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

[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.

[Gods_Mercenary]

I agree, your position is logically the most valid.

[Eclipse]

It's a simple claim. Is there really going to be debate about this?

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary I agree, your position is logically the most valid.

It is not so much the most valid but rather the farthest most of us can really argue logically. I'm guessing that is what you actually meant and I didn't need to post this.

In response to your title "Is that so hard to comprehend?" No.

[ItsDarts]

I have a two step approach which you may want to consider. First, you must decide what god(s) you're talking about. For example, I know the Christian god does not exist. I won't go into details about the problems of suffering, miracles claims etc. This god contradicts natural laws leaves me in the position to confidently say this god can't exist. When speaking of the Christian god, I claim atheism.

When speaking of undefined god(s), I don't know all possible scenarios of this type of god or "deity" and it is here that I claim agnostic. I just don't or can't know. One must first know what god you're talking about before you can have any sort of discussion.

[tinybear]

No. Quite understandable.

[Kamehameha34]

One must first know what god you're talking about before you can have any sort of discussion.

Creator of the universe, with consciousness. There's your god.

[Zhavric]

The claim "there is a god" is unknown. It does not contradict known claims*, nor is it confirmed by known claims.

Think of the god hypothesis: "there exists a super-human, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us".

It's a hypothesis like any other that needs to be logically valid and supported before it can be considered. As an agnostic, you're willing to do whatever it takes to keep this hypothesis "possible". Not proven. Not disproven. "Possible".

Though you'll argue otherwise, we both know that "possible" is a positive truth claim. To be anything but an atheist is to concede god could exist.

You, yourself, established belief without evidence is faith. You challenge this, stating there is "evidence for the possibility of god".

Instead of evidence, you offer "what ifs".

When we point out that "what ifs" aren't evidence, you stamp your feet and tell us they are and demand that god is "possible".

When we point out facts that make god impossible, you fall back to more "what ifs" and/or change the god hypothesis.

This is really where your argument falls apart. The more you change the god hypothesis to account for existing proven claims, the less effective the already flawed hypothesis becomes.

For example, we know that energy cannot be created spontaneously. I've seen you & your cronies argue that god doesn't necessarily need to create energy. In doing so, you change the god hypothesis:

"there exists a super-human, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it except energy, including us"

Now the hypothesis doesn't account for where energy comes from and is of even LESS use to us.

Atheists rely on facts, logic & reason. Theists rely on personal experience, tradition and ancient texts. What do agnostics rely on? Ignoring evidence, untenable ever-changing definitions of god and pure blind faith that one of their zillions of unsupported claims could be out there.

Are you familiar with Russel's teapot?

[ItsDarts]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Creator of the universe, with consciousness. There's your god.

The creation of the universe is already explained, no god needed. What created the "creator of the universe with consciousness" would be the next question. ad infintium

Is he bigger than the universe? Why don't we have any signs? Why introduce god into the question in the first place? We have no reason too.

[Praxius]

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.

Um..... that's the whole point of a "Debate." You pick a side and you explain why..... it doesn't matter if you end up right or wrong in the end.

In topics such as this, if you're gonna sit on the fence about the topic and have no side in the matter, then why bother posting? If you won't pick a side, then expect people to respond to you in the manner you explained above.

If something was easy to explain and there was an absolute end solution, there wouldn't be a debate to begin with.

That's the whole idea of topics such as this.... you gather the available information that is provided, understand it the best you can and come to your own logical conclusion.

As a wise novel character once said:

"that when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, is the truth."

Learn to speculate at times and come to your own conclusions. Sometimes playing it safe on the fence isn't always an option.

If you "Don't Know" then don't debate in the topic.

[ItsDarts]

Next, I know you'll ask, what/who started the big bang. Click here for a easy to understand explanation of String Theory and M-theory. The only evidence that confirms either of these theories is Mathmatics, and some will say thats not good enough. They said that about Einsteins theory of GR as well, but it is widely accepted now. M-theory ties into the big bang mathimatically, and as CC has said earlier, the BRANES (multi-verses) are in a larger "bulk" or simply said, Universes within a universe.

