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

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Ok, let's simplify the topic for you: Do you believe that no god exists?

I dont believe that gods exist. I am a negative, or weak, atheist. Read up on it.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: pikatore 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??

It would be less likely, according to Occam's razor. It is more likely that you would just continue to not levitate, because it wouldn't introduce as many variables. However, that doesn't reflect upon its possibility.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: pikatore I dont believe that gods exist. I am a negative, or weak, atheist. Read up on it.

Unlike you, I'm familiar with even opposing viewpoints.

Do you think that there's no proof for god, and that it's meaningless to care?

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Do you think that there's no proof for god, and that it's meaningless to care?

I think there is no proof for a god, and THEREFORE, it is false until proven true.

[Kamehameha34]

Then you're guilty of argumentum ad ignorantium, or withdrawing proof for the negative out of a lack of evidence for the positive:

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



You're entitled to your belief, just don't go calling it the most logical - or even logical at all.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: 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.

Please follow the conversation, Jagged. Seriously.. :)

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 It would be less likely, according to Occam's razor. It is more likely that you would just continue to not levitate, because it wouldn't introduce as many variables. However, that doesn't reflect upon its possibility.

Watch how you use Occam's razor, because it has it's flaws.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: pikatore Watch how you use Occam's razor, because it has it's flaws.

Yes, anything having to do with probability has its flaws - because it is based on chance.

It just determines the more likely scenario.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Then you're guilty of argumentum ad ignorantium, or withdrawing proof for the negative out of a lack of evidence for the positive:

I can't prove the nonexistence of something! It's not a logically sound concept to believe that one can conclusively prove the nonexistence of something.

Argumentum ad ignorantium is 'true until proven false', and I am applying the opposite of that to a positive claim, which is logically sound. Stop throwing logical fallacies around before knowing exactly how they apply.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 You're entitled to your belief, just don't go calling it the most logical - or even logical at all.

touche.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Yes, anything having to do with probability has its flaws - because it is based on chance. It just determines the more likely scenario.

It claims that the most likely explanation of any phenomena is ALWAYS the simplest, and has the least amount of variables. Are you sure you know what it actually means?

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I'm an agnostic. As such, both theists and atheists tend to address me as either a theist or atheist, respectively. Common situations entail my saying that there's no proof against a god - quickly followed by an atheist with the fact that I have no proof for a god. No proof for a god =/= Proof against a god. The claim "there is a god" is unknown. It does not contradict known claims*, nor is it confirmed by known claims. I don't have to prove anything regarding the existence of a god. My position is unknown, and claiming that I can not support the "god" claim, as proof for the "~god" claim is argumentum ad ignorantium. I won't assume the position of a theist, or atheist just to make the argument easier for you. *I'm there are some that would like to challenge this, but if you don't have substantial points to back up your argument, don't simply restate your misinformed opinion - or falsity, in more correct terms.

Agnostism has many faces, but I do not particularly endorse indecision, because the evidence appears to be inconclusive. I agree the scientific evidence is neutral and may be interpreted both ways to justify the existence of God or the non-existence of God. Unfortunately the ancient culturally overburdened religions revealed in one place and time in the vasteness of time and place lack justification for a reasonable argument for a universal 'Source' some call God, because what we know to day of our history and the nature of the physical existence has a vision far greater than the narrow scope of any single ancient religion. If there is a universal omniscience, omnipresent, omnipotent God it would be absurd to believe it reflected just one of these ancient worldviews. If I were an intelligent alien beamed down into today's world with a relatively unbiased worldview, it would be hard to convince me of the justification any single worldview as the only true one.

Despite all these apparently absurdities and culturally moribound conflicts people still believe, and the agnostic pauses to cite reason to say maybe, or there is no evidence either way. If this is as far as we go in the argument, there is little or no reason to believe in God, and atheism is in fact the bottom line choice, but I did not chose atheism. Why, because Despite this apparent contradictory witness of an absurd world that resemble more a rational and emotional conflageration, based on little more than fear and a cultural obligation, there is a thread of wisdom, enlightenment, compassion, and human purpose that flows through all human cultures and religions that has merit, beyond the simple self justification of one belief over another by reason, emotion or force. This again may offer some support, but the agnostic and atheist will respond so what? Human nature may inherently have these atributes naturally with survival that contribute to the cohession of the family and community necessary for human survival.

The question revolves around the need for evidence for a 'Divine cause from a 'Source' to justify a theistic belief. Is there sufficient evidence that the spiritual and physical advancement of human civilization is rooted in creation and revelation from a 'Source'? I believe there is evidence for this in the 'Baha'i Revelation', which began our modern era in the mid-1800s. The evidence comes in the form of the nature of the Baha'i Revelation and how it impacted the modern world and brought together the purpose, role and vision of all the religions of the world in a unified cohesive picture that fits the constantly evolving dynamic progressive nature of the universe we see today. The Baha'i Faith did indeed reveal many moral and ethical standards that have become the aspiration and goal of many in the world today to achieve, but the key to the 'Baha'i Revelation' is the revealing of the universal nature of of knowledge as 'Relative' from the human perspective, and the dynamic progressive relative nature of the human journey in both the spiritual and physical realms of existence. The concept of the harmony of science and religion elevates the nature of science as revelation and the revealer of the nature of physical existence in a progressive, relative and dynamic way. In this vision religion also becomes the progressive nature of spiritual existence as seen through the eyes and words of humans and not some static fixed truth in time and place held by ancient religions. The Independent search for truth', becomes the standard for this age and not the obedience to one static unchanging measure of truth. The nature of existence itself becomes a greater witness to the nature of God and revelation, than any one limited worldview.

