I didn't flush out your specific beliefs in my post because it wasn't my place. I also know your reasons--BS--are likely more iron clad than Elvish Crack Pipers's.
If this is meant to address most organized religions, I don't have much to comment on. However, if it was meant to address my own belief, agnostic deism, (as quoting me seems to imply) then I don't find the analogy to be at all fair.
Aimed squarely at the claim, "I guess the universe was created for a reason." You are as justified in saying that as in saying you guess zebra mussels speak Middle English.
But, I will say that agnostic deism is a much easier position to defined then--say--Catholicism do to the miserly nature of the claims it makes.
Correct. (In this universe, anyway. If we were in a universe where miracles seemed to happen all the time, then the deist claiming that God was noninterventionist would be the one making the stronger claim.)
BS and others are "agnostic atheists," surely, you've at least read them defending that position?
I'm a weak theist. I concede the possibility that God exists; I don't believe the existence of God has been disproven with the absolute certainty of logical deduction. But it'd be misleading to call me an agnostic theist, because I do think that I know God does not exist. The three components of knowledge are (a) justified (b) true (c) belief. I certainly believe God does not exist. Tautologically I think my belief is true (pace G.E. Moore). And I think my belief is justified, even though it is not absolutely certain. After all, not all justifications must be logically absolute. If they did, we would know nothing scientifically, since science runs on the ever-uncertain method of induction. And the justification for my belief in the nonexistence of God is similarly inductive.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
But, Highroller, c'mon now, I've been debating on these forums for years,
Yes, your trolling years are well within my memory. Don't act like you're a celebrity, pulling this "don't you know who I am?" crap, just answer the question.
You say you're an agnostic deist. By "deist," I assume you mean that you believe in the watchmaker deity that does not directly intervene in the world and whose only action is that he started existence. By "agnostic," it seems you are calling into question whether anyone can know about the existence of God.
This deity who does not interact with the world at all save at the initial start of it, and whom you have said that logic alone cannot prove.
But if logic cannot prove this God Equals First Cause concept, and you don't believe (by virtue of being a deist) that God interacts with the world outside of being the First Cause, and you're agnostic towards God's existence, then I repeat my question: How can you make a full out defense of God's existence?
I mean, isn't the "agnostic" part of "agnostic deism" the acknowledgement that you cannot make a full-fledged defense of your beliefs? If you can make a full-fledged defense of your beliefs, how are you agnostic? The whole point of being agnostic is that one has neither faith in nor the absence of faith in God!
Not letting others speak for them selves was the fatal flaw in my post, I agree. Yet, are you saying your disagree with the sentiment? That would surprise me. Don't we all favor our opinion over others? It's that what makes it "our opinion?"
But, I've interrupted your ragging on me.* Let's continue.
Aimed squarely at the claim, "I guess the universe was created for a reason." You are as justified in saying that as in saying you guess zebra mussels speak Middle English.
I would agree with this only in the sense it is as reasonable as saying "I guess the universe wasn't created for a reason." In that all three statements are based on nothing more than conjecture.
I'm guessing you'll now talk about the anthropomorphic quality of "reason" to show that "no reason" is more reasonable than "reason" when talking about a complete unknown?
Correct. (In this universe, anyway. If we were in a universe where miracles seemed to happen all the time, then the deist claiming that God was noninterventionist would be the one making the stronger claim.)
Not to disagree with someone agreeing with me, but to further clarify.
"Zebra mussels speak Middle English" has many hidden assumptions within it. I mean my "I guess the universe was created for a reason" to contain as many hidden assumptions as "I guess the universe wasn't created for a reason." Which--I hope we can both agree--is considerably less than "Zebra mussels speak Middle English."
"Jesus was the son of God" is more akin to "Zebra mussels speak Middle English" than any claim I'm making.
]I'm a weak theist. I concede the possibility that God exists; I don't believe the existence of God has been disproven with the absolute certainty of logical deduction. But it'd be misleading to call me an agnostic theist, because I do think that I know God does not exist. The three components of knowledge are (a) justified (b) true (c) belief. I certainly believe God does not exist. Tautologically I think my belief is true (pace G.E. Moore). And I think my belief is justified, even though it is not absolutely certain. After all, not all justifications must be logically absolute. If they did, we would know nothing scientifically, since science runs on the ever-uncertain method of induction. And the justification for my belief in the nonexistence of God is similarly inductive.
Umm... what? How does that disagree with what I said?
Highroller was essentially claiming no agnostic--of ANY flavor--could defend their position. I was pointing out you, as an agnostic atheist defend your agnostic atheist position. I didn't call you an agnostic theist, or a weak one for that matter. I called you what you are: an agnostic atheist. Highroller's statements didn't discriminate between kinds of agnostic: theist, atheist, or true.*meant as a joke.
