Keith Russell

Greetings:

There is a vast difference between 'claims' and 'evidence'. When someone says 'there is a blue ball on my desk', unless you are there looking at the ball on the desk, you have been presented with a claim--not with anything I would call 'evidence'. (I would even categorize a photograph of the ball sitting on the desk as a 'claim', albeit a different type of claim than one that is completely language-based.)

Most people are aware that blue balls exist (and some of us have had more than our share of experience of same--lol), and that such things can rest on desktops.

So, while it is not difficult (nor does it seem terribly unreasonable) to believe such a claim, especially if the claimant has no reason to be lying. But, unless it is supported by evidence, a claim remains utterly arbitrary. We 'trust' the claimant, and we may even fully believe what they have claimed, but we do not and cannot 'know' that the claim is true, unless and until we have that all-important 'independently verifiable evidence'.

Keith.

The AntiChris

Ryanfire

Well, you are posting about agnosticism in the "Existence of Gods" forum.

Are you agnostic about Santa and leprechauns or do you have absolute certainty?

How on earth do you come to this conclusion?

This is getting rather foolish now. Where do you get the idea that atheists close their minds and have "all the answers to existence"?

In my previous post I suggested, in the absence of "absolute certainty", that it wasn't irrational for us to assume weknow some things. Do you disagree?

Chris

ForeverSeeking

I see it as a way to make the stand that "I do not have all the answers."

Maybe god exists, maybe they don't.
Maybe god is nature
Maybe god is love

love IS god

It is like me stating that UFOs do not exist, yet I can not say that definitively. Does it really matter whether I can prove god exists? I do not think so. For myself that would be a long, massive waste of time. I could never cover all bases in proving or disproving god to satisfy everyone. I am content to fit the phrase that was coined by Timothy Freke in his Jesus Mysteries book:

"This book is dedicated to those who know they do not know."

I can live that...quite happily in fact.

Gnothi Seauton
<a href="http://www.foreverseeking.com" target="_blank">Forever Seeking Truth</a>

Theli

ForeverSeeking...

That's nice, although being a complete waste of space on this thread. Please, try to keep your mind on the subject.


Ryanfire...

There's barelly "absolute certainty" for anything. But is that a reason to just shake your head, refusing to say either yes or no just because there is a chance you are wrong?
BTW, why do you need absolute certainty?

By this question you are assuming that there is some reason for matter to exist... I thought you didn't know anything.

I don't see what childishness has to do with anything, but it's clearly a dumb answer.
Who gave that answer anyway?

This kind of sounds like David Mathews (where is he nowadays?). Apperantly he was also too focused on the black area of our knowledge to be able to focus on what we can know. Instead of looking at what he could learn, he was too busy starring at everything he didn't know.

Who closed his mind?

[ August 16, 2002: Message edited by: Theli ]</p>

Ryanfire

Atheist when it comes to Santa, leprechauns, invisble pink unicorns...etc Need we really say more here?

I can't understand why atheists choose their lack of belief in god without all evidence present.
I can't' understand why theists choose a belief in the gods of past and present when there is no evidence to support them.

It's not irrational in the absence of "absolute certainty" to assume an answer. Most people assume there is no god, others assume there is a god, but with insufficient data, I don't assume. I only speculate/hypothesize.

Ryanfire

There's a difference between knowledge and intellect.

Knowledge is to gain understanding through experience and observation, that which is perceived, discovered, or learned.

Intellect gives us the capacity for knowledge and understanding.

Unlike David Mathews, I do trust the human senses and intellect.

When I say insufficient data, I mean knowledge, not intellect.

SteveD

RyanFire,
I readily admit that I do not have absolute knowledge that god doesn't exist. Yet, I do not have a belief in god because all of the evidence and arguments that I have seen so far have not convinced me. Does this make me an atheist or an agnostic?

Steve

ksagnostic

Oh, what the hell.

I still consider myself an agnostic, even though I certainly make no claims regarding whether "the existence of god can be known". I consider myself an agnostic for the following reasons:

1) Agnosticism to me, following the definition given by Thomas Huxley, is essentially a form of skepticism directed towards one's own beliefs, based on the realization that there is a reality that is not effected by your beliefs about it.

2) Because I am an agnostic, I withhold belief in quite a number of things, including but not limited to hypothetical god entities. But I don't go around calling myself an aUFOist, an aelfist, an aunicornist, etc. I am skeptical of pretty much all supernatural religious claims, which includes quite a number of claims that involve no god at all. Sure, I am technically an "a-theist" because I do not believe in gods, but to me that is entirely incidental. I don't believe in gods, and other things, because I am an agnostic.

3) I think the question, "Is the universe an intelligent artifact?" is still an open question, although that does not mean that I think that a yes answer to this question is probable.

[ August 16, 2002: Message edited by: ksagnostic ]

[ August 17, 2002: Message edited by: ksagnostic ]</p>

lobstertrap

Just because it's "impossible" to prove it exists doesn't mean it doesn't.

At this time, it's "impossible" for us to know whether there is intelligent life outside of our solar system. Chances are high there is, but with the current technology, it is "impossible" to know.

The AntiChris

Ryanfire

Ok, we seem to be making some progress.

We've established that the mere possibility that an entity might exist does not preclude the rational assumption that the entity does not exist.

From these two statements, it seems that you believe you have "all evidence" regarding the existence of Santa, Leprechauns etc, but do not have "all evidence" regarding the existence of God. In what sense do you believe you have "all evidence" for one but not the other?

Chris