malpensante

imagine that there is a whole set of possible universes, in one of them it is 100% probable that at least one god exists, in another it is 0% probable. in the rest of universes,which are infinite in number, there is every value within 1 & 0 of probability. it is infinitely more probable that we live in one of these universes than in any one of the formers. thus, agnosticism is infinitely more probable than atheism and theism to be an accurate view of reality.

no one knows if at least one god exists.

Flyboy

The problem with your logic is in the assumptions that you make at the begining.

First you assume that there are infinite universes. This is unsound reasoning.

Second you are assuming that if there was an infinite number of universes that there would be at least one in which a god exists and at least one in which a god does not exist. This is unsound reasoning.

Third you are assuming that any given universe can have a probability that is not either 1 or 0. It seems to me that the laws of a universe would either necessitate or abhor the prescence of a god.

Thus no conclusion can be made from your line of logic.

eh

It should be also be noted that agnosticism is also not really a position on the matter at all. Either God exists, or he doesn't, and there is no middle ground. "I don't know" does not address the issue.

Violent Messiah

" The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who in times of making a great decision, didnt make any".

Not that I'm forcing you to believe that there is a hell, but my point is, Agnostics should decide not just sit back and let the situation take care of itself.

Have faith in something - either God exists or not - just decide - though I'd rather you opt for the presence of God.

This is not something you shouldn't have knowledge of - this affects the very core of our being.

Study both sides then have a decision.

Agnostics do not beat theism and atheism.

If there's a candidate for presidency - you either vote for him or not. If you didn't vote, can you say that you beat the voters, irregardless of the candidate they voted for?

Free Thinkr

What about the loch ness monster? Is it best to be agnostic towards Bigfoot, or maybe alien abductions? Just because we can't know something for certain does not mean that it is automatically more reasonable to take no position. Weigh the evidence and decide which is more likely.

Robert G. Ingersoll

Exactly, my friend. I am a metaphysical naturalist or philosophical materialist, and an atheist, because I have evaluated my experiences in life over decades and see no good reason(s) whatsoever to view supernaturalisms like gods and ghosts as anything but imagination and fantasy, fictions that many people, unfortunately, believe in as literal facts. For the same reason I am also an utter skeptic about astrology and all other paranormalisms so popular with the hoi polloi.

In philosophy, ontology is concerned with theories of 'the nature of being', i.e., what one believes, for whatever reason(s) is the nature of being. Theism is one theory. Those who reject theism are atheists by definition. Those are the only two choices. i.e., there is no third alternative (other than no 'opinion', if one is unfamiliar with theism).

In philosophy, epistemology is concerned with correct 'theory of knowledge', i.e, how can we know or what can we know.

Agnosticism is the theory that humans are finite in their knowledge and fallible in their ability to know, and are therefore incapable of exact or absolute knowledge of anything. All human knowledge is based untimately on assumption(s). I agree with this theory.

The opposite is gnosticism, the theory that absolute knowledge can be had by humans regarding one or more subjects. I obviously disagree. There is no third alternative to agnosticism and gnosticism (again, other than ignorance of the subject).

Amergin

In the contest of ideas one does not beat another most of the time. Atheism does not beat Theism. Theism does not beat Atheism.

Since there is no real legitimate evidence in favour of God or gods, any stand on the issue is not evidence based. Atheism cannot dispute a god who by definition has no evidence, is invisible, intangible, inaudible, non-tactile, and perhaps improbable. They may argue that one need not prove a negative hypothesis, but that is beggiing the question.

There is the "possibility" of a God who remains totally hidden from view who created the universe either by some extranatural way farting it into existence. No, we cannot prove nor disprove that hypothesis. But do we need to.

I simply take the view that it is an irrelevant question. Since there is no evidence that the subject of debate exists, we have no reason to prove or disprove it.

That is my generic agnosticism.

If you pose the subject of a specifically named God, such as YHWH, Joe Hovah, Trinity, Allah, then I can say that the believers who describe these gods create contradictions that make their god improbable. They give their god human cognition, virtues, and vices (anger, rage attacks, jealousy, capriciousness, narcissism, insecurity, vindictiveness, injustice, and mass homicides.) These describe a very imperfect being and clearly show that this god was created as an alter-ego of shamans in primitive semitic stone age tribes. This god in my opinion can't exist.

So I am a Judaeo-Christian Atheist, while being a generic Agnostic. In this way, I feel that I am being honest.

Amergin

Godbert

does agnosticism beat both atheism and theism?

Noone can really know for sure

anonymite

Why not just think of the question as a matter of probability? Why does thing become something that necessitates a decision?

If live expeting the sky will stay blue, falling down will hurt, putting one foot ahead of the other will move me forward, etc. And even in these 'common-sense' views there are different degrees of probability. AS it is God is somewhere in that 0 < x < 1 range but loser to 0.

ex-xian

eh wrote:

Quote:

It should be also be noted that agnosticism is also not really a position on the matter at all. Either God exists, or he doesn't, and there is no middle ground. "I don't know" does not address the issue.

You misunderstand the meaning of agnosticism. A wonderfully lucid explanation was given by Robbie (I can call you Robbie?) Ingersoll.

Agnosticism isn't "I don't know." It is "I am incapable of knowing." I am a theist, most of the time. Gradually, my beliefs are leaning closer to agnosticism.

Robert G. Ingersoll wrote:

Quote:

Theism is one theory. Those who reject theism are atheists by definition. Those are the only two choices. i.e., there is no third alternative

I think there is another alternative. Someone who holds an agnostic metaphysical epistimology would necissarily be agnostic regarding the ontology of a God.