Allowing for the possibility of God is absolutely insufficient as a proof for God's existence. Additionally, there is a physical explanation for an ex nihilo universe. Zero-energy universe. But, this isn't proven either, just allows for the possibility.
As I am not Stephen Hawking, I do not understand how the existence of Negative Gravitational Energy means that the universe was created from nothing naturally, nor do I understand how quantum fluctuations and vacuum energy could exist if the universe did not exist.
I too like the idea of God and like the idea that--while there might not be a clear purpose for my life--there is at least a reason for existence. However, logic doesn't lead us to the conclusion of a Primum Movens. The idea that causality leads to an unmoved mover is self-contradictory. If everything must have a cause, then so must 'God.' Thus, that God isn't God. If you give an ad hoc ability to God to claim God is the start of the causality chain, such arbitrary attribute could just as easy be given to the Universe. Logic doesn't lead us to a prime mover.
If matter cannot be created naturally from nothing and the universe is natural, then the universe can't be the prime mover. A supernatural being or force would have to have caused it. If matter can be created from nothing and I am wrong, please let me know. I am not a physics person.
Either a godlike being exists because of what I said (unless if I am wrong, which I admit is always possible on MTG Salvation) or we just don't understand the mysteries of the universe and this discussion is pointless.
(a) How godlike is "godlike" in your mind? You have made no argument that this first cause must, just to take for example one quality attributed to God, have a mind. If there were a first cause but it were mindless, would that still be a "godlike being" to you? Because if this is the route you take, then all you're basically saying is, "Whatever caused the universe, I'm just going to call it 'godlike'." Which is a pretty trivial claim; it tells us nothing about the qualities of the first cause. It's like saying, "Gremlins broke my car - and when I say that, I mean I have no idea what broke my car, but I'm just calling it 'gremlin-like' in the one respect that it's something that breaks cars."
By god-like, I meant supernatural.
(b) Anyone who claims we do understand the mysteries of the universe may safely be ignored. But if we didn't talk about what we don't understand, we'd never come any closer to understanding anything. And worse still, we may end up thinking we understand something quite wrongly, because no one else is serving as a reality check.
While I agree that what we don't understand should be talked about, what we can't understand we gain nothing from discussing.
I personally believe that there is one thing that is logical proof of god. The universe was created somehow. Yes, the Big Bang happened. But what happened before that? And if you say that another universe existed before that, but then what about that one? I personally don't believe in souls, an afterlife, or a god that cares at all about humans (though I really wish that I believed all of that), but I do know that matter cannot be generated from nothingness naturally and that the concept of nothingness cannot even exist in the natural world. So either the mysteries of the universe are beyond human understanding, which is completely possible, or a supernatural force or being created the universe.
How do you go from-
"The universe was created somehow."
"We don't know what caused the Big Bang or whether something existed before the Big Bang"
"We may never know"
To
"All the above therefore provides a logical proof of a God-like being"
?
I don't. My argument is that either a supernatural being/force exists or this is all outside of human understanding so this discussion is pointless.
I don't. My argument is that either a supernatural being/force exists or this is all outside of human understanding so this discussion is pointless.
Quote from Valanarch »
I personally believe that there is one thing that is logical proof of god.
Dude. Don't even try. Just own up to your mistake if it is a mistake on your part to have written this, or explain how you reach that logical conclusion.
I don't. My argument is that either a supernatural being/force exists or this is all outside of human understanding so this discussion is pointless.
Quote from Valanarch »
I personally believe that there is one thing that is logical proof of god.
Dude. Don't even try. Just own up to your mistake if it is a mistake on your part to have written this, or explain how you reach that logical conclusion.
I'll admit that I shouldn't have written that second quote, especially since I contradicted it within that same post.
Don't you feel so much better if you just accept mistakes and move on?
I do.
I wish more people did that. The world would be such a nicer place.
Now, onto more substantial things-
While I agree that what we don't understand should be talked about, what we can't understand we gain nothing from discussing.
This also doesn't make much sense. By that line of logic, we shouldn't have attempted to talk about diseases in the first place. Or anything really.
Also, how exactly do we know that we don't understand something? The entire premise of science is "to the best of our knowledge, this is probably how this certain thing works". People either forget the "to the best of our knowledge" part or REALLY over-emphasize it, but the fact remains that virtually all scientific pursuits are not iron-clad absolutes.
Therefore, if we applied your thinking as in the quote, then we wouldn't have gained anything from attempting to understand physics or medicine. Yet our modern world says otherwise.
I didn't flush out your specific beliefs in my post because it wasn't my place. I also know your reasons--BS--are likely more iron clad than Elvish Crack Pipers's.
You guess, anyway.
I honestly don't know what you were thinking saying that. Have you forgotten my posting history? I'm hardly terrible at this.
