Thoughts on Agnosticism and Certainty

[skoockum]

what a fucking joke... just another faith-based position claiming that rationality is logically flawed

[XOmniverse]

@skoockum I claimed that rationality is logically flawed? What does that even mean?

[MrShenaniganz]

nice points buddy. i like the idea of the default position as things being false

[blue4meridian]

Agnosticism suspends judgement on the connotation of that which is trancendent. This includes but is not limited to... Agnostic theism which suspends judgement on the knowledge of that which is trancendent. Agnostic atheism which suspends judgement on the existence of that which is trancendent. Agnostic pantheism which suspends judgement on the phenomenon of that which is trancendent. Agnostic panentheism which suspends judgement on the manifestation of that which is trancendent.

[responder12345]

"In general thought, you don't ASSUME either of those are true unless you have a reason to do so."

That may be similar to how an agnostic views a deity which Websters defines as "A supremely powerful and good being."

So the question is, if you are agnostic towards intelligent alien life or any other unproven possibility, then it somehow seems to break a threshold of plausibility within your logic. Invisible dragons on the other hand, do not reach that threshold.

[responder12345]

So an agnostic's perspective is not whether or not something is likely or exists, but whether or not it is possible that it exists.

[XOmniverse]

I have reasons to think the concept of God isn't even coherent and can't possibly refer to anything that exists.

I did a video on Theological Noncognitivism. I recommend watching it.

[responder12345]

You anti-agnostic atheists are starting to sound like a broken record. Take some outlandish idea and go on to say that the negative cannot be proven, etc. Let me ask you a few questions:

1. Does intelligent life exist in the universe other than humans

2. Are there alternate, parallel universes other than the one we are currently in?

If you say no to both of those, you are simply defaulting to negative if positive proof is not presented.

[XOmniverse]

In general thought, you don't ASSUME either of those are true unless you have a reason to do so.

Can you disprove the existence of invisible dragons? When you're driving a car, do you take the existence of invisible dragons into active consideration?

There is a difference between the statements "I do not believe and God" and "There is no God."

[iamundergrace]

1. rightcha about the body not having enough heat. infact more energy could be gathered from just setting us on fire than to use us as battery. 2. if they couldn't tell that they were in the matrix, well they don't know, and the truth is that they do live in the matrix. comparatively we could be living in God's world. neo discovered the matrix. 3. if the default position is that it is false until it is true, than how in the world did the first christians believe, and so on.

[iamundergrace]

4. God is supernatural he is beyond are capacity to understand, yet that does not mean that God cannot experience and interact with His creation. if I created a robot why can't I create smack Him around and make him do my dishes. 5. bridges do break unexpectantly. 6. the fact is true to you their may not be a God. because your bridge hasn't broken or Neo hasn't come to pick you up but, that is not to say that the evidence does not exist, to say so would be arrogance.

[Spiffy141]

I think you're assuming things about Agnostics that aren't necessarily true. The analogies you give (the Garden Gnomes and the Matrix scenario) are incredibly specific. If there is no evidence in either direction, probability alone tells us to discard these ideas. Considering the infinite number of possible realities, granting one specific scenario equal weight with possiblity of that scenario not being true is completely silly.

This is exactly what Agnosticism fights against.

[Spiffy141]

Trying to define a God and its intentions is the perfect equivilent for what I'm talking about. It is a data point amongst a sea of possibilities and the odds are certainly not in its favor, nor substancial in any way.

Yet, the same logic needs to be applied to the hard line Atheist position as well. To suggest that there is nothing beyond our current understanding of reality is comparably foolish to those claiming to know what that "beyond" is.

[Spiffy141]

This is where I think you have misinterpreted the agnostic position. If you're asking if we believe in an interventionist God, most of us will say no. Our interaction chance and probability, cause and affect, has provided enough evidence to tilt the scale of belief. However, that is an extremely narrow view of what "God" could be. It could be a math equation, a higher form of conciousness, or (far more likely), something we don't have language for.

[Spiffy141]

The origin of the universe has two possiblities: either it has always existed (infinity) or something came out of nothing. Both of these options are currently and completely beyond the understanding of human beings. So yes, if you want to suggest that there is nothing beyond our own perception of this world, I will place that on equal footing with the religions of this world. But I don't think you're saying that. Deep down, I think you're probably an agnostic.

