Re: The Problem with Agnosticism Reply #25 – 2014-01-12, 04:25:14 On your DAWKINS scale I would rate myself the strongest of #1.I dunno who this Jung fella is, prolly just another imperfect human, but with or without his claim to knowledge.....I "know" there is a God, because I personally know God. Can't get any closer than that, but as far as me needing anyone else to believe whether I do or not, it's totally & absolutely immaterial to me whether they do or don't.
Re: The Problem with Agnosticism Reply #26 – 2014-01-13, 15:37:27 Quote from: SmileyFaze on 2014-01-12, 04:25:14I "know" there is a God, because I personally know God. I don't believe humanity possess the knowledge or the rationale to state with absolute certainty that a supernatural deity does or doesn't exist. To be quite so emphatic is to question the state of your mental health.
Re: The Problem with Agnosticism Reply #27 – 2014-01-13, 17:34:25 Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2014-01-13, 15:37:27I don't believe humanity possess the knowledge or the rationale to state with absolute certainty that a supernatural deity does or doesn't exist. To be quite so emphatic is to question the state of your mental health. How do you test any given phenomenon for 'supernaturality' in the first place?
Re: The Problem with Agnosticism Reply #28 – 2014-01-13, 19:11:26 Quote from: Macallan on 2014-01-13, 17:34:25How do you test any given phenomenon for 'supernaturality' in the first place?I posted this link last month: http://richardcarrier.blogspot.be/2007/01/defining-supernatural.html Of course, it also touches on what you saidQuote from: Richard Carrier But were these just twisted, interdimensional aliens, or real supernatural demons? That's another question altogether. But regardless of whether you can know the difference, there is still a difference.
Re: The Problem with Agnosticism Reply #29 – 2014-01-13, 22:30:22 Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2014-01-13, 15:37:27Quote from: SmileyFaze on 2014-01-12, 04:25:14I "know" there is a God, because I personally know God. I don't believe humanity possess the knowledge or the rationale to state with absolute certainty that a supernatural deity does or doesn't exist. To be quite so emphatic is to question the state of your mental health. Take a deep breath, then let it out slowly.......The first part of your rationale -- that is the extent of your knowledge, but as for your conclusion, anything outside your own personal sphere of knowledge is unknown to you. You shouldn't fear the unknown. See the unknown only as an obstacle to overcome, a challenge to your personal desire to know.You are limitless, if & until you let the desire slip away........
Re: The Problem with Agnosticism Reply #30 – 2014-01-14, 04:01:24 Quote from: Frenzie on 2014-01-13, 19:11:26Quote from: Macallan on 2014-01-13, 17:34:25How do you test any given phenomenon for 'supernaturality' in the first place?I posted this link last month: http://richardcarrier.blogspot.be/2007/01/defining-supernatural.html Of course, it also touches on what you saidQuote from: Richard Carrier But were these just twisted, interdimensional aliens, or real supernatural demons? That's another question altogether. But regardless of whether you can know the difference, there is still a difference.Interesting story, even though too long and too much about what people say, instead of about what would make sense to say. By his definition, for example laws of nature would be supernatural. Laws of nature are not physical, but they rule everything physical. Perfectly qualifies as non-physical mental entity, god or such by his definition.I do not define supernatural that way. For me, laws of nature are entirely natural. They are just not physical. Mental phenomena are as natural as physical phenomena. Since laws of nature don't deviate from nature, there's nothing miraculous about them. So, laws of nature, as a non-physical disembodied universal aspect of nature, are natural. A miracle or a supernatural instance would be a non-physical universal aspect of nature with a body (just one). Or a natural entity with two or more bodies, while not being a universal. At the same time, they'd very much be deviations from nature, more often undesirable than something good for anything.
Re: The Problem with Agnosticism Reply #31 – 2014-01-15, 02:01:23 Quote from: ersi on 2014-01-14, 04:01:24Laws of nature are not physical, but they rule everything physical.You say the laws of nature 'rule', that is an action verb meaning that they have a separate power beyond the powers which they describe. Congratulations, you have just given birth to an entity that never existed before. Last Edit: 2014-01-15, 02:20:48 by jseaton2311
Re: The Problem with Agnosticism Reply #32 – 2014-01-15, 04:22:57 Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2014-01-15, 02:01:23Quote from: ersi on 2014-01-14, 04:01:24Laws of nature are not physical, but they rule everything physical.You say the laws of nature 'rule', that is an action verb meaning that they have a separate power beyond the powers which they describe. Congratulations, you have just given birth to an entity that never existed before. Laws of nature don't exist? Interesting theory. Instead of "rule" how about "govern"? Though both should be unproblematic:Quote from: Lawrence KraussAt the heart of quantum mechanics is a rule that sometimes governs politicians or CEOs--as long as no one is watching, anything goes.
Re: The Problem with Agnosticism Reply #33 – 2014-01-15, 07:30:19 Quote from: ersi on 2014-01-15, 04:22:57Instead of "rule" how about "govern"?"Laws of Nature are executed... um... by Nature!";)
Re: The Problem with Agnosticism Reply #34 – 2014-01-15, 19:07:16 Quote from: ersi on 2014-01-14, 04:01:24I do not define supernatural that way.This is the way I look at it; if a supernatural God exists then he is easily detectable (or he's not God)...he has to choose not to be detectable. If there is a god who doesn't find it necessary for me to know that he's there then I must logically deduce that it does not matter to God one way or the other what I think about him. If it makes no difference then I'll just choose not to believe in him in the first place and make things a whole lot simpler.
Re: The Problem with Agnosticism Reply #35 – 2014-01-15, 20:21:59 Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2014-01-15, 19:07:16If there is a god who doesn't find it necessary for me to know that he's there then I must logically deduce that it does not matter to God one way or the other what I think about him. If it makes no difference then I'll just choose not to believe in him in the first place and make things a whole lot simpler. Supernatural means beyond or above nature. God in any meaningful sense is that, supernatural, so in any meaningful sense it's perfectly expected that we do not detect God the way you detect objects of nature. We detect God by means of seeking, investigating or contemplating the supernatural. And this is merely logical. No belief needed. You detect and conclude whatever works for you. To me at least God has nothing to do with beliefs.
Re: The Problem with Agnosticism Reply #36 – 2014-01-15, 20:45:47 Quote from: ersi on 2014-01-15, 20:21:59so in any meaningful sense it's perfectly expected that we do not detect God the way you detect objects of nature. We detect God by means of seeking, investigating or contemplating the supernatural. And this is merely logical.God, being who he is, can be as obvious or as obscure as he wishes. Is God available only to those capable of thorough probing, scrutinizing and deep contemplation? That is not at all logical.
Re: The Problem with Agnosticism Reply #37 – 2014-01-15, 21:20:13 Common sense suffices. It makes perfect sense that God is unconspicuous, because otherwise those who insist on denying God would not have a chance. It's nice to offer everyone a chance. You are doing well in denial. You manage to will even laws of nature into non-existence. God is not a sensible topic with you.
Re: The Problem with Agnosticism Reply #38 – 2014-01-15, 23:16:16 Quote from: ersi on 2014-01-15, 21:20:13You are doing well in denial. You manage to will even laws of nature into non-existence. God is not a sensible topic with you.You need to learn how to be less predictable. When you have no logical counter, you always resort to insult. It's nice to know I've stumped you. I will reiterate that God will be undetectable only when and because HE chooses to be. Therefore, either knowledge of God is irrelevant to us or God simply doesn't exist.
Re: The Problem with Agnosticism Reply #39 – 2014-01-16, 00:31:40 Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2014-01-16, 11:16:16I will reiterate that God will be undetectable only when and because HE chooses to be.I see your point in this context:He chooses to be detectable to me all the time, while at the same time He obviously chooses to be undetectable to you, that is probably 'till He desires you to detect Him like I do. I guess that's because God isn't a one size fits all Entity to all the people that know Him.
Re: The Problem with Agnosticism Reply #40 – 2014-01-16, 01:45:38 Quote from: SmileyFaze on 2014-01-16, 00:31:40He chooses to be detectable to me all the timeHow do I know God is detectable to you, how do I know it's God you are detecting and how do I know you are telling me the truth? I have no reason at all to not accept God, but I will not accept God for no reason at all.
Re: The Problem with Agnosticism Reply #41 – 2014-01-16, 02:10:31 Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2014-01-16, 13:45:38How do I know God is detectable to you, how do I know it's God you are detecting and how do I know you are telling me the truth?You don't know, not because it's impossible for you to know, but simply because you find it unbelievable to know, which within itself stops you from knowing.
Re: The Problem with Agnosticism Reply #42 – 2014-01-16, 03:35:21 Quote from: SmileyFaze on 2014-01-16, 02:10:31You don't know, not because it's impossible for you to know, but simply because you find it unbelievable to know,It's not unbelievable, it's just unverifiable--so I can't reasonably use it. How can you say you know what I find unbelievable for anyone else to know? Maybe God revealed himself to you, I don't know, and I don't find it unbelievable, but that doesn't mean I must believe you, for the aforementioned reasons. Last Edit: 2014-01-16, 04:26:44 by jseaton2311
Re: The Problem with Agnosticism Reply #43 – 2014-01-16, 04:47:40 Hey, don't believe me.....I don't care one bit what you believe.I have not, & never will have any desire whatsoever to convince you of anything. Every thought you have regarding this subject so emanates from your own thought -- within your own mind.
Re: The Problem with Agnosticism Reply #44 – 2014-01-16, 05:55:40 Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2014-01-15, 23:16:16Quote from: ersi on 2014-01-15, 21:20:13You are doing well in denial. You manage to will even laws of nature into non-existence. God is not a sensible topic with you.You need to learn how to be less predictable. When you have no logical counter, you always resort to insult. I simply quoted you back at yourself. It's your own logic insulting you. I have been clear about my definitions of everything. You have not had anything to say about them even when I am supposedly predictable, so naturally I won't add unpredictability and surrealism to the mix, because you would just perceive more insults where there are none.Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2014-01-15, 23:16:16I will reiterate that God will be undetectable only when and because HE chooses to be. Therefore, either knowledge of God is irrelevant to us or God simply doesn't exist. If God chooses to be undetectable (or if he chooses anything at all), then it logically follows that he exists, and has chosen to be undetectable to you. The reasons for this are between you and God. Everybody has one's own relationship with God.
Re: The Problem with Agnosticism Reply #45 – 2014-01-16, 13:57:59 Quote from: ersi on 2014-01-16, 05:55:40If God chooses to be undetectable (or if he chooses anything at all), then it logically follows that he exists, and has chosen to be undetectable to you.I presume that remark depends in some way on the context of what was said before because by itself it is not logical that God exists because He is undetectable, rather the opposite.If you are going to go on to say that He is detectable to you ... how do you detect God?
Re: The Problem with Agnosticism Reply #46 – 2014-01-16, 14:41:30 Quote from: ersi on 2014-01-16, 05:55:40If God chooses to be undetectable (or if he chooses anything at all), then it logically follows that he exists, and has chosen to be undetectable to you. The reasons for this are between you and God. Everybody has one's own relationship with God.An undetectable god is indistinguishable from a purely fictional god. How can you have a relationship with something that doesn't interact with anything ( if it did it would be detectable )?
Re: The Problem with Agnosticism Reply #47 – 2014-01-16, 14:43:15 Quote from: string on 2014-01-16, 13:57:59Quote from: ersi on 2014-01-16, 05:55:40If God chooses to be undetectable (or if he chooses anything at all), then it logically follows that he exists, and has chosen to be undetectable to you.I presume that remark depends in some way on the context of what was said before because by itself it is not logical that God exists because He is undetectable, rather the opposite.If you are going to go on to say that He is detectable to you ... how do you detect God?And if that god is detectable only to you how do you know it's not just another voice in your head?
Re: The Problem with Agnosticism Reply #48 – 2014-01-16, 16:28:44 Quote from: string on 2014-01-16, 13:57:59Quote from: ersi on 2014-01-16, 05:55:40If God chooses to be undetectable (or if he chooses anything at all), then it logically follows that he exists, and has chosen to be undetectable to you.I presume that remark depends in some way on the context of what was said before because by itself it is not logical that God exists because He is undetectable, rather the opposite.You are right. My statement is tied to context. In the context, the emphasis is on God choosing, not us detecting. If God is a chooser, his existence is already logically presupposed.Quote from: string on 2014-01-16, 13:57:59If you are going to go on to say that He is detectable to you ... how do you detect God?Spirit is a logical implication in continuum theories. God is spirit. This is a deist or panentheist definition of God. There's no detection of spirit in an empirical sense. Rather, it's an inevitable logical deduction like existence itself. If you insist on saying that it's mere faith, it's the same kind of faith as faith in logic and rationality. For example, you don't throw out the Big Bang theory or evolution theory merely because you can't detect Big Bang or evolution. You can't detect them, but there are facts that strongly imply Big Bang or evolution, and so you believe those theories. You believe in them until a better explanation emerges, if at all. But continuum theories are more fundamental than this. Quantum mechanics is more fundamental than relativity theory.
Re: The Problem with Agnosticism Reply #49 – 2014-01-16, 16:41:19 Quote from: ersi on 2014-01-16, 16:28:44If God is a chooser, his existence is already logically presupposed.Logically?Speaking of logic, the result of <if> does not define the premise. T→T=T, F→F=T, F→T=T, and only T→F=F.
Topic: The Problem with Agnosticism (Read 33421 times)