Quote from BS »
Hey, don't rag on ECP. Let him speak for himself.
Thank you. I might not have your fancy book learnin' but I've picked up a scrape or two scrappin wit some unsavory types in the existentialism mines
(I wonder after 9 years he doesn't at least know the gist of it. When it comes to religion, as near as I can tell, what, when or how either of us would talk about a given religious issue comes down more to stylistic differences (outside of personal history things) than some massive difference of opinion.
Quote from BS »
I'm a weak theist. I concede the possibility that God exists; I don't believe the existence of God has been disproven with the absolute certainty of logical deduction. But it'd be misleading to call me an agnostic theist, because I do think that I know God does not exist. The three components of knowledge are (a) justified (b) true (c) belief. I certainly believe God does not exist. Tautologically I think my belief is true (pace G.E. Moore). And I think my belief is justified, even though it is not absolutely certain. After all, not all justifications must be logically absolute. If they did, we would know nothing scientifically, since science runs on the ever-uncertain method of induction. And the justification for my belief in the nonexistence of God is similarly inductive.
That's how I've generally described my agnostic atheism and I've seen it described as such in a number of places. Then again, I've been under the impression that Strong/Hard/Positive/Gnostic atheism vs Weak/Soft/Negative/Agnostic atheism all being basically synonyms, outside of definitions specific to a particular academic or paper, with the big difference being "whether they think it can be proven 100 or whatever" as being the deciding factor in term. The popularity of the any given term rising and falling in the 15+ years I've been looking into this stuff.
Reminds me a bit of when Dawkins described himself as a 6.999 or whatever on his 7 point scale and some people lost their minds. Weak isn't the best word for it. If not for using the term agnostic atheist to open up conversation pathways, I'd go with soft atheism from a PR perspective (1. It doesn't use the existing word Agnostic, so it avoids confusion and, 2. Both Negative and Weak have, well, negative connotations that soft doesn't have, therefore, soft should win!)
Although, now that I think about it I'd rather just drop the precursor word for weak/etc atheists in conversational english since its the majority group
...okay, then what do you mean by "supernatural"? Again, you've so far ascribed to it only one property, which you've decided apparently arbitrarily that "natural" things cannot have: it is uncaused. If "supernatural" just means "uncaused", how do we know the universe itself isn't "supernatural"?
My argument is that either a supernatural being/force exists or this is all outside of human understanding so this discussion is pointless.
"Being" is a loaded term, and by sneaking it into your assertion you're begging the question.
In the 19th Century, based on irregularities in the orbit of Uranus, astronomers inferred the gravitational influence of another body, which of course would eventually be discovered as the planet Neptune. Wouldn't it have sounded odd for these astronomers searching for the new body to have referred to it as "a trans-Uranic force or being"? "Being" implies that they expect it might be sapient. But of course, they didn't expect that; they had absolutely no reason to. And we have equally little reason to believe the cause of the universe might be sentient - less, even. So inserting "being" into your conjectures on an equal footing with "force" is wildly premature. (Heck, "force" is a misleading term too.)
That's how I've generally described my agnostic atheism and I've seen it described as such in a number of places. Then again, I've been under the impression that Strong/Hard/Positive/Gnostic atheism vs Weak/Soft/Negative/Agnostic atheism all being basically synonyms, outside of definitions specific to a particular academic or paper, with the big difference being "whether they think it can be proven 100 or whatever" as being the deciding factor in term. The popularity of the any given term rising and falling in the 15+ years I've been looking into this stuff.
It all comes down to the fact that "agnostic" can mean just about anything these days. Hell, I call myself "agnostic" when I sense an argument and I'm not in the mood for it. It's just a convenient handwave.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Highroller was essentially claiming no agnostic--of ANY flavor--could defend their position.
No, I was claiming that an agnostic deist cannot defend his position.
An agnostic does not believe in or disbelieve in God. So how can you have agnostic theism? That's a direct contradiction.
Agnosticism is about whether you believe knowledge is obtainable or not. Agnostic deist would simply mean that while you believe is deism, you do not believe that absolute knowledge on the truth of deism is possible.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
Hmmm I agree with Highroller and I think he raises an interesting point.
Quote from Rodyle »
Agnosticism is about whether you believe knowledge is obtainable or not. Agnostic deist would simply mean that while you believe is deism, you do not believe that absolute knowledge on the truth of deism is possible.
Yes, the problem though is that he's favoring deism to another religious view, now I'm not asking him to justify deism. My problem personally with Taylor is that he throws around the "agnostic" in his proclaimed Agnostic-Deist as a cop-out whenever his "deism" is questioned. In other words, I don't believe that he's actually an agnostic-deist, he's a deist who put agnostic in front of his religious view so he can just resort to a "well you can't know absolutely that my view is wrong".
