"I don't know" - Is that so hard to comprehend?

[Jagged]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I'll conceptualize it: There is a new, untested medicine. Without researching or running tests, three doctors hold a conference to discuss it. One says "this medicine will help people." His colleague disagrees. "There's no proof that it will help. The only logical conclusion is that it won't help." Then there's me in the corner, watching television, waiting for the lab results to arrive for the medicine. When asked if I think it would help, I simply respond "I'unno."

That example includes the possibility in which it is possible to find the answer. Others are arguing that the concept of unprovability (which you said applies to this cae) renders the concept of Ad Ignorantium invalid. Thus this isn't an analogous example.

An analogous example would be

There is a new, untested idea: There exist magical pink unicorns that can live in incredibly cold temperatures without oxygen that live on Pluto. Without researching or running tests, three ordinary people go to an online orange debate forum to discuss it. One says "These Unicorns are real!" Another says "Of course they aren't, who put us in this ludacris example anyways, and who came up with this ludacris idea?^*^" When Kam is asked what he thinks, sitting in the corner, he replies, "our telescopes cannot see far enough to know a sufficient anything about Pluto or its inhabitants, and we cannot disprove magic, so I'unno."

^*^: A homeless man across the street came up with the idea.

[Kamehameha34]

That example includes the possibility in which it is possible to find the answer. Others are arguing that the concept of unprovability (which you said applies to this cae) renders the concept of Ad Ignorantium invalid. Thus this isn't an analogous example.

No, I'm arguing that it's unfalsifiable. That doesn't mean that it's unprovable.

Also, unfalsifiability doesn't render ad ignorantium invalid. It just means that ad ignorantium will more likely be used as an attempt to disprove it.

There is a new, untested idea: There exist magical pink unicorns that can live in incredibly cold temperatures without oxygen that live on Pluto. Without researching or running tests, three ordinary people go to an online orange debate forum to discuss it. One says "These Unicorns are real!" Another says "Of course they aren't, who put us in this ludacris example anyways, and who came up with this ludacris idea?^*^" When Kam is asked what he thinks, sitting in the corner, he replies, "our telescopes cannot see far enough to know a sufficient anything about Pluto or its inhabitants, and we cannot disprove magic, so I'unno."

1) You're appealing to ridicule. That's a logical fallacy. The inconsitency you're trying to convey with unicorns on pluto isn't one of logic, so you're trying to sway the argument with ridiculous examples. Don't spend your time on those. Analogies are an infamous fallback for atheists who can't defeat theism logically

2) We have evidence to suggest that life can not propegate in extreme temperatures. We have no evidence to suggest that our universe can't facilitate a god. It's not analogous.

3) The fact that I'm waiting for the test results doesn't imply that test results are possible. It's a logical possibility that the "medicine" would be so complex that it would be impossible to ascertain the possible affect on a human. But again, I'm not assuming that it is or isn't.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: rez Thomas Henry Huxley and agnosticism Unless Huxley coined the term "strong agnosticism", you are wrong. I do not go by terms that have been invented by random people.

First of all, look at the top of the page that you cited.

Second of all, I'm calling bullshit. "Weak atheism" was coined by someone else, and I don't care. It doesn't matter who it was coined by. What matters is that the term exists. Should have done a wiki search.

Weak agnosticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not once did you mention which flavor of agnosticism you abide by. Because of your lack of communication you have mislead people through ten pages of debate.

So I'm guilty of the same crime that atheists who fail to specify themselves as weak atheists are?

Nobody can show how your thoughts are flawed because you keep changing around your stance due to lack of communication. If you are going to debate you need to discuss your stance and everything about your stance, nobody should have to pry it out of you.

I haven't been hiding anything. I assumed you'd make the same assumptions I do when someone says they're an atheist: That they're a weak atheist.

If you were confused as to what kind of agnostic I was, ask. Don't inadvertantly set up straw men out of ignorance.

[ItsDarts]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 A being that created the universe. I've given my definition - the most common one. If anything in that definition is in contradiction of existing proven claims, or even probably claims, then tell me.

It would seem you do not understand the meaning of the "universe" and this is the problem with your "definition" of a god.

Here is the definition I have from Answers.com

All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.

Emphasis mine. This is the contradiction, Energy is THE existing proven claim, that can't be created or destroyed, and thus, your definition of a god could not have created it. Your reasoning for you stance fails and your argument fails.

BTW, the most common definition of a god is one who created the universe (as defined above) and is ruler of it (Definition of a theist). We have no evidence of this god either. This god (and your possible god) contradicts energy creation and this god (the theist god) has no evidence of ruling anything. This god claim should now default to false, not unknown, until proven otherwise.

[/end thread]

[pubmanager]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I believe that Thor, as the god that creates all lightning, does not exist - based on the evidenced fact that lightning is caused by static electricity.

Your belief in the evidence that supports a theory of lightening being caused by static electricity does not eliminate the "possibility" that Thor exists.

