Technically speaking, everyone is agnostic

[Eudaimonist]

Do you want there to be a God?

This question is about as useful as asking the following questions:

1) Do you want Warp Drive to be achievable?
2) Do you want a giant asteroid to not strike the Earth in the next week?

What I want is to know if Warp Drive is possible and if a giant asteroid is on the way.

My wants won't make Warp Drive engine function, and they won't make a dangerous asteroid disappear. All that matters is what actually exists and what potentially exists. Period.

What I want is to know what is real. My emotional reaction to the news, if any, is entirely irrelevant.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I gave five reasons as to how God has demonstrated His existence, none of which include or allude to the "because I say so" which you claim they do. These reasons are all subject to investigation, to scrutiny, and to observation and can be deemed more plausibly explained by God's existence than by any other explanation if examined objectively. The supplying of such reasons is a far cry from me saying: "God exists because I say He exists."

In fact, no Christian apologist uses the "because I say so" line of reasoning in their work so your argument is ultimately aimed at a strawman.

First, it'd be more correct to say "I know of no Christian apologists who uses the...". Second, I direct you to this laughable website, where the apologist does just that.

God's existence is not based on evidence. There may be no evidence whatsoever that God exists, and yet He still may exist, we would just not know. This is an epistemological issue not to be confused with ontology.[/quote]
This is all Philosophy 101 - why are you explaining something so obvious to me?

I also made the simple point that you ultimately do not want to believe in God.

This is the crucial point not to be overlooked.

I am confident that if asked whether or not you want God to exist you would say: "No!"

You would say no because you view God as "phenomenally wicked", among other things.

When it comes to those who possess desire regarding God's existence, there are two types of people:

1. Those who want there to be a God.
2. Those who do not want there to be a God.

Motives, intentions, desires.....these are the hidden and secret things that move a man. These things are unknown to all except the man who possesses them.

So you see my friend, when you say: "there is no evidence for the existence of God, therefore I do not believe He exists...", I, as a Christian apologist go one step further and ask you the simple question:

"Do you even want there to be a God?"

The reason I ask this question is because implicit in your reason for not believing, there is this idea that you would believe if you were given evidence of His existence.

You are, in other words saying: "If only there were evidence, then I would believe!" as if your hands are tied and you are just waiting for someone to present you with good evidence.

Which leads me to my second point.

Believing in something and believing in someone are two different matters.

God is not concerned with humans possessing a mere propositional knowledge of Him, or a mere intellectual assent to His existence akin to our believing that there is a country called "China", or that the sum of 2 and 2 is 4 or that Barak Obama is the president of the United States. These are all propositions that are either true or false and are ascertained by pure reasoning and intellectual capacities.

God is not concerned with us believing He exists in this fashion, for even the demons believe and tremble....

When Christians speak of believing in Christ, this is the belief of personal reliance, dependence, relationship, trust, hope, love, etc. etc. This believing is akin to a woman believing in her husband, not that he exists as some abstract entity i.e. the moon that orbits the earth, but believing in her husband in the sense that she loves, trusts, honors, and depends on him to protect her and to provide for her. It is relational. This belief requires the mind as well as the heart.

So you see, there is much here that you must understand. You have already confessed that even if you were convinced of God's existence, this would not lead you to believe in Him in the relational sense. You would lift your head up proudly, stick out your chin, rare back your shoulders and defiantly seek to question Him and to pass judgement on His will and ways as if you were somehow were greater than He. As if you could come up with a better plan for humanity than He could. As if you could come up with a better way to save the lost souls of corrupted sinful men and women. This would be akin to a hammer seeking to question and judge the carpenter who wields it.

For once, we are in agreement. Notice that I at least give God the chance to explain his seemingly horrific actions.

You say God only cares about my relationship with him, but how can I have a relationship with a being I am utterly unconvinced exists? Believing a creature exists is a necessary (but insufficient) criterion that must be met prior to being in a relationship with that creature.

You have it backwards my friend.

1. You do not want there to be a God and although you have not said this outright, this is presumed. Correct me if I am wrong.

2. You see the God of the bible as wicked.

3. You say you do not believe in God because there is no evidence.

4. If 1. and 2. are true, then why not just rather say you do not want God to exist? Why not just be like Thomas Nagel and say what is really on your heart? Why not just say you do not want there to be a God and stop asking for evidence of His existence?

Why the pretense?

So why not just rather say you do not want there to be a God and be done with it?

Because that is not germane to the conversation. The topic at hand is the veracity of your arguments and evidence for the existence of God. Whether or not I want God to exist is irrelevant; my personal opinions on the matter don't impact the veracity of your claims.

Ultimately, you made five claims, but refused to substantiate them or explain how they in turn substantiate God's existence. Why you're turning this into a reflection on my psyche is beyond me - I'm more than to discuss my philosophical underpinnings, but this is not the place.

The problem we have is that we have only your word that your five reasons do what you claim they do. All of the reasons are either unsubstantiated claims ("Christians are full of love" - unless you wish to use the No True Scotsman fallacy, Westboro Baptist Church is a delightful demonstration to the contrary), or do not constitute supporting evidence ("Christians are full of love" - maybe so (see above), but that doesn't prove God exists. The niceness of a religion's faithful is hardly a metric for veracity).

As I explained in my previous post, each of your five points are themselves dubious: each one requires its own demonstration of truth before we can accept it as fact. Otherwise, you really are just saying "Christians are full of love, because I say they are"; "The prophecies are true, because I say they are". Also, even if we assume your points are true, several of your points don't even support the existence of God! Whether Christians are full of love or not doesn't impact the veracity of God's existence.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

This is all Philosophy 101 - why are you explaining something so obvious to me?

According to Elioenai26, God may exist even if there were no evidence for his existence. This much is true, but what are we to make of it? Many things fall into the category of 'things that may exist even if there were no evidence for their existing.' Should we allow this category some privileged status to rule over our lives? Should we acquiesce to any supernatural claim simply because it belongs to that category?

 

[Elioenai26]

Elio I have no reason for a "want" but it would be nice to "know" without a doubt of its existence.

I did not ask you if you had a reason for a "want", nor did I ask you if you thought it would be nice to know without a doubt of God's existence.

What I asked you was:

"Do you want there to be a God?"

It is a simple question and a yes or no will suffice. You do not have to elaborate at this present moment on why it is a yes or no, but a simple yes or no will suffice.

Elio, I am happy and joyful regardless, this is more evident since abandoning the depressing and confusing worldview of Christianity.

I did not ask you if you were happy and joyful....

What I asked you was:

"Would you be happy and joyful if presented with compelling evidence for the existence of the God of the Bible?"

Once again, for the present, a simple yes or no will suffice.

I was a devout Christian most my life, so yes you could say in a small way I am resentful, angry, downcast, humiliated, embarrassed at having been so confused and deceived for too long.

"would you be resentful, angry, downcast, humiliated, embarrassed at having been so wrong your entire life because all along you thought you were right and that those silly "Christian religious folks" were so wrong..."

You see, I am not concerned with what you claim you at one time once were, I am concerned with what you say you are at the present.

At the present, you are not a Christian, you are not a believer in God and claim that there is absolutely no evidence of such a God or any god for that matter. What this means is that your "devout Christian life" as you call it, and when you look back on it, was simply a charade or sham. It was not based on anything real according to you. So what you were then is really unimportant. And besides, that is not the question I asked you anyway.

I asked you if you would be angry, resentful etc. etc. if you found out that God was real.

A simple yes or no will suffice.

"Well, of course I would be happy if I found out that God existed " would be my honest and sincere response Elio....

You are psychologically projecting yourself here again Elio, my world would be unaffected by the certain knowlege of god(s) existence or non existence. I'd be pleased to be released from the "atheist" description.

Interesting...

You say on one hand that you would be happy if you were convinced God existed, and then you also say that your world would be unaffected by this knowledge.....

Would not happiness produced from the knowledge of God's existence be at least one effect upon you? Would not having been "released for the atheist position" be at least one effect upon you? I cannot think of any greater effect upon a person than moving from atheism to theism.... and yet you treat it as if it were something that would have no affect on you or the way you view the world.........

Would it not change everything?

Seriously? It is statement's like this Elio, that nurture the common misconception (prevalent among Christians) that atheism is the denial of God. This defies the laws of logic and is intentionally deceptive.

How is it a misconception when the view is taken from atheists themselves?

You act as if I am misrepresenting the views of atheists here, but I can assert very plainly that no atheist here that I have spoken with has ever said they wanted to live in a world in which the God of the Bible actually existed. Most atheists here see this God as a "phenomenally wicked" celestial tyrant (to quote someone here)...no no my friend, I would not say it was a misconception to supply a quote from Thomas Nagel or Aldous Huxley regarding why they do not want a world with God in it and then tell you that if you were brutally honest with yourself, that you would say the same.

It is the theist's position that is precarious, a position that could well be wrong.

Is it possible that Christians are wrong about Christ.....of course it is possible....

It is also possible that you are a body lying in the matrix right now.