Okay, fine. But then we can't have absolute knowledge that any other god(s), religion, or any other thing for which we don't have first hand experience in witnessing with absolute knowledge either. In, fact we can't really have absolute knowledge about anything by this standard (after all, I can't be certain with absolute knowledge that we don't all exist in this reality vs. some other reality). In other words, the problem isn't the argument(s) - but the standard by which agnosticism proclaims we must have for knowledge.
Back to Taylor, why does he favor deism as opposed to another view? Well, I'm going to guess that it's probably like other religious views, it comes down to faith. Taylor has faith that his deist views are correct and other views are incorrect.
That's why I agree with Highroller, Taylor is an agnostic toward every other view regarding god - except his own deist god, which he has faith in. This isn't any different than any other religious person out there. Christians don't have absolute knowledge that their god exists either and quite a few will tell you that it comes down to their faith that their god exists and I don't think we should start calling them agnostic-Christians because it's inaccurate.
Agnosticism is about whether you believe knowledge is obtainable or not. Agnostic deist would simply mean that while you believe is deism, you do not believe that absolute knowledge on the truth of deism is possible.
Ok. I have my definitions wrong on agnosticism.
But that still contradicts deism. Fundamental to deism is that one understands God through logic and observation of the world and natural law. How can one hold this belief and still be agnostic? That makes no sense.
One can be an uncertain deist, but that's totally different from being an agnostic deist. If one does not believe that knowledge of God is possible, then one cannot be deist.
In fact, Taylor also states that logic alone cannot determine God, which is a rejection of a major element of deism.
Agnosticism is about whether you believe knowledge is obtainable or not. Agnostic deist would simply mean that while you believe is deism, you do not believe that absolute knowledge on the truth of deism is possible.
Yes, the problem though is that he's favoring deism to another religious view, now I'm not asking him to justify deism. My problem personally with Taylor is that he throws around the "agnostic" in his proclaimed Agnostic-Deist as a cop-out whenever his "deism" is questioned. In other words, I don't believe that he's actually an agnostic-deist, he's a deist who put agnostic in front of his religious view so he can just resort to a "well you can't know absolutely that my view is wrong".
Well, I don't believe he's a deist. If you don't believe God can be known, and don't believe God can be logically proven, you're not a deist.
But I do think he's married to labeling himself a "deist," for whatever reason, so he's saying he's an agnostic deist. Except that doesn't make sense. The whole point of deism is that God can be known and logically proven.
Yes, your trolling years are well within my memory. Don't act like you're a celebrity, pulling this "don't you know who I am?" crap, just answer the question.
This isn't about me being well known by many. This is about me being well known by YOU. I would say we have more than a passing knowledge of one another's beliefs and arguments. Also, while -years ago- I did occasionally attempt to use misdirection, implication, obfuscation and deflection, I still had a personal code: I didn't lie. I can count on one hand the times on this forum I defended a position I didn't believe in. I assumed you had read enough of my posts already to know how I mount a "full-fledged defense" of those beliefs.
Incidentally, I'm doing it right now. I'm answering your question with a demonstration, since it seems about half the people posting here not only think my belief is WRONG, they think it's nonsensical.
Clarification -then- must be the first step, since it seems we are still talking past each other. I don't mean "agnostic" in the way that you seem to think I do. I can only assume I was using the term incorrectly. I meant it in the sense Elvish Crack Piper used it, as in "unsure."
You say you're an agnostic deist. By "deist," I assume you mean that you believe in the watchmaker deity that does not directly intervene in the world and whose only action is that he started existence. By "agnostic," it seems you are calling into question whether anyone can know about the existence of God.
This deity who does not interact with the world at all save at the initial start of it, and whom you have said that logic alone cannot prove.
But if logic cannot prove this God Equals First Cause concept, and you don't believe (by virtue of being a deist) that God interacts with the world outside of being the First Cause, and you're agnostic towards God's existence, then I repeat my question: How can you make a full out defense of God's existence?
I mean, isn't the "agnostic" part of "agnostic deism" the acknowledgement that you cannot make a full-fledged defense of your beliefs? If you can make a full-fledged defense of your beliefs, how are you agnostic? The whole point of being agnostic is that one has neither faith in nor the absence of faith in God!
Had to read that a few times.
You are correct, I wouldn't defend knowing a watchmaker God exists.
I would defend the idea one can't (currently) know if a watchmaker God exists. But, in saying that, I would also claim it is REASONABLE to believe in a watchmaker God (which might have its own 'first cause.' I want to be clear I'm not necessarily advocating a belief in an uncaused cause). Further, I would claim it is as reasonable to believe in this watchmaker God as it is to believe there isn't one.
No, I was claiming that an agnostic deist cannot defend his position.
Alright. I misunderstood what you meant in post #51 then. I thought you were saying no agnostic could defend his/her position without voiding their agnosticism.