The religions of the past have all held to some sort of static limited vision of spiritual and physical knowledge that reflects their own ancient worldview, and becomes more absurd with time, to the witness of an ever changing evolving dynamic world of today.

[Kamehameha34]

I can't prove the nonexistence of something! It's not a logically sound concept to believe that one can conclusively prove the nonexistence of something.

That's false. Here's a link to the concept of a negative proof:

Negative proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In any event, it doesn't matter if you can or not. All that matters is that no evidence exists for or against a god.

Argumentum ad ignorantium is 'true until proven false', and I am applying the opposite of that to a positive claim, which is logically sound.

Here's the claim: "No god exists."
Here's the evidence you try to use: "No evidence exists for a god.[/i]

You commit argumentum ad ignorantium. Both "no god exists" and "god exists" are positive statements.

Yes, in relation to the opposite claim, "no god exists" is a negative claim, but argumentum ad ignorantium applies to when claims stand alone - under which conditions the claim "no god exists" is a positive claim.

[Kamehameha34]

It claims that the most likely explanation of any phenomena is ALWAYS the simplest, and has the least amount of variables. Are you sure you know what it actually means?

Technically, that is the most likely explanation. It implies that existence follows patterns - which is demonstrably true. Humans are known to be inable to levitate - so a levitating human would introduce another variable.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Technically, that is the most likely explanation. It implies that existence follows patterns - which is demonstrably true. Humans are known to be inable to levitate - so a levitating human would introduce another variable.

As opposed to one that is constrained to gravity. You aren't applying the razor properly. I spent six months learning about it, and i'm telling you, you aren't using it right.

[Kamehameha34]

Oh? Six months? Well we might as well stop here, shouldn't we?


I'm using it correctly - a levitating human would be unnecessarily complex.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 That's false. Here's a link to the concept of a negative proof: Negative proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia In any event, it doesn't matter if you can or not. All that matters is that no evidence exists for or against a god.

The difference, is i am defaulting to what i feel is a logically sound, not to mention incredibly likely, conclusion. I am not saying 'x does not exist because there is no proof', I am saying 'I dont believe that x exist until i see proof for it'. A subtle but important difference.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Yes, in relation to the opposite claim, "no god exists" is a negative claim, but argumentum ad ignorantium applies to when claims stand alone - under which conditions the claim "no god exists" is a positive claim.

My claim does not stand alone, it is a response to another claim one that claims the existence of something, an inherently positive claim.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 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.

Christians "experience" god everyday. Atheists have "experiences" that personally disprove god everyday.

You must also break your preaching and claim that you KNOW no one has experienced the truth. That's also faith.

I'll start back from where you got lost..

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.



You apparently have concerns with the line.. "or that human knowledge is limited to experience."

You use this to claim that agnosticism is not a faith.

[Theist definition] + or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

According to you, a theist can be of a non-faith if he is foolish enough to believe that his reasons are from experience.

That's ridiculous.

Also, you don't even fit in "weak agnosticism". Weak agnostics claim that the existence or nonexistence of God(s) is currently unknown. This requires faith because it entails everyone and you can't possibly know no one knows of the existence or nonexistence of God(s). If you want to preach to us that it's more honest to say "I don't know if there are unicorns" then you shouldn't be saying "no one is capable of knowing the existence or nonexistence of God(s)."

The thing is.. you don't fit under weak agnosticism either. You're so afraid of being wrong that the ONLY thing you're willing to admit is that you don't know. YOU don't know. That isn't agnosticism, sorry to say. If you were to say.. it is unknowable, or it is unknown.. then you'd be agnostic. You haven't done that.. and as soon as you do, you'll have your own standards in defending your beliefs as "not a faith". If you say anyone else does not know.. then that's faith by your standards.

[pikatore]

I'm in agreement with chainer. Good post.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: pikatore The difference, is i am defaulting to what i feel is a logically sound, not to mention incredibly likely, conclusion. I am not saying 'x does not exist because there is no proof', I am saying 'I dont believe that x exist until i see proof for it'. A subtle but important difference.

And I've said that you're entitled to your beliefs.

My claim does not stand alone, it is a response to another claim one that claims the existence of something, an inherently positive claim.

All claims are positive, because all claims assert that something is true, even if the claim itself is of the inexistence of something.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 And I've said that you're entitled to your beliefs.

And i've said touche.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 All claims are positive, because all claims assert that something is true, even if the claim itself is of the inexistence of something.

My claim has been in negative response to a pre-existing claim. It is NOT positive.