We are not asking about what is possible here, we are asking what is most probable and what is the best explanation for the way the world is as we know it.

Atheists could be wrong....does that necessarily mean their position is "precarious"....? No it does not.

An atheist who lacks a belief on the existence of god(s) cant actually be wrong!

Only better informed.

This is actually quite funny....sad....but funny....

An atheist is one who does not believe in the existence of God or gods. So if God did indeed exist, they would be wrong.

How is it that you do not understand this?

 

[Elioenai26]

This question is about as useful as asking the following questions:

1) Do you want Warp Drive to be achievable?
2) Do you want a giant asteroid to not strike the Earth in the next week?

What I want is to know if Warp Drive is possible and if a giant asteroid is on the way.

My wants won't make Warp Drive engine function, and they won't make a dangerous asteroid disappear. All that matters is what actually exists and what potentially exists. Period.

What I want is to know what is real. My emotional reaction to the news, if any, is entirely irrelevant.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Since you want to take part in this discussion, I will ask you the same question:

"Do you want there to be a God?" Specifically.....

"Do you want the proposition: 'God exists' to be true?"

I am not concerned with your opinion on whether or not the question is useful...I am not concerned with its utility at all.

All I want is for you to answer yes or no. It is not a trick question and one that I think is quite easy to answer.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

Since no one really knows if a god exists or not isn't everyone, technically, agnostic? Some religious people claim to know that a god exists but they can never demonstrate how they know. They just believe. Most atheists claim there is no evidence for a god (not "I know with 100% certainty there is no god.")
So, basically, no one really knows hence agnosticism. Right?

I know YHWH(The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit) exists mostly from 1 Prayer, but also Physically, Scientifically, Historically, Logically, Morally, and Philosophically.

 

[Eudaimonist]

"Do you want the proposition: 'God exists' to be true?"

Not yes. Not no.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Since you want to take part in this discussion, I will ask you the same question:

"Do you want there to be a God?" Specifically.....

"Do you want the proposition: 'God exists' to be true?"

I am not concerned with your opinion on whether or not the question is useful...I am not concerned with its utility at all.

All I want is for you to answer yes or no. It is not a trick question and one that I think is quite easy to answer.

What sort of God?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Perhaps I need to amend my reply. The reason I say "not yes, not no" is out of a radical acceptance of reality for what it is.

That doesn't mean that I have no desires at all. If I were to learn that an asteroid was hurtling towards the Earth that could destroy human civilization, that would be bad news and would likely ruin my whole day. I would want to know if there was anything we human beings could do to save humanity. However, I would not waste my time wanting reality to be unreal. I simply don't approach life in that way. I regard wanting something unreal to be real, or something real to be unreal, as a form of insanity. (A mild form for most people, but still not sanity.)

So, my desires are focused on what I can do in response to facts, not regarding facts (or fantasies) themselves.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Elioenai26]

For once, we are in agreement. Notice that I at least give God the chance to explain his seemingly horrific actions.

How charitable of you....

I am also glad you used the word "seemingly".

You say God only cares about my relationship with him,

Yes He does. He would not be God if He did not. Continue....

but how can I have a relationship with a being I am utterly unconvinced exists?

Being "convinced" of something's existence is largely dependent upon one's perception of the entity in question as well as one's motives, desires, wishes, preconceptions etc. etc.

Two people can look at the same lines of evidence and develop two very different theories or explanations for said evidence.

I look at the universe and see that it is the work of an Awesome Creator, you look at it and see it as whatever you see it as.

Ultimately only you can answer specifically the question as to why you are unconvinced that God exists.

Believing a creature exists is a necessary (but insufficient) criterion that must be met prior to being in a relationship with that creature.

I agree.

Because that is not germane to the conversation. The topic at hand is the veracity of your arguments and evidence for the existence of God. Whether or not I want God to exist is irrelevant; my personal opinions on the matter don't impact the veracity of your claims.

It is very germane. If I present evidence to support my claim that God exists and the whole time you do not really want to view the world as one which owes its existence to God, this desire of yours is going to influence the way you perceive the evidence.

Like it or not, no person and I do mean NO PERSON, atheist or theist is wholly free from bias and we, as Blaise Pascal once so eloquently put it tend to almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive. (de l'Art de persuader ("On the Art of Persuasion"), written 1658; published posthumously.)

Everyone is biased in certain ways and everyone wants the world to be a certain way at the end of the day.

The question is:

What is the world actually like? Is it the handiwork of a Creator God, or is it the effects of random, blind, purposeless, "forces".....

The Christian is either right or wrong....eventhough he may have certain preconceived ideas about reality.

