giving 50/50 odds to key gnomes vs. key in the door? Agnosticism's intellectual dishonesty comes from assuming god / not god are two even sides of the same coin... which ignores a lot of knowledge & understanding that we've already established.

These are debate forums. If you want to make statements, you're going to have to back them up.

Now, tell me why there is anything other than a 50/50 chance between the possible existence of a devine power, and the nonexistence of a divine power, based on our knowledge. .

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fonceai I'd think it were the most honest thing to be. I haven't seen proof that God exists. I haven't seen proof that God is non-existent. Since I haven't seen either, the honest answer is "I don't know for sure".

That's great, but you forgot one very important phrase that your argument fails without posting as a disclaimer in the beginning:

"If we ignore all evidence of disproven claims of god, forget everything we know about what is being claimed by 'god' and how it contradicts physics, and accept that infinite regress can be solved with a different infinite regress, the the following is true:

I haven't seen proof that God exists.... (etc)"

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Zhavric That's great, but you forgot one very important phrase that your argument fails without posting as a disclaimer in the beginning: "If we ignore all evidence of disproven claims of god, forget everything we know about what is being claimed by 'god' and how it contradicts physics, and accept that infinite regress can be solved with a different infinite regress, the the following is true: I haven't seen proof that God exists.... (etc)"

You've no reason to post in a debate if you are just going to antagonize people you disagree with with these unproven assertions.

There is no proof as to the nonexistence of any kind of god. Prove the the preceding statement is false before you say that there's no "50/50 chance", again.

[Zhavric]

Kame:

First off, your dictionary reference not only contradicts common sense, but also your stance. It doesn't state specifically that the belief must be positive or negative, so doesn't that dictate that you don't know which it means / have a 50-50 chance of being either?

Speaking of definitions, when you say "god" I'm using the tri-omni Christian god usually and always a god who is omnipotent. A being that's not all-powerful has no business being described as a "god" and omnipotent beings contradict what we know to be true about the universe. There are an infinite amount of fabricated & potentially fabricated gods which we needn't concern ourselves with any more so than we should worry about fairies in the bottom of our garden. Is god "energy"? Then why not worship coal?

My subjective opinion really isn't relevant. What if I were to say that they are comparable? You'd likely respond with a bandwagon fallacy, getting us nowhere.

I couldn't agree more that your subjective opinion isn't relevant. I'm speaking very specifically & objectively of the different definitions of faith I've challenged you with. There's my definition which is evidenced by Pentecostals handling snakes & speaking in tongues... and there's the version you've hinted at where not believing in garden fairies is "faith". I have too much respect for you to believe that you're so far gone to post-modernism that you won't acknowledge the difference between hysteria induced by faulty evidence and lack of interest spurred by evidence of existing proven claims.

And what's this rubbish about "infinite possibilities" for god AND wanting to NOT claim you're stance is 50/50? Sorry, my friend, but you don't get to have your cake & eat it to. If you acknowledge there are "infinite possibilities" for god then if you wish to remain intellectually honest, you must also admit there are "infinite possibilities" for not-god. None of your god possibilities require evidence, so why should the not-god possibilities require any? There are limitless ways the universe / life / everything came into being WITHOUT god.

So, don't claim your stance isn't 50-50 when it clear is.

That being stated, 50-50 is intellectually dishonest for reasons I have already laid to rest.

I also noticed you carefully defined your version of god to avoid my omnipotence argument. You do realize this is god-of-the-gaps reasoning, yes? You've simply substituted an agnostic "maybe" for the theistic affirmation. God of gaps reasoning has never been and will never be a valid method of inquiry. So why do you use it?

[Zhavric]

These are debate forums. If you want to make statements, you're going to have to back them up.

I couldn't agree more. Please support your statement that there are an infinite number of possibilities for a god and then provide evidence for them as well as explaining why they're more reasonable than a naturalistic explanation?

Remember that any god, no matter how you define it, doesn't end the regression, but instead creates a second regression that demands an answer.

