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

[Kamehameha34]

If one can't see it, feel it, hear it, touch it, or smell it, but can only conceive of it, is it real?

You have no evidence that any possible "god" is not tangible. Stick to what you know.

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?

The fact the conclusion infers is a claim, that when standing alone, is unknown. It's only known when you account for other empirical facts.

[Jack]

You implied...

You've demonstrated an inability to understand my point of view from the beginning. I would never trust you to correctly interpret any implication I make. Instead of trying to imagine implications, why don't you accept what I say at face value?

[Kamehameha34]

If you're going to dismiss my logical objections to your view as misunderstandings, you constitute another person not fit for discussion in this thread.

[Jack]

When you are logically objecting to concepts you fail to grasp, you are not discussing, you're pontificating based on misinterpretation. I'm not dismissing your misunderstandings, just bringing them to light.

I'm pleased you find me unworthy of your "discussion". Too bad you can't stop me from replying.

[Kamehameha34]

Ok, I'm not wasting my time with someone as falsely condescending as yourself. You obviously aren't going to see past what you think I'm "misunderstanding".

[RickSp]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Ok, I'm not wasting my time with someone as falsely condescending as yourself. You obviously aren't going to see past what you think I'm "misunderstanding".

LOL. This just keeps getting funnier. Oh well.

[Jack]

In this instance, I'm not being falsely condescending.

[Kamehameha34]

My, you're clever. :rolleyes:

[Jagged]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 That's incorrect. I'm not going to debate this, especially when I have people attacking my "lack of stance".

I don't understand how this is incorrect. You simply avoided my argument, when it clearly pointed out a flaw in your methodology.

Kam, you are not arguing for agnosticism, you are arguing for your stance in this debate as an agnostic. The difference is that you are not searching for the truth. Your stance, i will say it again, has nothing to offer. At most, it only implies that the answer to the God question remains unproven. This is known by most un-arrogant people anyways. Your stance is worthless.

Please say why your stance matters at all. Beyond an individual being comfortable with the stance of agnosticism, it means nothing on the level of reality. Everybody on this forum has already taken a stance, and is comfortable with their beliefs.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Jagged I don't understand how this is incorrect. You simply avoided my argument, when it clearly pointed out a flaw in your methodology. Kam, you are not arguing for agnosticism, you are arguing for your stance in this debate as an agnostic. The difference is that you are not searching for the truth. Your stance, i will say it again, has nothing to offer. At most, it only implies that the answer to the God question remains unproven. This is known by most un-arrogant people anyways. Your stance is worthless. Please say why your stance matters at all. Beyond an individual being comfortable with the stance of agnosticism, it means nothing on the level of reality. Everybody on this forum has already taken a stance, and is comfortable with their beliefs.

I don't care what my stance contributes. There is no evidence for or against the existence of a god. Claiming that there is is intellectual dishonesty.

[Jagged]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I don't care what my stance contributes. There is no evidence for or against the existence of a god. Claiming that there is is intellectual dishonesty.

Great. I think there is evidence, but that is up to me to interpret. I will also agree that no proof exists. I choose to have faith in the evidence i think i have found- that which has been suggested by science. If you disagree with the science, fine. But my faith (you are the only who called it faith) cannot be called an intellectual dishonesty. Faith is a perfectly rational thing. I have faith, you do not. That is our only difference.

[Jagged]

double post del plz.

[Kamehameha34]

Great. I think there is evidence, but that is up to me to interpret.

No. Evidence is objective. And, objectively, there's no proof against a creator of the universe.

[RickSp]

What continues to be amusing about this is that you have gotten it about right but that you clearly don't understand even what you are arguing.

You assert that your god is "unfalsifiable," which is indeed true. Anything unfalsifiable is untestable and unproveable.

Any concept which is unfalsifiable can only be accepted by faith. There is no other possible basis for belief.

Your resolute clinging to the mantra that there is"no proof against a creator of the universe" is your own article of faith, as unfalsifiable as the god about which you claim you can't make up your mind. And you keep chanting this faith like a Buddhist monk in meditation.

[Jagged]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 No. Evidence is objective. And, objectively, there's no proof against a creator of the universe.

Did you even read what i said? I already said there is no proof. I said that the evidence is "up to me to interpret [as evidence]. So, you just restated parts of what i said, while putting a "No" in front of it. In case you missed half of my post, here is it again. Stop avoiding it.

---
Kam, you are not arguing for agnosticism, you are arguing for your stance in this debate as an agnostic. The difference is that you are not searching for the truth. Your stance, i will say it again, has nothing to offer. At most, it only implies that the answer to the God question remains unproven. This is known by most un-arrogant people anyways. Your stance is worthless.

Please say why your stance matters at all. Beyond an individual being comfortable with the stance of agnosticism, it means nothing on the level of reality. Everybody on this forum has already taken a stance, and is comfortable with their beliefs.

Great. I think there is evidence, but that is up to me to interpret. I will also agree that no proof exists. I choose to have faith in the evidence i think i have found- that which has been suggested by science. If you disagree with the science, fine. But my faith (you are the only who called it faith) cannot be called an intellectual dishonesty. Faith is a perfectly rational thing. I have faith, you do not. That is our only difference.
---

Stop quoting insignificant lines of my posts and restating the same crap which i just rebutted against. You don't have a rebuttal, except "no." Good job kam, you're a wonderful debater.

[Kamehameha34]

Any concept which is unfalsifiable can only be accepted by faith. There is no other possible basis for belief.

Good thing I'm not a theist, then. I'm an agnostic.

Did you even read what i said? I already said there is no proof. I said that the evidence is "up to me to interpret [as evidence].

Right, and if the evidence (object) is dependent on you (the subject), then it's subjective.

As per the rest, each point can be answered if you extrapolate onto them what I already said in reply.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 "God" is unfalsifiable.

Quote by: RickSp Any concept which is unfalsifiable can only be accepted by faith. There is no other possible basis for belief.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Good thing I'm not a theist, then. I'm an agnostic

You claim that the concept of God is unfalsifiable, which is to say untestable. This says that god is not only unproven but unproveable. Any level of belief in an unfalsifiable concept must be based on faith.

You then demand that athesists prove "proof" for the non-existence of a concept that you just asserted is unproveable - a rather silly demand on its face. As such you are effectively accepting the possibility of a concept supported only by faith, you yourself are relying on faith. Your position, while uncommitted, is essentially the same as the theist.

[Gods_Mercenary]

He doesn't believe in God, he is apathetic about His existance because he feels he cannot within his consience choose one of the two camps that deal in absolutes.

[Boetie]

If we can take the statement "I don't know" down to a single word "unknown" we can debate this a little better.

The unknown is a real as the rock that hits your head. No one can make the unknown go away.

Science and religion are both disappointments because neither can make the unknown go away. Note: Religion when question always falls back on the cliche, "God works in mysterious ways."

Science died back around 1918 when they found out God plays dice.

Philosophy committed suicide.

When everyone leaves this mortal life they will have left knowing no more than they did when they came out of the womb.

[Kamehameha34]

Any level of belief in an unfalsifiable concept must be based on faith.

You still don't understand. I don't hold belief either way, because there is no evidence either way. I-DO-NOT-KNOW.