You should therefore, by your own reasoning, remain agnostic towards the existence of Thor...."It's the only logical stance"

I could go on to point out further inconsistencies in your argument and your (mis)application of the principles of logic however I will refrain from doing so as the evidence suggests you are not willing to treat your own argument in a dispassionate, rational and intellectual manner.

(To clarify, I fully expect some feather ruffling and posturing on your part as a substitute to a cogent response)

[rez]

Quote by: pubmanager Your belief in the evidence that supports a theory of lightening being caused by static electricity does not eliminate the "possibility" that Thor exists. You should therefore, by your own reasoning, remain agnostic towards the existence of Thor...."It's the only logical stance" I could go on to point out further inconsistencies in your argument and your (mis)application of the principles of logic however I will refrain from doing so as the evidence suggests you are not willing to treat your own argument in a dispassionate, rational and intellectual manner. (To clarify, I fully expect some feather ruffling and posturing on your part as a substitute to a cogent response)

Kame is a weak agnostic, not a strong one.

[Kamehameha34]

Your belief in the evidence that supports a theory of lightening being caused by static electricity does not eliminate the "possibility" that Thor exists.

Evidence is evidence. Evidence against Thor exists. Therefore, "Thor" is a claim that is incompatable with "god".

You should therefore, by your own reasoning, remain agnostic towards the existence of Thor...."It's the only logical stance"

No, if there's no evidence against Thor than for Thor, then the only logical claim is that he does not exist.

I could go on to point out further inconsistencies in your argument and your (mis)application of the principles of logic however I will refrain from doing so as the evidence suggests you are not willing to treat your own argument in a dispassionate, rational and intellectual manner.

I severely doubt that. Your current attempt to do so fails miserably in its attempt to undermine my logic.

I've been only rational in this thread. I've been following the rules of logic - to the letter. That's why I'm an agnostic. Don't post such ignorant statements such as these, without an attempt to back it up. If you'd post one statement that you deem "illogical", I'd gladly clarify how you misunderstood it.

[Fonceai]

Can anyone provide proof that Thor does not exist?

Metaphorically, consider that Thor is the god of lightning.

Lightning is seen to strike the ground, accompanied by a large crashing sound.

So consider, pre-science, that there is someone up there throwing lightning and smacking a hammer against stuff.

Then there's Jormungandr... Thor's mortal enemy. Jor. is the serpent surrounding the earth.

How easy would it be to believe that Thor is attacking when lightning strikes.?

You can fill as many gaps as you want with Thor existing... but can anyone prove for me, before thread continues, that Thor doesn't exist at all, ever, in any form?

[Kamehameha34]

Agnosticism isn't about proof, it's about evidence. I understand that there still exists a possibility for Thor's existence, but that's greatly outweighed by the evidence against him.

First of all, we know what causes lightning, now. Second of all, Thor, like most other specific gods, falls victim to Occam's razor. Now, instead of all natural lightning occuring like we know it to, probability must facilitate natural lightning along with Thor lightning, which has no evidence to back its existence.

[Fonceai]

This is going to get old fast, so I'll summarize.

I can request a million definitions of lightning, Thor lightning, all that crap.

But you can never show evidence of something not existing.

Could I say that it's probable that the Norse pantheon lives deep under the sea or on the dark side of the moon?

I could, however improbable it might be.

Evidence is the material that serves as proof, but this is a big world, and an even bigger universe. As such, you can't responsibly cite a lack of evidence as proof that something does not exist. It just can't be reasonably done and is, in fact, fallacious reasoning.

Forget all the types of agnostic and just keep the following in mind...

As long as the probabilities are not 100%, the agnostic doesn't care what they are. 50/50, 99/1, doesn't matter.

The mind of the agnostic is like a simple little If...Then statement:

If (probabilityX = 100)
Then (beliefX = 1)

Overcomplicating the motivations is senseless.

[Kamehameha34]

I, as an agnostic, subscribe to any fact with more evidence for it than against it. Evolution, for example, is something I subscribe to.

I also subscribe to the concept of Occam's razor. We have a simpler definition for lightning - one that can be observed. To add another possible definition with less, or no evidence that sometimes replaces or offsets that simpler lightning is unprobable, according to Occam's razor.



Also, the ability to gather existence for something does not necessarily pertain to the claim's validity. The claim "There is something in this box on the floor" is just as valid if the box is locked - Unknown.

[Fonceai]

Then understand that not every agnostic believes what you believe, and you need to accept their difference; not correct them on it.

[Kamehameha34]

I do accept that there are agnostics with different positions. That's why there are multiple branches.

The people I correct are self-described atheists who abhor the term "agnostic", while holding true most, if not all of its principles.

[Fonceai]

No, not with the branches.

People don't like being classified that way. It's rude and inconsiderate.

If you want to classify them, you shut up and keep it in your head, but don't tell someone what they are and what they aren't when it comes to what they believe.

They determine who they are, not you, and when they tell you who they are, resorting to a classification means you're more likely to screw up and misrepresent their opinions in a discussion.