Also, while we're here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism
If matter can be created from nothing and I am wrong, please let me know. I am not a physics person.
Particles can be spontaneously created as long as an equivalent amount of "negative" particles are also created. Interesting enough, working with this principal is what Steven Hawking's first big breakthrough was about. Hawking radiation contain the positive energy part while the negative energy is given to the black hole, causing it to shrink. (blows my mind too sometimes)
I honestly don't know what you were thinking saying that. Have you forgotten my posting history? I'm hardly terrible at this.
Terrible? No, no, no, you misunderstand. I would put myself in the "less iron clad then BS" camp as well. Why do you think my goal is just to tie BS? BS's atheistic argument -to me- represents an upper limit on "iron clad."
Pretty much all I've learned about such arguments I've learned here; BS being the one who -far and away- taught me the most, both from arguing with him and from reading his posts independently. I am sure he'll cringe a little reading this, but I consider him to essentially be my mentor when I comes to this kinda thing. But, I also envy BS's knowledge in this matter, and envy isn't an emotion I've ever done well with.
Yet, as fair as I know, you've never really had a real argument with him about this, since -despite your differences- you two are closer in mindset than I am to him.
That is why I was both excited and dreading this confrontation. Debating BS on this point has always been my ultimate test of my beliefs. But, it seems his typo made him not respond to my other points. :/
It all comes down to the fact that "agnostic" can mean just about anything these days. Hell, I call myself "agnostic" when I sense an argument and I'm not in the mood for it. It's just a convenient handwave.
Well, it seems you used the handwave enough to have confused me. I thought you considered yourself an agnostic atheist, and thought that was equivalent to being a weak atheist. I would've completely agreed with what Elvish Crack Piper wrote... now I just feel confused and lost... and I was psyching myself up to go after my white whale one more time (I think this would be the first time I'd have done it will on the medication). But, a mutual definition of "agnostic" was kinda pivotal to any argument I was planning on making. I always assumed my definition was derived from yours, and that little chart you made all those years ago....
If one does not believe that knowledge of God is possible, then one cannot be deist.
In fact, Taylor also states that logic alone cannot determine God, which is a rejection of deism.
O ye of little faith.
Seriously though, the point of my belief is that I believe it because logic and experience fails in this instant and -therefore- I feel justified using personal preference instead.
Also, while -years ago- I did occasionally attempt to use misdirection, implication, obfuscation and deflection, I still had a personal code: I didn't lie.
I can count on one hand the times on this forum I defended a position I didn't believe in.
uh...that also seems contradictory.
Quote from Taylor »
I assumed you had read enough of my posts already to know how I mount a "full-fledged defense" of those beliefs.
I'm not really sure, I haven't paid that much attention to your posts, mainly because I haven't really felt like debating in the religion forum and you like to hang out here for the most part. That's not to say I haven't read anything of yours either. I think I have an vague idea, but I think it's better if you explain yourself rather than me making assumptions on my own, about what it is that you think and if I do make assumptions that are wrong, feel free to correct me.
Quote from Taylor »
Incidentally, I'm doing it right now. I'm answering your question with a demonstration, since it seems about half the people posting here not only think my belief is WRONG, they think it's nonsensical.
I'm going to assume that you mean you're arguing logic/reasoning and not trying to "occasionally attempt to use misdirection, implication, obfuscation and deflection". Because giving an answer via a demonstration does not seems to be doing any of those things because you're actually trying to lead to a point, which presumably is relevant.
I'm not sure if you're nonsensical yet. I don't think you've adequately explained yourself well enough for me to make that judgment. For all intents and purposes, you appear rational enough to engage with intellectual rational discourse.
Quote from Taylor »
Clarification -then- must be the first step, since it seems we are still talking past each other. I don't mean "agnostic" in the way that you seem to think I do. I can only assume I was using the term incorrectly. I meant it in the sense Elvish Crack Piper used it, as in "unsure."
Okay, lets go with that. I'm probably not being clear myself, so I'll try to make my position clearer as well.
That said, again let's go with that definition. It's your definition and I have no disagreement with that.
Moving past that…
Your posts also seem to indicate that you are a theist. That is to say that you have faith that there is some type of deity out there.
If that is correct, then you are an agnostic-theist, that is to say one who believes that the nature of god, god’s existence, etc. is unknowable. I have some philosophical disagreements with this stance, but we’ll deal with those later, because it’s not important for my point here.
Anyway, you don’t call yourself an agnostic-theist, you specifically call yourself an agnostic-Deist. You make it clear that this if God exists, god must be “X”, X being whatever you define deism as, in relation to your theistic view.
