• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Please critique this argument against miracles

psionl0 said:
stanfr said:
Wonderful, now let's change my statement to "There is no God"
Click to expand...
That is a statement that a lot of people would care if it were true or false.
Since there is no way to test it (and can't prove the alternative doesn't render the statement true) all you can do is choose to believe or not believe.
Click to expand...
stanfr said:
:oops:
Click to expand...
I don't know why you find that so astonishing. Nothing has changed.
If I say, "I believe you" then you have nothing to prove (to me).
If I say "I don't believe you" then the onus is on you to prove your claim (if you want to convince me).
Either way, there is no way to prove the claim so its status will remain "unknown".
 
psionl0 said:
I don't know why you find that so astonishing. Nothing has changed.
If I say, "I believe you" then you have nothing to prove (to me).
If I say "I don't believe you" then the onus is on you to prove your claim (if you want to convince me).
Either way, there is no way to prove the claim so its status will remain "unknown".
Click to expand...
From a pactical perspective, non-existence, while unfalsifiable is the default. I can not know for sure that fairies and leprechauns don't exist, it is more than reasonable for me to laugh at you when you insist they do. The same is true for a spaceless, timeless being you tell me some goat herders says is Lord.
 
psionl0 said:
Wow. Either you are so emotionally affected by this subject that you can't tell the difference between "unknown" and "God exists" or you are being purely dishonest.
Click to expand...
What exactly have I said that is dishonest? And how am I emotionally affected? God exists is an existential claim. The default position is to disbelieve existential claims until credible evidence is presented..

While I do agree that saying no gods exists is unprovable. The total absence of evidence when evidence is expected is very good reason to conclude Gods are merely a creation of human minds and nothing else.
 
psionl0 said:
If you can't read your own post then I can't help you. (Hint: I do not insist that "gods exist". The whole point of my argument is that such a claim can not be verified).
Click to expand...
I'm not being dishonest in the slightest. You may not be 'insisting" that gods exist, you have been giving the impression for a very long time e that you believe one in particular does.
 
acbytesla said:
I'm not being dishonest in the slightest. You may not be 'insisting" that gods exist, you have been giving the impression for a very long time e that you believe one in particular does.
Click to expand...
And the dishonesty continues. You first say that I am "insisting" that gods exist and when called out on that, you try to change your claim. Of course, I have never stated any belief on whether gods exist (and certainly not in this thread) but that doesn't matter to you. You are taking a leaf straight out of the Yes Minister playbook: If you can't discredit an argument then try to discredit the arguer.
 
psionl0 said:
And the dishonesty continues. You first say that I am "insisting" that gods exist and when called out on that, you try to change your claim. Of course, I have never stated any belief on whether gods exist (and certainly not in this thread) but that doesn't matter to you. You are taking a leaf straight out of the Yes Minister playbook: If you can't discredit an argument then try to discredit the arguer.
Click to expand...
You so funny. I'll leave it up to the other posters to decide which of us is straightforward and direct and which is dissembling.
 
I've got to side with psionl0 here. For as long as I've known him he has been aggressively agnostic. Like, weirdly so.
 
arthwollipot said:
I've got to side with psionl0 here. For as long as I've known him he has been aggressively agnostic. Like, weirdly so.
Click to expand...
Which could be the result of being "emotionally. affected" by the subject. Not that that is a bad thing...
 
arthwollipot said:
I've got to side with psionl0 here. For as long as I've known him he has been aggressively agnostic. Like, weirdly so.
Click to expand...
I mean, if I were "aggressively agnostic" about psychics, the natural conclusion isn't that I'm a paragon of logic and scientific inquiry. It probably means that I believe in psychics, or at least desparetely hope that they are real.

Applying this exclusively to God is either extremely pedantic or dishonest.
 
arthwollipot said:
I've got to side with psionl0 here. For as long as I've known him he has been aggressively agnostic. Like, weirdly so.
Click to expand...
Psion has accused me of not considering the existence of a god. That sure made me think he believes in God. But maybe he doesn't. But that post along with others made me believe that he actually believes that God is real.

Now I grew up in a very religious home and received a lot of religious instruction. I had no choice, but to consider it. But I don't think I ever believed the biblical stories. I viewed it all like one does fables. Fictional stories that teach good lessons. But after really reading the Bible I had to "consider" that the biblical stories DON'T teach good lessons.

I find it ironic that you use the term "agnostic" in describing Psion I have always found this word as basically non-committal. Coined by Huxley. An attempt to avoid addressing the elephant in the room. Agnostic, being the opposite of gnostic which means knowledge,, the 'a' prefix changes the term to mean 'without knowledge.

I would argue that everyone, you, me, Psion, whomever, are either theist or atheist. Meaning we either believe there is a god, or we don't. We can change our mind at any time, but that doesn't make it any less a dichotomy. Being gnostic or agnostic doesn't change this either. Knowledge is a subset of belief. Saying you have knowledge of something is just saying you really, really, really believe it
 
acbytesla said:
I would argue that everyone, you, me, Psion, whomever, are either theist or atheist. Meaning we either believe there is a god, or we don't. We can change our mind at any time, but that doesn't make it any less a dichotomy. Being gnostic or agnostic doesn't change this either. Knowledge is a subset of belief. Saying you have knowledge of something is just saying you really, really, really believe it
Click to expand...
Hmm, I had a similar background, and for a long time I called myself agnostic simply because I am uncomfortable with absolutes, I prefer thinking in terms of probabilities.
So, if I defined 'god' as "an intelligent being that created the universe" would you say that you are 100% sure that defined entity does not exist? Im sincerely curious how you would respond. I would say that I am 99.999999% convinced the god described in the Bible does not exist, but I am probably 'only' 99-99.9% convinced the god I just defined does not exist. Cause I simply think there is no way to know for sure. I guess that makes me non-committed, and I am totally fine with that too ;)
 
stanfr said:
Hmm, I had a similar background, and for a long time I called myself agnostic simply because I am uncomfortable with absolutes, I prefer thinking in terms of probabilities.
So, if I defined 'god' as "an intelligent being that created the universe" would you say that you are 100% sure that defined entity does not exist? Im sincerely curious how you would respond. I would say that I am 99.999999% convinced the god described in the Bible does not exist, but I am probably 'only' 99-99.9% convinced the god I just defined does not exist. Cause I simply think there is no way to know for sure. I guess that makes me non-committed, and I am totally fine with that too ;)
Click to expand...
How intelligent are we talking? Does a cosmic amoeba blowing itself up in a big bang-like fashion count?
 
Olmstead said:
How intelligent are we talking? Does a cosmic amoeba blowing itself up in a big bang-like fashion count?
Click to expand...
No cause it aint intelligent, by any sense of that word.
ETA: there is of course controversy on how to define 'intelligence' but in this context the common idea of 'ability to learn and acquire, apply knowledge and skills' will suffice.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom