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

[Kamehameha34]

I doubt that. You rarely understand what I post. But here's a new phrase you can paste into your posts from here on out, and it's a more accurate description of my post than your inaccurate "appeal to ridicule": reductio ad absurdum, Latin for "reduction to the absurd".

There are a lot of concepts not bound by logic that I could employ to further my argument. What's your point?

Another contradiction within the same post.

Let's analyze this illogical claim:

I said that we are capable of knowledge without omnipotence.
I said that he has no evidence to contradict the claim "there is a god".

Please cite the contradiction.

All RickSp needs is enough knowledge to disprove to his own satisfaction that there are no gods.

I'm asking for evidence, period. Any amount will do.

Let me rephrase that: I'm not asking for it, because I know you can't provide it. I'm asking for acknowledgement of the fact that the claim is unknown.

[Jack]

I'm asking for acknowledgement of the fact that the claim is unknown.

Why?
Agnosticism is a personal position, just like any philosophical attitude. You say you aren't convinced. Perhaps others are. That might be why we can't acknowledge your belief that "the claim" is unknown. I don't know why you aren't convinced, so I can't validate your agnosticism. Only you can do that.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Isherwood No, the failure of those who suggest gods exist to provide any evidence to support their claim is what leads to atheism.

You were singing a different tune a while ago.

[Jack]

You were singing a different tune a while ago.

I think you're hearing the tune you were trying to whistle for me.
Show me a quote.

[nilan3000]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I'm asking for evidence, period. Any amount will do.

Wait wait...how can evidence be given for that which they claim does not exist? You can only prove something that exists isnt it. As for things that do not exist, it is not evidence that makes most people disbeleive in God, it is the lack of evidence.

So I can see why you are asking theists for evidence and I also feel that your claim that they have failed is valid. But I dont get your claims that atheists have failed too.

The fact that there is no evidence in the first place is what makes atheists what they are, so isnt asking them for 'evidence that god does not exist' a bit like asking a holocaust-denier what he feels about the holocaust?

[Jagged]

Can people read this?

Quote by: Jagged I did not say that you did. That does not change the fact that you made this topic and asked people to challenge your agnostic "stance". Quote by: Kamehameha34 By proving their own. Since they, and you, can not, you have failed... [thus "invalidating" my stance]

The bracketed part is simply taken from another post of yours.

My point is that your agnostic 'stance' isn't a stance at all; it's the absence of one. You are acting as if you have found the ultimate truth, when you have no truth to offer. There is no stance to be "invalidated" (i hope you realize you used the wrong word in your post, #57 btw)

Even if your stance was the 'correct' one; it means absolutely nothing. It means mankind doesn't know the answer to the God question, which is already obviously apparent. If anything, it might prove that mankind cannot know the answer. Still, so what? You are taking an utterly worthless stance. And yes, i mean this with offense, because you obviously care about "winning" this debate more than the actual points in the debate itself, for you are not searching the for the truth, you are only trying to disprove any evidence that might be found that could weaken your 'agnostic argument'.

You spend your time attempting to disprove theists as well as atheists; however, the statement "either theism or atheism is correct" is a tautology. Unfortunately, your case is the only case that is bound to be 100% wrong no matter what, as long as the answer remains unproven.

[nilan3000]

Quote by: Jagged My point is that your agnostic 'stance' isn't a stance at all; it's the absence of one. You are acting as if you have found the ultimate truth, when you have no truth to offer.

Is that addressed at just Kamehameha's attitude in this post or agnostics in general? If it is the former then I wont interfere, if its the latter Id like to share a few thoughts.

[Kamehameha34]

My point is that your agnostic 'stance' isn't a stance at all; it's the absence of one.

That's incorrect. I'm not going to debate this, especially when I have people attacking my "lack of stance".

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Isherwood I think you're hearing the tune you were trying to whistle for me. Show me a quote.

I just did.

[Kamehameha34]

Wait wait...how can evidence be given for that which they claim does not exist? You can only prove something that exists isnt it. As for things that do not exist, it is not evidence that makes most people disbeleive in God, it is the lack of evidence.

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.

[nilan3000]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 A being that created the universe.

There is no evidence of the existence of this being. Till there is any such evidence, people will continue to refute its existence.

[Gregory]

*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.

Way to make yourself sound like a moron. I was going along with your post until I got to the part above. Here is a rehashing of your post:

"I don't know... so just let me bask in my not-knowingness and don't label me.

*Also, if you think you know, you are wrong, because all truth leads to not knowing. Even though I don't even know whether truth exists or not. kthxthatisall "

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: nilan3000 There is no evidence of the existence of this being. Till there is any such evidence, people will continue to refute its existence.

They will do so in futility. It's unfalsifiable.

Quote by: Gregory Way to make yourself sound like a moron. I was going along with your post until I got to the part above. Here is a rehashing of your post: "I don't know... so just let me bask in my not-knowingness and don't label me. *Also, if you think you know, you are wrong, because all truth leads to not knowing. Even though I don't even know whether truth exists or not. kthxthatisall "

It's funny how people will invent reasons to disagree with me.

Here's an accurate rehashing of that post:

"If you don't have evidence against a god, don't be cavalier about all of the ways you've "disproven" it."

[nilan3000]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 They will do so in futility. It's unfalsifiable.

And why is that?

[Kamehameha34]

Because the laws of the universe, other than logic, don't necessarily apply to it.

There are a lot of unknown factors. That's why I'm an agnostic.

[Jack]

I just did.

Read what you wrote;

You were singing a different tune a while ago.

So show me any previous post of mine where I contradict myself when I say;

the failure of those who suggest gods exist to provide any evidence to support their claim is what leads to atheism.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Mmmk, your further posting on this topic is just philosophical masterbation. Don't expect a response from people you won't respect.

And yet you keep responding with nothing but insults. Your arguments are farcial and your discourse crude. What a waste.

[xyzer]

All meaningfull hypotheses start out as unknowns. ALL CLAIMS are hypotheses

If one can't see it, feel it, hear it, touch it, or smell it, but can only conceive of it, is it real? If one then denies it exists and uses his senses as a guide to reality rather than imagination is he making a meaningful hypotheses? ergo, meaningful to whom? I agree with Ish. I repeat, belief systems are largely a function of the human imagination. They don't have to be proved! They can and do sometimes result from a lack of evidence?

Logic might also caution us about the use of the universal affirmative, 'all'? I can make a tentative hypotheses using two or more, known facts to form a conclusion, can I not? Thus I can start out with knowns as well as unknowns?

[Gods_Mercenary]

Science should not even be considering God, because as of yet, he is a philosophical idea, not a scientific hypothesis.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Isherwood Read what you wrote; So show me any previous post of mine where I contradict myself when I say;

You implied that all evidence regarding this is subjective, after saying that theists failed to provide any.