"God is a deistic non-interested semi-potent being that started the universe"

Fine. Show me evidence of where THAT god came from, explain why it makes more sense to believe in it than say the Big Bang (careful not to god-of-the-gaps), and provide evidence this god exists. For any god in your alleged "infinite" supply of gods, these same three problems will hound you.

Remember that natural explanations don't have the problem of the secondary infinite regress and are thus better & more likely options. Consider ID versus natural selection. The regeress is "how did life become the way it is?" Explaining "god did it" now leaves us with the original question AND what made god. TWO unanswered questions? No evidence in sight? Natural selection offers us an answer that doesn't spin off into infinity because we KNOW how it works and why it works.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 You've no reason to post in a debate if you are just going to antagonize people you disagree with with these unproven assertions.

Who's antagonizing? Observe the following:

I haven't seen proof that key gnomes exists.

I haven't seen proof that key gnomes are non-existent.

Since I haven't seen either, the honest answer is "I don't know for sure".

Can you really say with a straight face this sounds "correct" to you?

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Zhavric Kame: First off, your dictionary reference not only contradicts common sense, but also your stance. It doesn't state specifically that the belief must be positive or negative, so doesn't that dictate that you don't know which it means / have a 50-50 chance of being either?

Of course it doesn't dictate anything about positive or negative claims. That was the whole point of the reference. Whether a claim is positive or negative is irrelevant. You can't know anything before it's proven.

Speaking of definitions, when you say "god" I'm using the tri-omni Christian god usually and always a god who is omnipotent. A being that's not all-powerful has no business being described as a "god" and omnipotent beings contradict what we know to be true about the universe. There are an infinite amount of fabricated & potentially fabricated gods which we needn't concern ourselves with any more so than we should worry about fairies in the bottom of our garden. Is god "energy"? Then why not worship coal?

A god is, simply, the "creator and ruler of the universe". No omnipotence required.

You have no proof against such a being, while we do have proof against fairies, if they contradict physics.

And your tri-omni god is of course impossible. That is quite irrelevant when it comes to all gods, though. Does proving that a flying elephant can not exist disprove the existence of all elephants?

I couldn't agree more that your subjective opinion isn't relevant. I'm speaking very specifically & objectively of the different definitions of faith I've challenged you with. There's my definition which is evidenced by Pentecostals handling snakes & speaking in tongues... and there's the version you've hinted at where not believing in garden fairies is "faith". I have too much respect for you to believe that you're so far gone to post-modernism that you won't acknowledge the difference between hysteria induced by faulty evidence and lack of interest spurred by evidence of existing proven claims.

The difference you are proposing is subjective. I also never said that there is evidence for god. That's the whole point of this thread. There is no evidence either way.

And what's this rubbish about "infinite possibilities" for god AND wanting to NOT claim you're stance is 50/50? Sorry, my friend, but you don't get to have your cake & eat it to. If you acknowledge there are "infinite possibilities" for god then if you wish to remain intellectually honest, you must also admit there are "infinite possibilities" for not-god. None of your god possibilities require evidence, so why should the not-god possibilities require any? There are limitless ways the universe / life / everything came into being WITHOUT god.

Correct. There are an infinite amount of possibilities either way to explain what we don't know, and none of them are falsifiable as of yet. That constitutes a 50-50 chance, logically.

I also noticed you carefully defined your version of god to avoid my omnipotence argument. You do realize this is god-of-the-gaps reasoning, yes? You've simply substituted an agnostic "maybe" for the theistic affirmation. God of gaps reasoning has never been and will never be a valid method of inquiry. So why do you use it?

I don't need to define "god" into impossibility to constitute a "valid method of inquiry".

Prove that the claim before you is incorrect, and don't insult how it was conceived.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Zhavric Who's antagonizing? Observe the following: I haven't seen proof that key gnomes exists. I haven't seen proof that key gnomes are non-existent. Since I haven't seen either, the honest answer is "I don't know for sure". Can you really say with a straight face this sounds "correct" to you?

