Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

[Belz...]

This isn't about what I want. For us to talk about 'things' doing anything, they have to exist, they have to be based in substance.

And all I have to say at this point is that "substance" is based on what things do. We're right back where we started. Science has shown us that we can define everything in terms of what they do. Metaphysics has failed at providing us any answers, and you are yet to give us any reason to reopen that case.

Because in the doubting, something occurs. It doesn't matter if it is pre-programmed or not. It still occurs.

Did you purposely ignore the "illusion" part of my sentence, or are you incapable of reading what I write ?

As I have said repeatedly, I don't disagree with you.

Actions speak louder than words.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

There is nothing wrong with playing devil's advocate. Trolling is something totally different.

 

[Belz...]

I think most conventional philosophy is done by those who aren't up to doing science.

You'd think they'd realise that this is a futile enterprise, since philosophy has pretty much abdicated its role to science.

 

[Belz...]

He appears to be putting forth views that he doesn't believe in in hopes of provoking a response.

Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, ...

To be fair, he's being open about it.

But this whole metaphysics business has been bankrupt for centuries, so I don't see where he thinks this is going.

 

[tsig]

To be fair, he's being open about it.
But this whole metaphysics business has been bankrupt for centuries, so I don't see where he thinks this is going.

Yes, he is, right clever ploy, I think.

 

[annnnoid]

You'd think they'd realise that this is a futile enterprise, since philosophy has pretty much abdicated its role to science.

....that's a curious conclusion since "science" can not happen without philosophy, but philosophy can easily occur without science. Interesting how many scientists ridicule philosophy ...until the philosophy is removed from whatever discipline they study.

So what 'role' is it that philosophy has abdicated to science? How about a little guidance from our friendly neighborhood atheist:

“On the ordinary problems of human life, science tells us very little, and scientists as people are surely no guide. In fact they are often the worst guide, because they often tend to focus, laser-like, on their professional interests and know very little about the world.”

Noam Chomsky

 

[tsig]

....that's a curious conclusion since "science" can not happen without philosophy, but philosophy can easily occur without science. Interesting how many scientists ridicule philosophy ...until the philosophy is removed from whatever discipline they study.

So what 'role' is it that philosophy has abdicated to science? How about a little guidance from our friendly neighborhood atheist:

“On the ordinary problems of human life, science tells us very little, and scientists as people are surely no guide. In fact they are often the worst guide, because they often tend to focus, laser-like, on their professional interests and know very little about the world.”

Noam Chomsky

Philosophy without science is sitting around the campfire telling scary stories about what's out there in the dark.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Not according to idealists. If we go back to the cogito what we know is thought. Thought implies a thinker and so implies mind. According to idealists matter is just a consequence of thought, so they don't see science as an examination of matter but of how thought works.

There is no need to propose an entirely different type of substance. I wouldn't know where to begin to define it anyway.

If we start with thought, implying mind, it isn't much of a leap to a great mind that creates everything.

Oh its a pretty big leap. And you still haven't told me what 'mind' is.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

That definition tells me things about properties of an electron and how it interacts with things in the world. But according to string theory there is something even more fundamental -- vibrating strings of energy. We can't point to an electron, then, and see it as what it *is* most fundamentally, just as there is no rock particle that imputes rockiness. Rather, there are more fundamental 'things' that make a rock act as it does.

And that's irrelevant to what it is, just as the meat of a dog is irrelevant to it being a dog. We know what a dog is, we know what an electron is, we know what a rock is and we can tell one from another.

God...not so much.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Reading through many of the threads on this forum, I am honestly wondering how posters on this site feel about agnostics, particularly agnostics with "hope" that there is an intelligent force in the universe.
For the record, I consider myself to be a very rational thinker. I cannot commit myself to saying that G-d exists 100% because I have no tangible proof. However, I refuse to say that G-d does not exist for the same reason. Also, I honestly hope that there is some intelligent, good force in this universe; I admit my unscientific bias but even Einstein believed that there was something behind all of this... which leads me back to my thread topic "Are agnostics welcome here?"

To be fair, it can be said that all of us have a deep desire for there to be "something out there". For one, the sole idea is just too cool not to prefer it over there being nothing.

Additionally, not a single one of us really knows of the existence of a Higher Being. So in that respect, we are all Agnostic. It just so happens some of us "think" we know there actually is something out there. But that is just our deep instinctive desire for there to be something out there, making us believe what we prefer to believe.

So from that point of view we are all agnostic, and we all, in one way or another, wish there was something else there. Something that's fascinating, interesting and cool.

So from that point of view, we are all like you.

However, there is enough variety of personalities and personal interpretations of things amongst humans for there to be guaranteed people who will attack you. Just try to ignore them.

 

[punshhh]

Putting to one side whether they are technically gods that can't possibly exist or not what possible reason would we have for entertaining these concepts?

They are one of an infinite number of 'made up things I can call God' which also includes God being a mystical fried egg from the future and God being an echo of my toenails in time.

Whatever made-up concept of God you come up with it's just as likely that God is that same thing but with the words 'I love Bramley apples' tatooed on its forehead.

And yet from this infinite number of possibilities which can all be different in an infinite number of ways 'you' just happened to pick the right one? The probability of that is zero.

By introducing infinity here you are introducing are far more tricky form of argument.
There would be an infinity of Gods emanating from your toenail and an infinity of your toenails emanating from these Gods ad-infinitum

We should stick to the argument we have and keep it simple and perhaps come back to this later.

Let me state it simply again, myself and Wasp are adopting the position that humanity cannot say "I know gods don't exist(full stop)".

There are various arguments on either side which have been laid out in the thread.

