Would it not for the most aprt be better to be agnostic towards the stance of invisible elves?
Agnosticism is uncertainty, when you become christian or atheist for example, what you are effectively saying is, I think I have a conclusion.
None of them are inherintly "better".
The regarding the stances of both theism and atheism their is only one possible flaw, that they are entirely wrong.
Once you get into a specific belief system then yes their are multiple flaws.
My point is that making a stance until one is sure is deceiving oneself , and possibly others ... as we know in theism is true because theism isn't a single belief and in atheism for the same reason ...
The only intellectually honest position IF one does not know is to admit it...
As for all phenomenologies being flawed , it is true for most people at this time ,and true of every systematic ['rational' phenomenology] ... thus asking for 'proof' in terms of an inconsistent phenomenology isn't actually intellectually honest either , we know they all have contradictions at heart, paradoxes [even in the formal languages and the language of Philosophy]
Since God in scriipture undertakes to reveal all truth in this life only to 144,000 of over12 billion that ever lived , there is only a one in 80,000 'chance' [if it were chance, which the bible say it is not] of knowing absolute truth in this life ...
The best bet remains the same, be intellectually honest and admit tooneslf that one does not know, until one does ...
empiricism is an unverifiable phenomenon, my friend...
Not metaphysically, no... but then again, no one here is claiming such.
those that don't look will never verify, they don't even find ...
You have not shown that verification (in a metaphysical sense) is possible.
again, an unverifiable arbitrary claim about 'burdens' ... the truth knows no such randomness I hope
You say it, you support it... a good yardstick methinks; chuck if you wish, but then you're back to square zero with no scheme of determinating truth-claims whatsoever.
Again you make an unverifiable presumption and in fact you cannot know what you claim.
Until it can be shown that metaphysical matters are verifiable, then they remain unverifiable by default... this is not a positive claim, but a simple recognition that if you cannot show me the ship (much less the seaworthiness) then it ain't sailing.
You have not yet been able to prove that God doesn't exist.
I am under no argumentative obligation to disprove the existence of something that you have not shown exists.
Likewise there is no way for me to convince you of the truth of my position.
Then your claims fall on their own petard.
Well established rules that are not agreed to by all and are not necessarily followed don't make solid support for your claims.
Chuck the standards of logic and argumentation if you wish, but note that like Stranger, you're back to square zero with no reasonable methodology for substantiating truth-claims.
My view is the opposite. The default is to know that God is and no one has yet been able to prove to me that He doesn't exist.
This "default" can be taken for any and every possible belief for any reason, thus leading to any and every possuible belief being simultaniously true... pure chaos.
That's not quite true. All kinds of things exist that haven't been shown to exist, yet. Undiscovered species for instance. They haven't been shown to exist, but they certainly do exist.
The term "undiscovered species" is a hypothetical object of study that refers either to species that are presumed under some empirical model to be discoverable or fill in theoretical blanks with provisional entities. They do not 'exist' as other species exist.
Because God exists, that is the default. How can you look at the wonders of His creation and think that this all came together by happenstance?
Arguments from obviousness do not follow; I could as easily exclaim "How can you look at the wonders of creation and think that this all came together by a god?"
If the default atheistic response is to "not say anything at all" I would expect that the atheists on the board would be as silent as the grave. That's what I'd expect.
But isn't agnosticism better than atheism, admitting that one doesn't know if one doesn't ?
No. The (a)gnostic believes that one can (not) determine whether deities exist.
This has nothing to do with (a)theism: the theist affirms the existence of deities, while the atheist (by definition) does not. Notice that "I believe gods exist", "I believe gods don't exist", and "I don't believe gods exist", are very different statements.
If a person says that they are an atheist, they most likely mean "I do not affirm that gods exist, nor do I affirm that gods don't exist".
One's gnosticism has nothing to do with one's theism.
[By the most common definitions, at least]
__________________ "I am a scientist... when I find evidence that my theories are wrong, it is as exciting as if the evidence proved them right."
- Stargate: SG1
"A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, -- a mere heart of stone."
- Charles Darwin
"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof."
- Christopher Hitchens
"Protecting the sanctity of marriage against people who want to get married"
- Anonymous
Got a question about science? To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. !
We are to base our ideas of God on a popularity contest?
Is it a popularity contest if there's only one contestant?
Originally Posted by Wiccan_Child
EDIT: This post got longer than I wanted. Curse my compulsion to scrutinise every sentence!
Then don't do it.
Such as?
Really? Is it not obvious that a centuries old collection of writings testifying to the existence and nature of God provides more support than a wiki-entry for the FSM? Is there such an account of Mars's chocolate teapot moon? Don't be ridiculous.
When? Where? By whom? And can you support this claim?
