A Question to Agnostics

[Harry Tuttle]

I just want to take this opportunity to point out the shear stupidity in deciding that whoever created humans must be both omnipotent and omnipresent. Would it not be possible that humans were created by a really advanced alien who visited earth to run some experiments? Maybe they worked out some designs, looked at each other, said "hmmm... interesting..." then moved on to another system and tried some different designs and never gave us a second thought?

As in "These beings that stand upright were an interesting result, but they need more arms to work properly. Besides, although they seem intelligent they soon give up on rational though and resort to inventing irrational explanations to complex sets of occurrences. Let's go back to design 45573/22."

[mikehz]

I'd say it's fairly easy to disprove the common Christian conception of God; that is, an all-powerful, all-good, and all-knowing being. The well known "problem of evil" certainly blows that idea of god out of the water.

Add to that the very high failure rate of prayer (no better than random chance), and the many contradictions and falsehoods in the Bible and I'd say God is pretty well disproven.

BTW, did you hear about the dyslexic agnostic? He just wasn't sure if there really is a Dog.

[rabidfurby]

I can respond to Russels Teapot with the following:

*whoosh*

The difficulty that agnosticism and athiesm have is that while it is easy to prove that something exists

It's only easy to prove that god(s) exist if you start with the assumption that god(s) exist.

trying to prove that something doesn't exist is far more difficult.

Holy fucking hell. Haven't you posted before that you teach logic classes to seminary students or some such bullshit?

[fatcat]

I call myself an agnostic, rather than an atheist, because I haven't decided for sure that a higher power doesn't exist--it's that I just don't care one way or another.

Are you Bigfoot agnostic, Russels Teapot agnostic, and Tooth Fairy agnostic aswell?

edit: Either I just dropped such a powerful knowledge bomb that Elitist Bitch has rethought her position, Or I've pulled some sort of dick move and I'm about to get a post-post verbal smackdown.

This is the first time I have heard of different types of agnosticism. I can respond to Russels Teapot with the following:

Its the first time because no one feels mind fucked enough to bow into societal pressure and take the bogus fence sitting position of agnosticism on any other issue of supernatural.

No one feels the need to say "well I don't know for sure leprechauns don't exist, and I think its arrogant to think they don't exist when theres no way of knowing for sure", because there isn't a majority of deluded people who believe leprechauns exist without any proof.

The burden of proof rests on the person making a claim, whether that is a positive (x exists) or negative claim (x doesn't exist). So both a person proving or denying the existence of G-d has the burden of proof on them. The difficulty that agnosticism and athiesm have is that while it is easy to prove that something exists, the contrapositive to that is not true, and trying to prove that something doesn't exist is far more difficult.

Its good that you understand the burden of proof.

Except in functional terms claiming X doesn't exist without proof is much more reasonable than claiming X does exist without proof.

For example me saying "there aren't invisible pixies magically controlling every aspect of my life" without evidence is alot more reasonable than claiming that there are.  While I might not be able to meet the burden of proof to actually say it 100% certain, I don't see it as unreasonable, since the only practicable way to live life is to assume things you have no evidence for don't exist.

For example, if you're crossing the road and you see no cars, you assume that there are non, and that its safe to walk, rather than think "well I can't prove there are no transcendental cars" and never cross.

Having no evidence of invisible pixies, isn't proof they don't exist, but its a strong indicator that they don't, and the same goes for god or anything else.

I can't prove 100% that there isn't a woman secretly living in my house, but the fact I haven't seen any evidence of said woman is a strong indicator she isn't here.

Am I agnostic to the crazy cupboard woman? Does it make a meaningful difference between say "I don't know if she exists either way", even though 100% of the time I act like she doesn't.

[fatcat]

The burden of proof rests on the person making a claim, whether that is a positive (x exists) or negative claim (x doesn't exist). So both a person proving or denying the existence of G-d has the burden of proof on them. The difficulty that agnosticism and athiesm have is that while it is easy to prove that something exists, the contrapositive to that is not true, and trying to prove that something doesn't exist is far more difficult.

I would say that both proving and disproving the existence of God are impossible.  Proving it is impossible because as mortals, we mere humans lack the capacity to recognize something infinite. 

You're assuming things about the nature of a god, even though its a wholey theoretical concept which wildly differs from person.

How is god infinite? Infinite in size? How do you know god is infinite?

 How do you know humans can't comprehend infinity?

Also,


 humans can recognize infinity, at least in concept. Also the universe expands so fast as to be as good as infinite, and we know its doing that.

[BonerJoe]

There is no such thing as infinity.

[Rillion]

You're assuming things about the nature of a god, even though its a wholey theoretical concept which wildly differs from person.

Yes, because most Westerners who believe in a god generally assert that he is infinite in at least one sense-- having no temporal beginning or end.  Humans are not capable, so far as I can tell, of recognizing such a being if confronted with one.  I'm not talking about any other version of god. 