That’s where my objection comes in. Agnosticism doesn’t favor one religious view over others, one god over others. All of those claims are equal in terms of knowledge in the agnostic view point. By attaching –“deist” you are favoring one specific claim over all others and thus you can’t be agnostic by definition.
My next point is that you say that you specifically defined agnosticism as unsure, as in you are unsure about your own views.
In other words. You have doubts about your beliefs. I’m going to guess these doubts don’t lead you to disbelief which seems obvious since you call yourself a “–deist”. But how is that any different from a Christian, Hindu, Muslim, etc. that has doubts about their religious views? I don’t really see how having doubts about your faith makes you any different.
Instead, I would say you are a weak-deist based on the above.
Now going back to my other problem with your agnosticism…
But my other objection comes in the way you have argued in the past. Whenever, your theistic view is called into question, you resort to a full on agnostic-view points. You switch back and forth when it’s convenient.
From what I’ve seen of your posts, you seem think this is some kind of logical/reasonable foolproof position. When challenged on your theistic views, you think you can just say ‘Well you can’t know for sure because it’s unknowable’.
You are a deist, you have deist views and you have faith in your deist god. Your faith is not any different from any other faith. You’ll promote your deist-views, but once questioned you go back to being an agnostic.
That’s my other objection. You can’t say on one hand that you’re a deist and then once questioned, pop out the other hand with the ‘god is unknowable’ agnostic arguments.
If god is unknowable, why are you assigning attributes to the nature of god? Secondly, this type of reasoning is not productive. If god is unknowable, then ALL arguments including your deist views are gone. Also if god is unknowable, then what's the point in having any type of discourse about it? By making this argument, you've killed ALL argumentation.
Quote from Taylor »
Had to read that a few times.
You are correct, I wouldn't defend knowing a watchmaker God exists.
What is knowledge? What is the standard we should have for knowledge?
Quote from Taylor »
I would defend the idea one can't (currently) know if a watchmaker God exists. But, in saying that, I would also claim it is REASONABLE to believe in a watchmaker God (which might have its own 'first cause.' I want to be clear I'm not necessarily advocating a belief in an uncaused cause).
Why is it reasonable to believe in a watchmaker god?
Quote from Taylor »
Further, I would claim it is as reasonable to believe in this watchmaker God as it is to believe there isn't one.
Why? What is the default position? Who has the burden of proof?
Quote from Taylor »
Alright. I misunderstood what you meant in post #51 then. I thought you were saying no agnostic could defend his/her position without voiding their agnosticism.
Also, while we're here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism
I don’t think anyone objects to that. At least I don't.
Quote from Taylor »
That is why I was both excited and dreading this confrontation. Debating BS on this point has always been my ultimate test of my beliefs. But, it seems his typo made him not respond to my other points. :/
You mean it’s the ultimate test of your faith. I say faith because unless you have some type of evidence that tilts knowledge toward your deist views, I don’t see how it’s merely belief. After all, one can believe all sorts of things that don’t require faith, (I believe that I exist, that I have a mind, a brain, blood, etc.). What you have is faith. You have no evidence of your god, but you believe your god exists, nonetheless. That’s why you try to understand the nature of this god, that’s why I imagine that you call yourself a –deist.
Not based on the definition you linked to, I think you meant to link to "lie" not "lying." I do understand sometimes people do included those things I mentioned as a lie, but I don't. Neither -does it seem- does your website reference. When I use the term "lie" I mean "an inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood." As in, I attempt -very hard- to not say anything I know to be false.
I'm not sure if you're nonsensical yet. I don't think you've adequately explained yourself well enough for me to make that judgment. For all intents and purposes, you appear rational enough to engage with intellectual rational discourse.
Thanks for the benefit of the doubt here at the begining, but it's likely going to be a long road regardless.
That’s where my objection comes in. Agnosticism doesn’t favor one religious view over others, one god over others. All of those claims are equal in terms of knowledge in the agnostic view point. By attaching –“deist” you are favoring one specific claim over all others and thus you can’t be agnostic by definition.
I was with you up until about this part. To me "deism" is the base theistic claim. As in, it contains the one claim necessarily to be a theist: the universe was created for a reason.
I would be perfectly happy being labeled an "agnostic-theist," based on how you seem to define that term, I would say that definition you use is how I think of myself. I use "agnostic deism" myself because I find it more descriptive. The deist God is bare-bones when it comes to assumptions, a simple negation of the base atheistic claim. At least, again, how I define it. I understand "deism" has meant many things in its history.
From what I’ve seen of your posts, you seem think this is some kind of logical/reasonable foolproof position. When challenged on your theistic views, you think you can just say ‘Well you can’t know for sure because it’s unknowable’.
You are a deist, you have deist views and you have faith in your deist god. Your faith is not any different from any other faith. You’ll promote your deist-views, but once questioned you go back to being an agnostic.