Firstly, God is His own witness, going on down the ladder we have biblical accounts, personal accounts (including mine), miracles, revival in certain churches, the fact that we exist in the first place, and that creation in general 'just happens' to be ordered and aesthetically pleasing.
There is no consensus on the nature of gods, just as there is no consensus on which religion (if any) is right. And besides, reality isn't dictated by the will of the people. Geocentricism wasn't true just because everyone believed it.
OK, why would you split up a sentence, thus dismantling its meaning? (Also, wasting time with a refutation that doesn't apply in context.) The first phrase of the sentence is the declaration that proof exists, but the second phrase is not the proof - the word 'and' is not indicative of an example. There must be something beyond peer pressure that has shown the truth of God's existence to so many people around the globe and throughout time. If it were mere peer pressure, the inquisition wouldn't have had so many victims who often died gruesomely holding on to the faith they had in God. Religions may not agree in terms of practice, but certain basic truths about God permeate the various sects of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. This is not proof, this is support. It may not be purely empirical, but it's still evidence.
Which shows your fundamental misunderstanding of epistemology: all we can know is our own existence, and logically proven statements. Even the existence of other people is unproven, so you'll forgive me if I am somewhat sceptical when you say theists know God exists.
Goof thing it's not through my own knowledge that I know God, but that God chose to reveal himself to me. Even so, feel free to put philosophical limits on your own knowledge, just don't force those limits on me. Epistemology is a philosophical theory, nothing more. Although, I suppose I shouldn't let my language grant that all theists know God exists as most simply believe, but there are many who do quite literally know God exists.
Not least because I've yet to see a Christian who thinks his single God is synonymous with the many thousands of separate gods in the Hindu religions.
I should probably use the term monotheism instead of theism, but anything that is to be believed has some portion of truth, and some portion falsehood. I believe every theistic religion was founded on at least some portion of truth, however much mythology was placed on that foundation, muddling up any initial revelation from God. Not all Hinduism is polytheistic, mind you.
Originally Posted by wikipedia
In Hinduism the concept of God is complex and depends on a particular tradition. In majority of traditions of Vaishnavism he is Vishnu, God, and the text identifies this being as Krishna, sometimes referred as svayam bhagavan. The term isvara - from the root is, to have extraordinary power. Some forms of traditional sankhya systems contrast purusha (devine, or souls) to prakriti (nature or energy), however term of sovereign God, ishvara is mentioned six times in the Atharva Veda, and is central to many traditions.
Svayam Bhagavan, "The Lord" or Lord Himself, is a Sanskrit theological term. The term refers to the concept of absolute representation of the monotheistic God as Bhagavan
The God of the bible is the sovereign God, "I am" (similar to the root 'is') having extraordinary power. These are aspects of God that it seems any monotheism can agree on.
No. It's a stance. The default stance is the position taken before you consider what is. Only after you start taking in evidence (be it empirical observation or logical deduction) can you rationalise a change in stance.
Fine, semantics.
Of course, some people start from a priori assumptions and have someone other than the default stance, despite not considering reality. Blind faith, indeed.
If you're referring to belief in/knowledge of God, such belief/knowledge can be a priori as well as a posteriori. Even so, saying a justification is either a priori or a posteriori is not much of a statement in and of itself.
Sure I do. I just take their existence in my periphery as sufficient proof of their existence in reality.
Key word being might.
Originally Posted by Wiccan_Child
I see the Tortoise didn't rise to my challenge. Make of that what you will .
Make of it that 1) I have a life outside of CF and/or 2) the control panel doesn't always link a subscribed thread to the post I last read. I was unaware of the 'challenge' until I read this post, and realized I had missed a page.
__________________
If you can't take the heat,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
don't start fires.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
God has already been shown to exist, and legions of humans have agreed on the nature of this being.
We are to base our ideas of God on a popularity contest?
If you care to read what I meant, which was so eagerly misconstrued, you can find my above reply to Wiccan Child on the matter.
Originally Posted by TheLowlyTortoise
Is it a popularity contest if there's only one contestant?
The implied meaning here is that no, it's not popularity we base our ideas of God on, but the popularity does serve to give at least some credence to the ideas of God that have existed for quite some time.
Originally Posted by b&wpac4
So, you believe that pagans, Hindus, Shinto, pantheists and all the other non-Abrahamic religions believe in the same God?
"Pagans" is a vague classification covering a multitude of beliefs, not all of which are even monotheistic. Hinduism is very diverse, but there is a concept of God in monotheistic Hinduism that is rather congruent with the God of Abraham - again, see my reply to Wiccan Child. Pantheism is rooted in the Torah through Kabbalism, but theirs is a twisted version of God. Shinto (covered by the term paganism) involves many gods, and thus obviously does not apply.
__________________
If you can't take the heat,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
don't start fires.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Linear Mode