Who created the Bulk? no one, it's always existed, just like any god hypothisis. Mathmatics proves these theories on paper, we don't even have that for ANY gods.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: ItsDarts I have a two step approach which you may want to consider. First, you must decide what god(s) you're talking about. For example, I know the Christian god does not exist. I won't go into details about the problems of suffering, miracles claims etc. This god contradicts natural laws leaves me in the position to confidently say this god can't exist. When speaking of the Christian god, I claim atheism. When speaking of undefined god(s), I don't know all possible scenarios of this type of god or "deity" and it is here that I claim agnostic. I just don't or can't know. One must first know what god you're talking about before you can have any sort of discussion.

Everyone has slightly different ideas of what even the christian God is, so to claim to be able to disprove them in a blanket statement is unreasonable, of course, so is it to make your own personal feeling the "absolute truth", so anyone who claims to be able to prove that their God is absolutely true shouldn't even be in this conversation.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Praxius Um..... that's the whole point of a "Debate." You pick a side and you explain why..... it doesn't matter if you end up right or wrong in the end. In topics such as this, if you're gonna sit on the fence about the topic and have no side in the matter, then why bother posting? If you won't pick a side, then expect people to respond to you in the manner you explained above. If something was easy to explain and there was an absolute end solution, there wouldn't be a debate to begin with. That's the whole idea of topics such as this.... you gather the available information that is provided, understand it the best you can and come to your own logical conclusion. As a wise novel character once said: Learn to speculate at times and come to your own conclusions. Sometimes playing it safe on the fence isn't always an option. If you "Don't Know" then don't debate in the topic.

I have my side. Agnosticism is the only logical option. People, like the one who recommended your post, like to apply straw men to my position, asserting that I have to prove that a god is 'possible' - which is untrue.

I'm not going to "pick a side" without any evidence in either direction. That's ignorance - akin to those who assert that "their" god is true, while holding others to be false.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: ItsDarts Next, I know you'll ask, what/who started the big bang. Click here for a easy to understand explanation of String Theory and M-theory. The only evidence that confirms either of these theories is Mathmatics, and some will say thats not good enough. They said that about Einsteins theory of GR as well, but it is widely accepted now. M-theory ties into the big bang mathimatically, and as CC has said earlier, the BRANES (multi-verses) are in a larger "bulk" or simply said, Universes within a universe. Who created the Bulk? no one, it's always existed, just like any god hypothisis. Mathmatics proves these theories on paper, we don't even have that for ANY gods.

We have evidence to believe that we can re-create our own big bang. In this respect, the one who conducts the experiment would have created a universe.

Oh, and I don't offer 'god' as a solution to acausality.

[iahag]

Ive always said God is a defined with respect to an individual and I shall say it again. God will never be proven wrong because God is defined off of the playing field of understanding - and will continue to do so. Why? There are many reasons why, but, at the core of all this banter back and forth there remains a simple principle with regard to the continued existance of the notion of God. God is produced from a playing field of emotion and irrational, the only way one can concieve such a thought is with a code of laws thought up in an irrational manner and interpreted in a logical one, either by scripture or individual thought. Any further assertions made in an individuals mind is merely the individual fitting those previous logical interpretations into the playing field of understanding (A complex code of rigour, assumptions, axioms and laws, all well defined). And Ive seen this countless times. Ive seen fully grown men attempt the justify the existence of the elementary particles in a manner analogous to the scripture of the bible - within a paragraph of speech. Youve got to ask yourself "Why do they need to be justified?", which scientifically is fallacious. You cannot define "justify" is a scientific manner.

Religion tends to be a laymans substitute for a humans natural understanding of the world. Everyone experiences emotion but no one really understands it in a scientifical sense. I find it incredibly interesting, on a social level, but nothing more.

I leave you with this code of method.