So my friend you see, your motives, your desires, your intentions, your wishes, your wants are very germane to the discussion because they are the things by which you will "filter" the evidence given to you.

No one is able to be completely objective regarding this matter because we all, by our very nature and upbringing have developed over time certain preconceptions about reality.

This is not debatable.

Ultimately, you made five claims, but refused to substantiate them or explain how they in turn substantiate God's existence. Why you're turning this into a reflection on my psyche is beyond me - I'm more than to discuss my philosophical underpinnings, but this is not the place.

Your evasion is noted.

In theory, I could supply you with a myriad of different pieces of evidence and arguments for God's existence, but if you are unwilling to follow the evidence where it leads, I am only supplying you more material for misinterpretation.

The problem we have is that we have only your word that your five reasons do what you claim they do. All of the reasons are either unsubstantiated claims ("Christians are full of love" -

I never said that Wiccan Child, you are misquoting me, which is another minus for you. It is an evasion. You know very well I never said God exists because Christians are full of love. In fact I know many professed Christians who are anything but full of love.

As I explained in my previous post, each of your five points are themselves dubious: each one requires its own demonstration of truth before we can accept it as fact. Otherwise, you really are just saying "Christians are full of love, because I say they are"; "The prophecies are true, because I say they are". Also, even if we assume your points are true, several of your points don't even support the existence of God! Whether Christians are full of love or not doesn't impact the veracity of God's existence.

I see now you have no real case against what I have said.

But to be charitable, I will simply refer you back to the question you have as of yet, failed to answer:

"Do you want the proposition: 'God exists', to be true?"

Even more specifically:

"Do you want the proposition: 'The God of the Bible exists', to be a true proposition?"

Yes or no?

 

[Davian]

How charitable of you....

I am also glad you used the word "seemingly".



Yes He does. He would not be God if He did not. Continue....



Being "convinced" of something's existence is largely dependent upon one's perception of the entity in question as well as one's motives, desires, wishes, preconceptions etc. etc.

Two people can look at the same lines of evidence and develop two very different theories or explanations for said evidence.

I look at the universe and see that it is the work of an Awesome Creator, you look at it and see it as whatever you see it as.

Ultimately only you can answer specifically the question as to why you are unconvinced that God exists.



I agree.




It is very germane. If I present evidence to support my claim that God exists and the whole time you do not really want to view the world as one which owes its existence to God, this desire of yours is going to influence the way you perceive the evidence.

Like it or not, no person and I do mean NO PERSON, atheist or theist is wholly free from bias and we, as Blaise Pascal once so eloquently put it tend to almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive. (de l'Art de persuader ("On the Art of Persuasion"), written 1658; published posthumously.)

Everyone is biased in certain ways and everyone wants the world to be a certain way at the end of the day.

The question is:

What is the world actually like? Is it the handiwork of a Creator God, or is it the effects of random, blind, purposeless, "forces".....

The Christian is either right or wrong....eventhough he may have certain preconceived ideas about reality.

So my friend you see, your motives, your desires, your intentions, your wishes, your wants are very germane to the discussion because they are the things by which you will "filter" the evidence given to you.

No one is able to be completely objective regarding this matter because we all, by our very nature and upbringing have developed over time certain preconceptions about reality.

This is not debatable.




Your evasion is noted.

In theory, I could supply you with a myriad of different pieces of evidence and arguments for God's existence, but if you are unwilling to follow the evidence where it leads, I am only supplying you more material for misinterpretation.



I never said that Wiccan Child, you are misquoting me, which is another minus for you. It is an evasion. You know very well I never said God exists because Christians are full of love. In fact I know many professed Christians who are anything but full of love.



I see now you have no real case against what I have said.

But to be charitable, I will simply refer you back to the question you have as of yet, failed to answer:

"Do you want the proposition: 'God exists', to be true?"

Even more specifically:

"Do you want the proposition: 'The God of the Bible exists', to be a true proposition?"

Yes or no?

If one answers 'yes', what else is one tacitly agreeing to? A 6000 year old Earth? That the theory of evolution (and most other sciences) are bunk? Just who's interpretation of which bible are we talking about?

Hypothetically, of course.

 

[Elioenai26]

If one answers 'yes', what else is one tacitly agreeing to? A 6000 year old Earth?

No.

That the theory of evolution (and most other sciences) are bunk?

No.

 

[Elioenai26]

What sort of God?

The God that philosophers engage in discourse and debate about. This is a philosophy forum so let us begin with the "Greatest Conceivable Being" concept of God which philosophers predominately deal with in their work.