However it is not necessary to go through them all as it is common sense that humanity is not in a position to make this claim as we don't know everything about existence and we don't know the extent of what we don't know.

Now there may be good arguments for the non existence of Yaweh, Brahma, Zeus etc, but these arguments cannot be applied to any gods which humanity has not come across.


Or to bring in infinity again, it cannot be applied to the infinity of differing kinds of gods which humanity has not come across.

 

[punshhh]

I find discussions like this one to be of no value.

Fine, this thread has developed into an exercise in laying out the philosophical positions regarding the existence of gods. Quite apt considering the Op.

Critical thinkers and skeptics should examine their position on this issue from time to time to avoid complacency and maintain an active skeptical outlook on all things.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Fine, this thread has developed into an exercise in laying out the philosophical positions regarding the existence of gods. Quite apt considering the Op.

Critical thinkers and skeptics should examine their position on this issue from time to time to avoid complacency and maintain an active skeptical outlook on all things.

I'll get right on that, just as soon as I finish my thesis on the Cookie Monster, and whether or not his dangerous addictions are caused by genetics or horrible childhood fears of having someone's hand up his rear.

Just because you're fascinated by your own tired arguments doesn't mean that many of of us haven't already heard them many times, and discarded them long ago. You aren't introducing anything that deserves new examination.

 

[punshhh]

I'll get right on that, just as soon as I finish my thesis on the Cookie Monster, and whether or not his dangerous addictions are caused by genetics or horrible childhood fears of having someone's hand up his rear.

Just because you're fascinated by your own tired arguments doesn't mean that many of of us haven't already heard them many times, and discarded them long ago. You aren't introducing anything that deserves new examination.

You may have discarded the ideas presented here, but have you demonstrated through argument that God/gods don't exist?

Or is it just an assumption you have made?

Assuming you are an atheist, I can't remember if you stated your position.

 

[Belz...]

....that's a curious conclusion since "science" can not happen without philosophy, but philosophy can easily occur without science.

Yes, it's interesting that people claim you can only go to the moon with rockets, since rockets require screwdrivers but screwdrivers don't require rockets. I say you can go to the moon with a screwdriver.

So what 'role' is it that philosophy has abdicated to science? How about a little guidance from our friendly neighborhood atheist:

Philosophy is simply thinking up stuff. When you do it properly, it's better than the previous method (superstition), but it developped into science, which is far superior at getting real answers.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

You may have discarded the ideas presented here, but have you demonstrated through argument that God/gods don't exist?

Or is it just an assumption you have made?

Assuming you are an atheist, I can't remember if you stated your position.

I don't assume that anything doesn't exist. The arguments that you have presented here have already been refuted, by many people here as well as others. They are neither original nor particularly profound.

Again, I see no reason to re-examine certain concepts when you have not presented any good reason to do so. I've heard them before; they haven't grown fresher with time. All you have repeatedly done is redefine a deity so that it continually falls outside of our own experience and perceptions. This is fine, since something that doesn't exist obviously does fit those categories.

What you have failed to do is explain why defining this imaginary creature has any meaning or importance. After all your arguments, I find no worth in them other than as a grade school level philosophical hypothesis, and I haven't been in grade school in many years.

Bye.

 

[Leumas]

The incredibly shrinking and mercurial NEO-GOD

I don't assume that anything doesn't exist. The arguments that you have presented here have already been refuted, by many people here as well as others. They are neither original nor particularly profound.

Again, I see no reason to re-examine certain concepts when you have not presented any good reason to do so. I've heard them before; they haven't grown fresher with time. All you have repeatedly done is redefine a deity so that it continually falls outside of our own experience and perceptions. This is fine, since something that doesn't exist obviously does fit those categories.
What you have failed to do is explain why defining this imaginary creature has any meaning or importance. After all your arguments, I find no worth in them other than as a grade school level philosophical hypothesis, and I haven't been in grade school in many years.

Bye.

EXACTLY.....this perfectly defines all the NEO-THEOLOGIANS' efforts. Whether it is ID or Fine-Tuning or Mellowed-Down-YHWH or New Age Religions and so and so forth.

The God Of Hindsight combined with the God Of Gaps.....The incredibly shrinking and mercurial NEO-GOD.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

By introducing infinity here you are introducing are far more tricky form of argument.
There would be an infinity of Gods emanating from your toenail and an infinity of your toenails emanating from these Gods ad-infinitum

We should stick to the argument we have and keep it simple and perhaps come back to this later.

Let me state it simply again, myself and Wasp are adopting the position that humanity cannot say "I know gods don't exist(full stop)".

There are various arguments on either side which have been laid out in the thread.

However it is not necessary to go through them all as it is common sense that humanity is not in a position to make this claim as we don't know everything about existence and we don't know the extent of what we don't know.

Now there may be good arguments for the non existence of Yaweh, Brahma, Zeus etc, but these arguments cannot be applied to any gods which humanity has not come across.


Or to bring in infinity again, it cannot be applied to the infinity of differing kinds of gods which humanity has not come across.

Let's try the math. Given an infinite number of possible answers and no information to choose between them what is the probability that any given answer is not true? I don't have a phd in math but I'm arguing its 1.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I prefer discussions in which people mean what they say and argue for positions in which they believe.

What am I arguing that I don't believe? Can you tell me what I am arguing?

Quite honestly I can't believe some of the reaction I am hearing here? What is it that you think I am arguing?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

He appears to be putting forth views that he doesn't believe in in hopes of provoking a response.

Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, ...

Then appearances have fooled you. Why would I try to provoke a reaction. I think Piggy is wrong about what he said. I've offered arguments against it.