[Spiffy141]

And I'm not trying to be a prick by saying that. I guess the thesis statement to this rambling diatribe is that Atheists seem to be creating parameters for "God" that Agnostics don't have. Under your rules of what a "God" can or can't be, I'm sure I would agree with your disbelief. However, I can only fathom how limited in scope this choice really is.

[kui45]

Yeah, thats like Agnostic Atheism.

[conradleviston]

I think the phrase that you are looking for is "credible hypothesis". For you God is not a credible hypothesis, so while you recognise there may be such a being, the chances are so slim that you may dismiss it out of hand. But boy is Ahura Mazda going to be annoyed with you after you're dead.

[MrDubious]

I'm not trying to be a smartass, but... It kind of sounds like you are 99% atheist, and 1% agnostic...

[deicidaljimbo]

I think you are agnostic, i'll tell you why. Lets say i have an imaginary friend, i believe he is real, so i am sure he is real. To you, you know, 100% for a fact, that he is not real. It's practically the same thing with atheism. God is the "imaginary friend" of people that worship god, and since he is not here and has no interacted in any way, i am 100% sure he is not real. You are not 100% if he is real, therefore you are agnostic.

[JoCatofCatLand]

I feel you are leaving out another factor in your statement. If you asked some one if they believe in God and they answered "what is God" that person is and sound agnostic. That is the position I stand at. I may know what God is by description, but I don't know what it is any more then that I, and I have no interest in learning more. Agnostic.

[XOmniverse]

If you don't even know what concept a word represents, then clearly you don't believe in whatever concept that word represents. Hence, you are an atheist.

Agnosticism is NOT a default position of the human mind. It is an irrational specialty position. Lack of belief is the default.

[JoCatofCatLand]

what about understanding the reason behind there beliefs? im my mind both stand points make sence. is that still Atheisum?

[JoCatofCatLand]

I must apologies. I have just finished the God Delusion and I do feel that I am an Atheist after all.

[3rdWorldCrusader]

Atheism requires faith no matter what you say.

[XOmniverse]

Reality and reason be damned, huh?

[fc007]

Atheism requires as much faith to beleive in the existence of a god as it takes to beleive in the existence a tooth fairy.

[Daghita]

Also, if the meteor concept can be proven over time...then why can't the concept of a theist be proven? Just because we haven't seen it yet, and we have small bits of evidence to suggest otherwise. That would mean that given time, it would be provable.

[Daghita]

Even thinking logically, that some thing(s) "supernatural" created the elements on the periodic table that we have today. In other words, some thing(s) formed the material universe that we know it now. Otherwise, how would the universe form out of nothing? I have events that prove an abductive argument for both sides of opinion.

[Daghita]

Just because you drive over a bridge 10 tens, doesn't always mean it's still going to be standing on the 11th. Theists and atheists, in my opinion are being deductive in their logic. But, they use observable events to explain their rationality, which is non-deductive. Without deductive evidence to make a claim for either side, it's a failure in logic.

[RLore18]

I just realized my comments may imply that evolution could not be the sole factor in our creation. I just wanted to throw it in that I believe there is a strong possibility that evolution is the sole creator.

[RLore18]

So basically, what I'm saying is that we shouldn't give up searching for the mysteries of our creation (no shit). And I look for the best chance of survival. But of course I'd never worship another human just because a book has some words that pretend to address me.

[RLore18]

However, I still don't believe no one should think about what God could be if God does exist, since we have lack of evidence of both A and non-A. By a potential God I mean a creator who is self-benefiting from our creation, much like we plant crops to eat. If there is a God, then producing the product of God's enrichment is furthering our own survival because our value [to God] increases.

[RLore18]

100% certainty - deductive logic.

99% or less - inductive logic and/or anything else.

True, the best morality acts only on what is deductively known to be true. Until deductive proof of A or non-A, induction is all one can use. And lack of evidence of A is sound induction anyway. If no evidence demanded worship then how could all men worship all religions simultaneously?

[pdoeman]

Good analogy. There are lots of analogies available to us.

Courts of law cite proof as "beyond all reasonable doubt", the concept of god cannot even achieve that. Yet agnostics still claim that uncertainty is the default position.

You can never proove that thatthe bridge will not fall down, you can only show it is highly unlikely to fall down.

[TheOptimisticSkeptic]

I think there are two things at work, some agnostics are of the opinion that so many people believe in god it's entitled to more credibility than the matrix, also I think many agnostics believe some things have supernatural causes, if someone has an irrational belief in the supernatural then the possibility of a god would be the "logical" position.