 

[Elioenai26]

According to Elioenai26, God may exist even if there were no evidence for his existence. This much is true, but what are we to make of it? Many things fall into the category of 'things that may exist even if there were no evidence for their existing.' Should we allow this category some privileged status to rule over our lives?

No.

Should we acquiesce to any supernatural claim simply because it belongs to that category?

And no.

Any further questions?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The God that philosophers engage in discourse and debate about. This is a philosophy forum so let us begin with the "Greatest Conceivable Being" concept of God which philosophers predominately deal with in their work.

That doesn't really give me much information which I can use to form a preference.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No.



And no.

Any further questions?

"Your journey over to the dark side is now complete."

 

[Elioenai26]

Perhaps I need to amend my reply. The reason I say "not yes, not no" is out of a radical acceptance of reality for what it is.

That doesn't mean that I have no desires at all. If I were to learn that an asteroid was hurtling towards the Earth that could destroy human civilization, that would be bad news and would likely ruin my whole day. I would want to know if there was anything we human beings could do to save humanity. However, I would not waste my time wanting reality to be unreal. I simply don't approach life in that way. I regard wanting something unreal to be real, or something real to be unreal, as a form of insanity. (A mild form for most people, but still not sanity.)

So, my desires are focused on what I can do in response to facts, not regarding facts (or fantasies) themselves.


eudaimonia,

Mark

All of that is well and good.

But it is still not an answer to the question.

"Do you want the proposition: 'God exists', to be true?"

Your possible responses are:

1. Yes.
2. No.
3. With regards to the truthfulness of the proposition "God exists", I do not have a desire regarding its truthfulness either way. It could be true and that would be fine with me. It could be false and that would be fine with me. Either way I am neutral. I have no desire regarding the matter at all. I possess no desire either way.

It seems to me, you are saying you are one who would choose 3.

But do you honestly want me and everyone here to believe you actually do not care whether God exists or not? You see, this is nothing more than apatheism. Care and concern are inextricably linked with desire. If I desire to know if God exists, then I am expressing a concern regarding the existence or nonexistence of God. I care about the subject, I want to know either way. Even if it is only important to me in some miniscule way, it is still important. Even if I only am causally interested or curious, I am still expressing a desire to know.

Surely you do not want me to believe that you do not care about such a matter of supreme importance as whether or not God exists?

 

[Elioenai26]

That doesn't really give me much information which I can use to form a preference.

You will have to research the matter.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy are both free and available at the click of a mouse button. Begin there.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

 

[Davian]

I am not the one you're addressing, but would like to point out the crucial difference between "evidence" and "proof".

All that has been quoted is evidence of God in the first batch. Whether that evidence is proof or not depends entirely on one's presuppositions when approaching them. If you don't believe in God then no amount of our evidence will convince you.

What is this other than an admission of defeat? That your evidence is that weak?

Equally, we should never present our evidence as anything other than subjective.

A good position to take if one lacks objective evidence.

All we can do is state our own views and ask that you present alternative views along with everything which you regard as evidence for your position.

You can ask, but I don't see it as necessary. The falsification of a hypothesis does not require the positing of an alternative.

So when we present the evidence for what we call creation, for example, in this case a creator, you should counter it with an alternative theory for "creation". As yet, there is none, but there are three major theories: the universe has always existed; the universe was started with a catylist; the universe self actuated with no catalyst. Choosing and presenting one of those options gives a starting point for debate. If there are options I've missed which don't fit into one of the three choices then present them as well.

But most of the time the argument from our opponents is "We don't know, but we feel you must be wrong" which appears more like an emotive rather than scientific response. Why must we be wrong? Because so far you haven't observed God? Well you haven't observed anything else either, so that would be a weak position to hold.

So far I have not observed "God" to be anything more than a character in a book.

All of this is way off the OP, but to restate the obvious truth, neither the atheist nor the theist is agnostic because their beliefs are not contingent upon other people's views and are sincerely held. One group is wrong, but there is no proof either way as to which group. However, we believe that our evidence outweighs your lack of evidence.

So, your "evidence", which depends on your presuppositions, "outweighs" your strawman opponent's "lack of evidence". Did I get that clear?

 

[Davian]

If one answers 'yes', what else is one tacitly agreeing to? A 6000 year old Earth? That the theory of evolution (and most other sciences) are bunk? Just who's interpretation of which bible are we talking about?

Hypothetically, of course.

No.

No.

That does not make sense. For example, how does the concept of "sin" work if the ToE is accurate?

Do you think the ToE is accurate?

Just who's interpretation of which bible are we talking about?