It does not sound correct, because I have never encountered key gnomes, while I've had several occasions where I've left keys in the door.

Experimental probability favors one option over the other. Such is not the case for the existence or nonexistence of a god.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Z but you forgot one very important phrase

First, what you detailed as what you think I forgot is your opinion.

Your opinion is true because you have made observations, evaluated your observations, and come to a conclusion, just as all of us do.

But if someone can observe the same information as you and comes to a different conclusion, then it's not fact. It's opinion.

The trick with opinions is that they are always belonging to someone. They come from a person. As long as there are different opinions in the face of the same information, there is no factual answer.

Second, I'm going to copy piecemeal from your post to illustrate a point:

all evidence of disproven claims of god

Evidence is a foundation for an argument, also known as a premise.

Ask Kame whether something that is disproved can serve as a premise.

forget everything we know about what is being claimed by 'god' and how it contradicts physics

So we have to discuss the nature of whether "God is Unknown" is valid without ever bringing science into the discussion?

I'll remember that.

infinite regress can be solved with a different infinite regress

I don't understand what you mean by this. Please explain.

My tone in this request is inquisitive, not stand-offish. I want to understand where you are coming from in this argument, and at this time I see your position as defending a fallacy. I'm hoping you can correct me on how it isn't.

Overall, I think I understand what you're driving at. But the things you list are hardly all-encompassing, and I am aware that you believe all those things.

Perhaps I should elaborate on my statement...

the honest answer is "I don't know for sure, yet."

Is that more in-line with what you are describing?

Next...

Kame Notice I said "create the universe", and not "create the matter in the universe." Fonceai Please describe the difference between the two. Kame I believe I have. Read the example I related in my last post.

You mean this?

Quote by: Kame Like a carpenter "creates" a chair.

That example makes no sense to me. That's why I requested that you explain. You know... support your statement with something other than a one-liner.

[Kamehameha34]

When a carpenter creates a chair, does he spontaneously manifest the wood from nothing, or does he carve it out of existing wood?

Same concept is applicable to any possible god.

[Fonceai]

That constitutes a 50-50 chance, logically

Hold the phone, here.

You both appear confused.

On the question of God's existence, as Zhavric wrote, the answer is either "Yes" or "No"

This means that the odds of the answer being "Yes" are 1:1.
The odds of the answer being "No" are 1:1.

But the probability of "Yes" or "No", in an infinite universe (the denominator) with infinite potential possibilities (the numerator) is infinity over infinity. Inf/Inf resolves to 1 or undefined. Either way, no fractional probability available.

Especially when you define God as "creator of the universe".

This very point was mentioned that science is about to attempt to create a new universe. By that definition, it makes us Gods, doesn't it?

Here are sites for reference on odds and probability.

Math Forum - Ask Dr. Math
http://emergencymedicine.iusm.iu.edu...s_PocketPC.pdf
Football Betting - Soccer Odds Explained

[Kamehameha34]

To our knowledge, each possibility is just as probable as the next.

This means that, with an infinite amount of possibilities which facilitate a god, there is one possibility that does not facilitate a god for every one that does. 50/50.

[Osborn F Enready]

Kameha said: Agnostics say that the claim is unknown. This is the only logically valid claim, because there is no proof supporting either end of the spectrum.

I agree with that statement, and would further clarify that there is substantial proof for one side at least (natural selection, evolution), but not enough proof for absolute conclusion and a full, exemplary synopsis proving it "beyond question".

I am agnostic, but as an impartial observer of religion(s), I can say that the burden of proof is surely on the side of natural selection and evolution as far as physical evidence, proven theories, and validity of claims made.

[Fonceai]

And again, to both of you... (Zhavric and Kame)

What does this all have to do with "Agnosticism is the only non-faith"?

Deciding the answer is "Yes" is based on belief in something that is not empirically proven. That's called "faith".

Deciding the answer is "No" is based on belief in something that is not empirically proven. That's called "faith".

Deciding the answer is "I don't know" is based on something that has no empirical proof for or against.