Someone can easily determine your classification as an insult, and they would be justified in reporting such a violation.

All that is required is for you to keep it to yourself.

[Kamehameha34]

I'd be fine with that, if they didn't try to use their false self-description as a shield agaisnt logic.

For example, I've run into people who hold true the conclusion of strong atheism, while holding themselves as a weak atheist, all while applying the principles of agnosticism to theism. I do it to undermine the "purposeful ambiguity" tactic.

[Praxius]

Yeah I kept out of this for a while......

All I see is a bunch of running around, repeating definitions and explanations over and over.

You can label someone something as you are trying here, you can try and define someone's way of life, but not one single person in the world, not even you Kam, are 100% anything.

Nobody is 100% Optimistic.
Nobody is 100% Pessimistic.
Nobody is 100% Agnostic.

You are only 100% human, which is bound to flaws, imperfections and emotions.

The people I correct are self-described atheists who abhor the term "agnostic", while holding true most, if not all of its principles.

Even you do not, nor even can hold to all the principles you claim to. Looking through your posts in various threads, you contradict yourself and your reasoning, in order to prove yourself right in the topic at hand.

First you claim there is no way to prove God(s) non-existence in one thread, yet right here you go about trying to prove how Thor doesn't exist based on your way of thinking. You continually set yourself up as a target everytime you boast you are such and such.

If you try your hardest to hold 100% to a certain method of reasoning, then you'll lose a chunk of humanity and always consider your point of view as being always correct, without attempting to think outside of your own self-made box.

Saying that Lightning is produced by static electricity, etc. is correct, but it doesn't prove that Thor isn't behind it.

Now let's not get into a big tangent on how you came to you deductive reasoning on weither or not he exists, I'm more focusing on your abilities to express yourself to others without having to get into 6 paged threads about the same dam definitions over and over again. Explaining definitions don't explain your point of view.

I've gone through several threads where all I see is you going off about Agnosticism and Logical Fallacies, defining what what means, and then all it ends up as is two or three people arguing about definitions and interpretations of those definitions...... eventually going way off the original topic and going into a dictionary debate.

Instead of continually explaining the methods of your reasoning, how about just explaining your reasoning/opinion and leave it at that?

To me you come off as someone who knows they are younger then the average person in the community, who knows everybody else knows, and you seem to feel like you have to prove to everyone you're either just as smart as everyone, or you have to prove that you are smarter. In doing this, you continually feed everyone your definitions as you see them, claim they are 100% correct based on your methods of reasoning, and anyone else who has a different method of thinking, isn't up to par with yours and seems to give you some kind of superiority complex, because you're up against people who are older and generally have more experience on things.

You seem to feel that so long as you made your argument seem more prominent then someone else's you won the argument. You argue for the sake of arguing.... as I think you admitted to in the past. You claim to hold true to certain methods of reasoning in the immediate, but generally looking at your posts in various threads, your reasoning does contradict other reasoning you used in other places, which in the end will set you up for failure and criticism almost everytime.

I'm not trying to personally attack you, I just see a pattern with your posts, where it's really not you talking about a subject, but you posting definitions and claiming them to be what you follow.... which really isn't the best way to be a free thinker..... but then again, I guess it depends on what you want to be.

[Kamehameha34]

Even you do not, nor even can hold to all the principles you claim to. Looking through your posts in various threads, you contradict yourself and your reasoning, in order to prove yourself right in the topic at hand.

One example?

First you claim there is no way to prove God(s) non-existence in one thread, yet right here you go about trying to prove how Thor doesn't exist based on your way of thinking. You continually set yourself up as a target everytime you boast you are such and such.

Thor isn't a god, nor is there no evidence against him.

Saying that Lightning is produced by static electricity, etc. is correct, but it doesn't prove that Thor isn't behind it.

Right, Occam's razor just makes it less likely.




Not accepting a butchering of the dictionary isn't "anti-free thinking". We base the definitions of words in the dictionary. It's a simple concept.

[Jack]

Thor isn't a god

What led you to that conclusion? He was proposed as a god. Shouldn't your stance be "I don't know" if he's a god or not?

[Kamehameha34]

For the purposes of this thread, he's not a god. A god is a being that created the universe.

That statement wasn't contradicting his existence, it was contradicting his definition as a god.

[Jack]

Zeus (in Greek: nominative: Ζεύς Zeús, genitive: Διός Díos), is the king of the gods, the ruler of Mount Olympus, and god of the sky and thunder, in Greek mythology. His symbols are the thunderbolt, bull, eagle and the oak.

Look, it's Wikipedia...(emphasis added)

Zeus was the supreme god of gods and Greeks. He was called Jupiter by the Romans and he received that name because it was believed he had the same powers as the Roman god Jupiter! His symbols are the eagle, the oak tree, the royal sceptre and the thunder bolt. Originally he was a god of the skies and high heavens and back in the day Greeks thought of him as the only god who concerned himself with the entire universe.

Zeus's History

Didn't you say you can't just change definitions to suit your own agenda?