Looking for advice on expanding horizonsFollow

Then prepare to admire me a scary amount, Belkira.

Ready? Aight:

It is impossible to know anything at all, including that is is impossible to know anything at all.

Apology accepted.

Agnosticism is, by definition, not a belief system (at least, not when it comes to theology). For me, it's a commitment to scientific methodology and rationalism. Since we can't prove that God doesn't exist, it's technically incorrect to make such a claim. Same goes for God existing. I'm interested in the truth of things, not "picking a side" so to speak. As I see it, since it's impossible to truly "know" whether God exists or not, I cannot attribute factuality to something that is still uncertain.

I could, in theory, just subscribe to a belief one way or the other with the caveat that I really can't say so with any certainty. But why would I? I don't have any need or reason to do so.

EDIT: Really, Belkira summed it up in a much less verbose manner.

Edited, Oct 19th 2010 12:11am by Eske

Ok Shador, I'll try to explain it differently.

When I have a discussion or debate with someone over the existence of God, they'd make their point and I'd say "Well, I happen to disagree with that because of this, this and that" etc etc

This is what you did: "NO YOU ARE AN IDIOT AND YOU ARE WRONG AND I'M RIGHT BECAUSE THIS MAN THAT WROTE A BOOK I READ SAID THIS, THIS AND THAT, AND THEREFORE YOU ARE USELESS AT LIFE AND SHOULD PROBABLY KILL YOURSELF"

Do you see the difference? You weren't making it look like you were having a rational debate with anyone, instead you were just brow beating them with the ham-fisted opinions of one man.

I like this RJ.

Right. See, I agree with one caveat. Again, inability to prove 100% in either direction does not necessarially equal a 50/50 chance. Actually, there are probably very few "complete athiests" since people who lean in that direction rely more on science than belief. While science cannot prove 100% that God does not exist, it has shown that He would be unnecessary for life to arise or for the universe to come into being.

While I hesitate to bring Mr. Dawkins into this again, I feel that one thing in TGD nicely illustrates this. Dawkins presented a simple 7 point scale of opinion.

1. God exists, beyond question.
2. God probably exists.
3. God may exist.
4. True agnostic (50/50)
5. God may not exist.
6. God probably does not exist.
7. God does not exist, beyond question.

Dawkins himself claims to be at a "6" on this scale, as am I. You should note that your "I really can't say with any certanty" would ecompass all of 2-6, which are really a widely divergent set of views.

Oddly, while there are probably very few 7s, there are a great number of 1s. Conclude from that what you will.

I sincerely hope you are being facetious. Our appendix was necessary at one point in our evolution. God was not.




What a wonderfully breezy dismissal of a good hypothesis. By such logic, carried to its extreme extinsion, all distinctions are arbitrary and no distinctions mean anything. "My red could be your blue" is a wonderful philosiphical exercise, but that's not how people really think or percieve the world.

If you will allow me to be facetious for a moment, one could say that On the Origin of the Species is "a bunch of statements by one man". I doubt you would say, however, that it "doesn't really mean much".

*shrug*

As I see it, there are too many unquantifiable factors at play to attribute even a probability to the whole thing. And as Belkira said, something doesn't have to have a need to exist to exist. I mean, look at Nixnot.

Edited, Oct 19th 2010 11:11am by Eske

Such as...? Keep in mind that "we don't know the use of this" =/= "this is unnecessary"



I do not believe that is the point of the scale at all. I certainly am not claiming to be "superior" or belong to "an exclusive club". Where you read that into my arguements is beyond me. Yes you could simplify it to a three point scale. However, the less detailed a scale is, the less acurately it reflects opinion. Let me take a guess at your "three point scale":

1. God exists.
2. I don't know.
3. God doesn't exist.

Of course, any intelectually honest person would have to choose 2, myself and RD included, even though our views really lean more toward 3. But you are again, and persistnetly, promoting the falicy that the inability to prove 100% either way automatically makes for a 50/50 chance.

Of course, it could be said that "opinions are like noses, everyone has a different one". Still, any scale like we are discussing must try to straddle the fine line between oversimplification and overspecialization. I think the 7-point scale does this nicely. More elaborate scales could, of course, be devised, but at some point you could end up with a 7 billion point or so scale, which would be essentially useless.

Edited, Oct 19th 2010 11:20am by ShadorVIII

Why wouldn't that count? Do you know what the use of god would be if he exists?



Perhaps it was the "Oddly, while there are probably very few 7s, there are a great number of 1s. Conclude from that what you will." So I concluded from that what I will. Not to mention your "agnostics are spineless" and "Christians are all idiots" arguments you've made in this thread. That helped.



And you said yourself that, "You should note that your "I really can't say with any certanty" would ecompass all of 2-6, which are really a widely divergent set of views." Which in effect makes that seven point scale into a three point scale.



Do you care to explain why it's not 50/50 in this case? This time, use less opinion from a man who's opinions I don't agree with and more facts, please.



Every scale is essentially useless. What is the point of the scale in the first place, really?

Look, we're talking about something that no one on earth can discuss with any evidence. All that can be used is speculation and guesswork.

When you're talking about things that are uneccessary, I don't see the difference, honestly.



Ok. And...?



I have read all the posts. Congratulations on apologizing for letting it slip how you really feel. That doesn't make it go away, nor does your overall attitude.



I didn't miss anything. "I don't know" also encompasses a widely divergent set of views. So?



In other words, it's only your opinion that it is not a 50/50 chance of it being either he exists or he doesn't. Which means it's not a fallacy.

Sure. We did that a while ago. I've never tried to convince you that your opinion is wrong, Shador. Just that it's an opinion and not fact.

>_<