"The supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience"

- Einstein

I'm an agnostic and the God hypothesis is a logical nightmare. I'd go as far too say that the more one thinks on such a matter, the more compelling a notion it becomes, simply because 'feely feely' words like "justified" and "good" become a more and more desirable building block of your own personal hypothesis.

One must be aware of these inconsistencies when taking a serious approach to the analysis of religion.

Did I mention that my post was rigorously inconsistent? As is all speech. Ill trust in your intuition to feel your way to the point Im trying to pass across.

By all means, believe in a higher being if it makes you happier ... and happy is what you want ... and want is what you want ... and want is, urm, 'feely feely' *word*

You get the jist (though probably a simplified version because my speech is shite)

[Zanzoken]

Not at all.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I have my side. Agnosticism is the only logical option. People, like the one who recommended your post, like to apply straw men to my position, asserting that I have to prove that a god is 'possible' - which is untrue. I'm not going to "pick a side" without any evidence in either direction. That's ignorance - akin to those who assert that "their" god is true, while holding others to be false.

Well then fine..... if you don't have an opinion on a conversation, then don't post.

If you just want to go into a thread and complain that there is no provable side, is lame...... don't you think we know? Well most of us?? It's a debate ffs.

If you want to call it ignorance, then go right ahead and point your finger.... you're in the wrong place.

If you don't want to pick a side on something because you can't prove the outcome, then you won't get anything done in your life. That's how us illogical humans solve problems and expand knowledge.... weither it's pointless or not.

[nilan3000]

Quote by: Praxius If you don't want to pick a side on something because you can't prove the outcome, then you won't get anything done in your life.

but you cant pick a side just because you have to pick one isnt it. wats wrong with not wanting to convince yourself of something that you feel does not offer convincing evidence.

the 'evidence' that exists in support of the existence of God might convince a theist and the evidence that god cannot exist might convince an atheist. wat can some people do if both sides just fail to convince them?

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Praxius Well then fine..... if you don't have an opinion on a conversation, then don't post. If you just want to go into a thread and complain that there is no provable side, is lame...... don't you think we know? Well most of us?? It's a debate ffs.

Then I wonder why atheists and theists claim to be able to prove their position.

Also, what gave you the outrageous notion that one must accept something to be true in order to collect evidence about it? I'm an agnostic, but that doesn't mean I'd be ignorant, or denying of evidence for or against a god, if it surfaced.

[nilan3000]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Also, what gave you the outrageous notion that one must accept something to be true in order to collect evidence about it? I'm an agnostic, but that doesn't mean I'd be ignorant, or denying of evidence for or against a god, if it surfaced.

I think you hit the nail right on the head there. Many atheists today (i say MANY not ALL) are so convinced that god does not exist that they end up becoming as narrow minded and self centred as religious fanatics. A true free thinker is a person who thinks 'freely', who is willing to look at new facts impartially and who does not hold any principles so close to his heart that he is prejudiced against a certain theory.

Many atheists today are so convinced of their 'facts' that they are just as hard to have a proper debate with as an extremely religious person. This is a real pity, as the whole point of being an atheist is that you are broad minded and listen to your reason. This is not a personal comment on any atheists, just an observation I have made in meeting different people. Im not implying that this is the kind of person you would be just because you are an atheist.

Atheism is a beautiful thing because it teaches the individual to listen to his sense of reason over the most intensely guarded/sensitive concept in the world - religion. Lets not make it something ugly.

[Jack]

Atheism is a beautiful thing because it teaches the individual to listen to his sense of reason over the most intensely guarded/sensitive concept in the world - religion.

Well said. That's why I explain my atheism as a conclusion I've reached after much study, experience and contemplation. That conclusion is that theism has thus far failed to provide sufficient credible evidence to convince me of their claims. Should evidence arise, I'd certainly examine it and consider its implications. I have nothing against the concept of gods. Should I someday encounter evidence that causes me to reconsider my stance, I would.