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

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer That isn't the "real answer" you were talking about. In that case, the fact that "I know there is no god" is true because "knowing" is psychological. Surely that's not what you meant.

Don't look at it as a seperate category of a claim - look at it as a spectrum. Atheism on one side, theism on the other, with agnosticism in the middle. There's no observable evidence to tilt the spectrum either way, so what reason to I have to move from the middle?

[pikatore]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary I've come across something that might explain the misunderstanding. Wikipedia says that there are a few defenitions for atheism 1)The denial of the existance of God 2) the absence of belief in god Among others, this might explain why we are running around in circles. I propose that since the 2nd def fits into agnosticism, that the two be melded into one, under the more accurate term of agnosticism.

Wikipedia defines agnosticism as:

Agnosticism (from the Greek a, meaning "without" and gnosis, "knowledge", translating to unknowable) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims—particularly theological claims regarding metaphysics, afterlife or the existence of God, god(s), or deities—is unknown or (possibly) inherently unknowable.

What was the accurate term of agnosticism you were thinking of?

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Don't look at it as a seperate category of a claim - look at it as a spectrum. Atheism on one side, theism on the other, with agnosticism in the middle. There's no observable evidence to tilt the spectrum either way, so what reason to I have to move from the middle?

I don't see it as a spectrum. I see it as a web. That's why I don't like simplications.

[Gods_Mercenary]

That is more gnostic christianity, the two are different, wikipedia should fix that, because it has another defenition for my agnosticism.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary That is more gnostic christianity, the two are different, wikipedia should fix that, because it has another defenition for my agnosticism.

You mean, you fall into a certain category of agnosticism, which would slightly modify or augment the traditional, basic definition. You just need to be specific, and there won't be misunderstandings.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: pikatore My analogy has nothing to do with Occam's razor.

Why yes, it does. You didn't intend for it to have anything to do with Occam's razor, but Occam's razor is very relevant. It seperates the two claims in plausibility.

And I'm not saying that the universe popped into existence from nothing. There are many other ways it could have been done. Welcome to the world of theoretical physics.

And what started the chain of events that set off the reaction that caused the big bang?

It's an infinite regress, with an infinite amount of causes for an infinite amount of effects. Are you saying that, somewhere along the line, it was impossible for a conscious being to influence the chain of events to create our universe?

[Gods_Mercenary]

No, I mean that that defenition of agnosticism is more accurately called gnosticism, ours is the simple unkowing.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Kame, you are not agnostic.

I know you love dictionaries..

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
ag·nos·tic
–noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
–adjective
3. of or pertaining to agnostics or agnosticism.
4. asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.

Saying you "do not know" does not make you agnostic. It makes you hesitant. You must say "it is unknowable" to be agnostic.

The statement "it is unknowable" is.. by your standards, an act of faith.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: pikatore I don't see it as a spectrum. I see it as a web. That's why I don't like simplications.

Anything that complicates the subject past that of a spectrum is simply an addition of unneeded, and irrelevant variables. I don't care about motivation for a belief - someone is either atheistic, agnostic, or theistic.

[Gods_Mercenary]

I still fit in the 4th, Kame needs another defenition, I guess.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer Kame, you are not agnostic. I know you love dictionaries.. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) ag·nos·tic –noun 1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.* 2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study. –adjective 3. of or pertaining to agnostics or agnosticism. 4. asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge. Saying you "do not know" does not make you agnostic. It makes you hesitant. You must say "it is unknowable" to be agnostic. The statement "it is unknowable" is.. by your standards, an act of faith.

*As in, not faith.


Also, I am a weak, or non-practicing agnostic. Sort of a combination between the two.

Agnosticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Why yes, it does. You didn't intend for it to have anything to do with Occam's razor, but Occam's razor is very relevant. It seperates the two claims in plausibility.

It is a logical inference that supports an atheistic argument, nothing more. You can apply it to whatever you want, but right now, you aren't invalidating my analogy, you are complicating it, and changing it's meaning.

And what started the chain of events that set off the reaction that caused the big bang?

Thereticol physics claim the possibility of our universe being born by the birth of a black hole in another universe, or simply born out of a quantum flucuation in another universe. It would be ignorant to assume that time ran before the universe's creation like it does now.

It's an infinite regress, with an infinite amount of causes for an infinite amount of effects. Are you saying that, somewhere along the line, it was impossible for a conscious being to influence the chain of events to create our universe?[/quote]

Well assuming that these other universes are ANYTHING within our own sphere of conceptualisation, yes. But knowing about quantum mechanics, I believe that we can't really comprehend what happened 'before' our universe was created.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 *As in, not faith. Also, I am a weak, or non-practicing agnostic. Sort of a combination between the two. Agnosticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then atheism is not faith. EVERYTHING is limited to experience.. and that is way it is not faith? Then theism isn't faith either.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Why yes, it does. You didn't intend for it to have anything to do with Occam's razor, but Occam's razor is very relevant. It seperates the two claims in plausibility.

It is a logical inference that supports an atheistic argument, nothing more. You can apply it to whatever you want, but right now, you aren't invalidating my analogy, you are complicating it, and changing it's meaning.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 And what started the chain of events that set off the reaction that caused the big bang?

Theretical physics claim the possibility of our universe being born by the birth of a black hole in another universe, or simply born out of a quantum flucuation in another universe. It would be ignorant to assume that time ran before the universe's creation like it does now.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 It's an infinite regress, with an infinite amount of causes for an infinite amount of effects. Are you saying that, somewhere along the line, it was impossible for a conscious being to influence the chain of events to create our universe?

Well assuming that these other universes are ANYTHING within our own sphere of conceptualisation, yes. But knowing about quantum mechanics, I believe that we can't really comprehend what happened 'before' our universe was created. Even the term 'infinite' is a human concept.

[Kamehameha34]

It is a logical inference that supports an atheistic argument, nothing more. You can apply it to whatever you want, but right now, you aren't invalidating my analogy, you are complicating it, and changing it's meaning.

No, I'm invalidating the claim "unicorns and gods are logically equivalent". If you can't understand that, then read up on Occam's razor. I've explained it multiple times.

Theretical physics claim the possibility of our universe being born by the birth of a black hole in another universe, or simply born out of a quantum flucuation in another universe. It would be ignorant to assume that time ran before the universe's creation like it does now.

Both of those situations could have been influenced by a being. The problem is, when I say "god", you think I'm talking about a bearded man who said some magic words, slapped his ass, then made the universe appear. A "god" could very well be a scientist who discovered how to recreate the big bang.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 No, I'm invalidating the claim "unicorns and gods are logically equivalent". If you can't understand that, then read up on Occam's razor. I've explained it multiple times.

They aren't 'logically equivalent'!! They have nothing to do with each other! But they are both things that I will not believe to exist until there is evidence to support them!

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer Then atheism is not faith. EVERYTHING is limited to experience.. and that is way it is not faith? Then theism isn't faith either.

No, the reference stated that "knowledge is limited to experience".

That means that an agnostic would hold true that one who did not "experience" something could not have knowledge of it.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: pikatore They aren't 'logically equivalent'!! They have nothing to do with each other! But they are both things that I will not believe to exist until there is evidence to support them!

Ok, let's simplify the topic for you:

Do you believe that no god exists?

[Jagged]

@ Lull

I thought we proved that atheism takes faith because atheism isn't proven. Believing in anything thats not proven takes faith in something. End of story.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 That means that an agnostic would hold true that one who did not "experience" something could not have knowledge of it.

Well I haven't levitated a foot off the ground recently, so does that mean that I should think it's still possible, even though i havent 'experianced' it??