It is proven that there is no empirical proof for or against the existence of a higher power.

Belief based on proven facts are not faith.

Therefore, agnosticism is the non-faith.

My problem with the statement is the part where it reads "only non-faith"

[Kamehameha34]

There are only three options, or categories. Theist, atheist, or agnostic.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I agree with that statement, and would further clarify that there is substantial proof for one side at least (natural selection, evolution), but not enough proof for absolute conclusion and a full, exemplary synopsis proving it "beyond question". I am agnostic, but as an impartial observer of religion(s), I can say that the burden of proof is surely on the side of natural selection and evolution as far as physical evidence, proven theories, and validity of claims made.

I don't see evolution as proof for anything. It only contradicts the possibility of gods that contradict the possibility of evolution.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Osborn I can say that the burden of proof is surely on the side of natural selection and evolution as far as physical evidence, proven theories, and validity of claims made.

I think that's mostly due to the fact that the theist side's proof is all intangible and they really can't share it other than through description... no shared observation.

The atheist side does seem to have the heavier burden... since proven a concept doesn't exist seems silly. You might as well prove the love, anger, envy, responsibility, morality, and ethics don't exist. None of them are tangible; all are concepts that someone can choose to accept into their life, or not.

[Osborn F Enready]

Kameha said: I don't see evolution as proof for anything. It only contradicts the possibility of gods that contradict the possibility of evolution.

I am not saying it "is" proof, I am saying it has a lot of tangible proof, as well as many theories that have been proven true through science.

I don't want to sidetrack the debate, I was simply clarifying my position.

Fonceai said: I think that's mostly due to the fact that the theist side's proof is all intangible and they really can't share it other than through description... no shared observation.

Exactly.

Fonceai said: The atheist side does seem to have the heavier burden... since proven a concept doesn't exist seems silly. You might as well prove the love, anger, envy, responsibility, morality, and ethics don't exist. None of them are tangible; all are concepts that someone can choose to accept into their life, or not.

Are we talking about religion, or morals?

Morals, to me, are what religion puts a spin on to suit their "flavor" of societal control.

I am not trying to side-track this debate, I was just clarifying my position.

I have no intrest in religion, but I respect those who practice it individually if it is kept individual. I have a problem with organized religion, especially once it enters the realm of politics, doubly so if its in the form of theist campaigning or direct donation to politics from the religious.

Morals, ideals and beliefs can not be "removed" though they can be changed, though they aren't tangible. They all stem from the same basic inherant rights we as humans are born with, by nature.

Religion is a tool to shape the way we see those rights, and in my opinion was created by man to control other men in a contest AGAINST nature, as opposed to being one with nature.

I am agnostic because I can't prove beyond the shadow of a doubt either side is 100% for sure, nor am I willing to waste a life in pursuit of that answer since the objective natural world is what we deal with everyday.

If there is something beyond the natural world which we all are forced to remain in by the laws of nature, I will experience that when it comes, but to me it seems foolhardy to have wars and polarization based on "ideas and theories" about what comes afterwards, since we haven't perfected where we are now, largely DUE TO religion.

That is just my opinion though, and one I have come to after reading about many religions. I do not understand them all, nor have I read their doctrines in complete form, or every form, but I have read enough of the many out there to see the similarities, the basis of formation, the underlying messages and the overall "design" or "architecture" of design, which to me riek of societal control through partial, or misinformation, always relying on faith for that which is not tangible.(usually more than 75% by content)

[Fonceai]

@Osborn

Agreed.

I acknowledge that agnosticism is scientifically valid, but I happen to have had incredibly significant experiences that led me to believe in something other than completely random chance.

My belief and my business, of course, and I have enough of a brain and understanding of other people to know that I sure as hell shouldn't expect my life to be some kind of resounding proof as to the nature of the universe.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 It does not sound correct, because I have never encountered key gnomes, while I've had several occasions where I've left keys in the door. Experimental probability favors one option over the other. Such is not the case for the existence or nonexistence of a god.

Why not?