[fatcat]

You're assuming things about the nature of a god, even though its a wholey theoretical concept which wildly differs from person.

Yes, because most Westerners who believe in a god generally assert that he is infinite in at least one sense-- having no temporal beginning or end.  Humans are not capable, so far as I can tell, of recognizing such a being if confronted with one.  I'm not talking about any other version of god. 

So how do you know you can't recognize it if you've never encountered it? Your claim would require knowledge of such a being in order to make such a claim. I.e. If people can't recognize an "infinite" being, then theres no way to distinguish between an infinite being and nothing, so there would be no way to tell if it was possible to recognize it or not.

By definition, you can only know you can know something until you know you it or someone else knows it. If its unknowable how do you know its unknowable?

The only way it would be impossible to prove an existent entity exists, is if that thing had no measurable effects and no measurable presence, in which case it is the same as nothing.

Same with god. If you can't measure it in anyway, or measure any of its effects, then it might aswell be nothing and I really don't see the value in agnostic labeling, since for all intents and purposes agnostics act as if there is no god, just like I act like there isn't a crazy japanese woman secretly living in my house, even though theres no way I can prove it 100% for sure. (specially if i put in bullshit caveats like the crazy woman is everywhere, or can't be seen or detected in any way).

I have no problem with agnosticism in concept, except when its used specifically for some claims and not others. As I mentioned before no one is Russels Teapot agnostic, everyone assumes that something doesn't exist until theres evidence of it existing.

Except when it comes to supernatural bullshit that billions of people believe in, not just a few nuts, then suddenly its "arrogant" to assume a magical undetectable being doesn't exist when theres absolutely no concrete evidence for it.

[Rillion]

Yes, because most Westerners who believe in a god generally assert that he is infinite in at least one sense-- having no temporal beginning or end.  Humans are not capable, so far as I can tell, of recognizing such a being if confronted with one.  I'm not talking about any other version of god. 

So how do you know you can't recognize it if you've never encountered it?

That's exactly the point-- I wouldn't know if I've encountered it.  If I did know, that would mean I had recognized it. 

The only way it would be impossible to prove an existent entity exists, is if that thing had no measurable effects and no measurable presence, in which case it is the same as nothing.

I don't know what would automatically prevent an infinite being from having measurable effects.  If an infinite being burped once every twenty years, you could measure that....but would you know if it was infinite?   Or would you just know that something has been burping every twenty years as far back as you can tell, and shows no signs of stopping? 

[Diogenes The Cynic]

I just want to take this opportunity to point out the shear stupidity in deciding that whoever created humans must be both omnipotent and omnipresent. Would it not be possible that humans were created by a really advanced alien who visited earth to run some experiments? Maybe they worked out some designs, looked at each other, said "hmmm... interesting..." then moved on to another system and tried some different designs and never gave us a second thought?

As in "These beings that stand upright were an interesting result, but they need more arms to work properly. Besides, although they seem intelligent they soon give up on rational though and resort to inventing irrational explanations to complex sets of occurrences. Let's go back to design 45573/22."

From the perspective of the agnostic its safer to take the position with the least amount of assumptions. Since there isn't any conclusive evidence of aliens, much less that they're inquisitive, or benevolent enough to create us, it seems that G-d would have less implied assumptions.

[rabidfurby]

From the perspective of the agnostic its safer to take the position with the least amount of assumptions.

You have no fucking clue what agnosticism means if you think it has anything to do with whether a belief is "safe" or not.

[Diogenes The Cynic]

From the perspective of the agnostic its safer to take the position with the least amount of assumptions.

You have no fucking clue what agnosticism means if you think it has anything to do with whether a belief is "safe" or not.

You understand my point. How would you phrase it?

[rabidfurby]

You understand my point.

No, I don't.

[Harry Tuttle]

From the perspective of the agnostic its safer to take the position with the least amount of assumptions. Since there isn't any conclusive evidence of aliens, much less that they're inquisitive, or benevolent enough to create us, it seems that G-d would have less implied assumptions.

Not necessarily. benevolence isn't the only motivation. Perhaps it is for entertainment. All of earth being like the game "Spore". Or perhaps we look a lot like them and they watch us having sex for a constant source of porn.

And why does everyone assume God is benevolent? The god of the old testament seems needlessly cruel if you ask me.

Really though, I could be saying anything. It really isn't worth time thinking about, except for lulz. If I were God tomorrow I would be far more kind, just, and merciful than the guy in the fantastic stories bandied about in any of today's religions.

[Rillion]

If I were God tomorrow I would be far more kind, just, and merciful than the guy in the fantastic stories bandied about in any of today's religions.

It seems like atheists and agnostics tend to hold God to a higher standard than believers do.  I can't count the number of times I've heard one say basically "The god I don't believe in is better than the one you do."