Umm... where are you getting me doing this? Do you have an example of me defending straight-up deism? I know I rarely claim to know anything. And, I certainty don't remember claiming I know a deist god exited, or that one could know there was one. Pretty sure I've only ever claimed you can't know such things... But, I've been wrong before; where is the quote where I did what you claimed I did? Maybe I can clarify what I meant.
Why is it reasonable to believe in a watchmaker god?
Because when logic fails it's customary to use personal preference. If you can't even make an educated guess, but still would like a position, you are free to pick one based on feelings. I assume that's how people end up rooting for sports teams, despite not knowing who will win.
If we can't know if there can or can't be a watchmaker God, but still would like to have an opinion, it is reasonable to use personal taste as the decider.
This isn't about me being well known by many. This is about me being well known by YOU. I would say we have more than a passing knowledge of one another's beliefs and arguments.
I don't care enough about you to bother keeping track of your arguments, Taylor, and the fact that you would actually expect me to hang on to your words, and that you would come into a debate forum and say, "Don't you know who I am?" is very conceited.
Flame infraction. - Blinking Spirit
Incidentally, I'm doing it right now. I'm answering your question with a demonstration,
You haven't answered anything. You just posted a long ramble about yourself. Incidentally, not the first time you've done this.
since it seems about half the people posting here not only think my belief is WRONG, they think it's nonsensical.
It IS nonsensical.
I meant it in the sense Elvish Crack Piper used it, as in "unsure."
No, agnostic means something very different from unsure.
And incidentally, if you are an uncertain deist, doesn't my question still stand? My question being how can you launch into a full-fledged defense on a belief you yourself are uncertain towards?
You are correct, I wouldn't defend knowing a watchmaker God exists.
I would defend the idea one can't (currently) know if a watchmaker God exists.
Then you are not deist. That's the core of deism.
But, in saying that, I would also claim it is REASONABLE to believe in a watchmaker God (which might have its own 'first cause.'
You said that logic cannot cause one to arrive at a Watchmaker Deity.
So what, then, is your basis for the claim that it is reasonable to believe in deism?
I want to be clear I'm not necessarily advocating a belief in an uncaused cause).
Well that's interesting, considering it's a major point of deism.
Further, I would claim it is as reasonable to believe in this watchmaker God as it is to believe there isn't one.
If it's equally reasonable to believe there is something as it is to believe that there isn't, then it is NOT reasonable to advocate one over the other.
So basically what you're claiming is it isn't reasonable to be a deist. So in what way are you a deist, as opposed to someone who's just really attached to calling himself a deist for some reason despite not actually holding any of the beliefs of deism?
What, because there's a Wikipedia article that's supposed to lend it credibility? There's an article about Christian atheists! And agnostic deism is arguably even more contradictory than that!
O ye of little faith.
Seriously though, the point of my belief is that I believe it because logic and experience fails in this instant and -therefore- I feel justified using personal preference instead.
Which is a rejection of deism!
Deism is the belief that God is knowable, that God can be proven, that divine truth can be arrived at through reason and logic.
If you believe none of those things, you are not deist. If you are agnostic, which is the belief that divine truth is unknowable and can never be proven, then you are not deist.
Scientists/Non-believers cannot prove that God doesn't exist in a manner that would appease religious types, likewise religious people have yet to convince the scientific community at large that God is real. There are arguments both ways to counter arguments from both sides, no matter where you standpoint.
So this is where we are at (nothing new) and are likely to stay.
...and the last 3 pages have said nothing to challenge that.
I was using the term incorrectly. I meant it in the sense Elvish Crack Piper used it, as in "unsure."
It doesn't mean "unsure" in the context of agnostic atheism where its synonymous with the other forms of atheism weak/negative/etc. The agnostic atheist is unsure about god in the same way that we are, technically, unsure about Brahman. It is a possibility, however unlikely, but some formulations of an idea are, by their nature or by design, unable to be conclusively disproven even as no evidence actually points in their favor and what little is said to point in their favor is generally a lack of knowledge in a subject and not any sort of positive evidence.
Quote from Taylor »
Terrible? No, no, no, you misunderstand. I would put myself in the "less iron clad then BS" camp as well. Why do you think my goal is just to tie BS? BS's atheistic argument -to me- represents an upper limit on "iron clad."
Pretty much all I've learned about such arguments I've learned here; BS being the one who -far and away- taught me the most, both from arguing with him and from reading his posts independently. I am sure he'll cringe a little reading this, but I consider him to essentially be my mentor when I comes to this kinda thing. But, I also envy BS's knowledge in this matter, and envy isn't an emotion I've ever done well with.
Yet, as fair as I know, you've never really had a real argument with him about this, since -despite your differences- you two are closer in mindset than I am to him.
That is why I was both excited and dreading this confrontation. Debating BS on this point has always been my ultimate test of my beliefs. But, it seems his typo made him not respond to my other points. :/
Any weak atheism argument boils down to "we don't have any good reasons to believe in a god" and the rest is just stamping out positive theistic arguments if the need arises. Any sort of positive argument that relate to a religion, as a whole, fall more properly under strong atheism which tries to actually disprove god, or gods, in some fashion. In this way, BS's ability to make an ironclad argument is good, but it is not the same kind of game ender that it is when making the positive case since there are always more stupid arguments for the existence of god to stamp down, but it only takes one really good argument for something that people can then fail to assail. Feasibly, the argument for atheism ends up being the paucity of arguments for any given religion, not so much against the idea of a god in general (since it can always be formulated as one step past our level of understanding), but against the religions that actual make claims and, you know, matter outside of scholarly debate. You believe that its equally justifiable to believe or disbelieve in this watchmaker god (is this any different from Spinozas god?) and I think this is pretty flawed.
Invoking that kind of god is a function of our ultimate ignorance about the origin of reality and cannot be disproven simply because, by its very nature, it gets pushed outside of where we could try anything. To then say that it is just as justfiable to believe or disbelieve in this seems to be quite the strong claim.
What differences are you thinking of anyway? Between BS and I?
Quote from Taylor »
You are correct, I wouldn't defend knowing a watchmaker God exists.
I would defend the idea one can't (currently) know if a watchmaker God exists.
Knowing in the 100% deductive sense? Because if thats all you're really going for then thats functionally equal to weak atheism.
Then again, I'm pretty sure I said the same thing like 3 years ago. If someone doesn't worship a god, does not believe in any of the world religions, and the only supernatural thing they don't explicitly disbelieve in is the kind of unknowable, untestable, non interventionist precursor god of deism than for all intents and purposes they are an atheist.
Then again, I'm pretty sure I said the same thing like 3 years ago. If someone doesn't worship a god, does not believe in any of the world religions, and the only supernatural thing they don't explicitly disbelieve in is the kind of unknowable, untestable, non interventionist precursor god of deism than for all intents and purposes they are an atheist.
Except is not atheism explicit disbelief in deities?
Not based on the definition you linked to, I think you meant to link to "lie" not "lying."
This makes no sense. In order to be lying, you have to be telling a lie.
Quote from Taylor »
I do understand sometimes people do included those things I mentioned as a lie, but I don't. Neither -does it seem- does your website reference. When I use the term "lie" I mean "an inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood." As in, I attempt -very hard- to not say anything I know to be false.
If you are using misdirection, implication, obfuscation and deflection, and know that you are doing so, then you aren't being truthful. You are presenting something you know is a falsehood. It would be like if someone stole the money out of your wallet and then when questioned about it they go, "I don't know what happened to the money" and then reason that they didn't lie, they only used misdirection. What you’re saying makes no sense to me.
Quote from Taylor »
I do have ~12k post on this forum. I would be lying if I claimed I never lied, and -as I said above- that's something I try very hard to avoid doing.
So… you lied?
Quote from Taylor »
I still had a personal code: I didn't lie.
Quote from Taylor »
I wasn't talking to you anyway. You're not the "you" in my sentence, Highroller is.
If the question was only meant for Highroller, perhaps this conversation would have been better off in a private message then, yes? As it is, you’ve posted this in a public forum and as such it seems to me that the arguments you present here are up for examination by the forum’s users.
Quote from "Taylor” »
I was with you up until about this part. To me "deism" is the base theistic claim. As in, it contains the one claim necessarily to be a theist: the universe was created for a reason.
Please explain more. What claim is necessary? Why is it basic? Why do you think the universe was created? Why do you think there was a reason?
Quote from Taylor »
I would be perfectly happy being labeled an "agnostic-theist," based on how you seem to define that term, I would say that definition you use is how I think of myself. I use "agnostic deism" myself because I find it more descriptive.
From what you are describing, it’s not more descriptive, it’s just really confusing. So I think you need to make yourself clearer. What does deism mean? Why do you lean toward the “theist” side?
Quote from Taylor »
The deist God is bare-bones when it comes to assumptions, a simple negation of the base atheistic claim. At least, again, how I define it.
What is the nature of your deist God? Why do you consider this bare-bones?
Quote from Taylor »
I understand "deism" has meant many things in its history.
Then you’ll understand why people get confused when you use a religious term that has a specific type of belief system in place interchangeably with whatever it is that you seem to be describing. So I think you have some explaining to do to clear that up.
Quote from Taylor »
Umm... where are you getting me doing this? Do you have an example of me defending straight-up deism? I know I rarely claim to know anything. And, I certainty don't remember claiming I know a deist god exited, or that one could know there was one. Pretty sure I've only ever claimed you can't know such things... But, I've been wrong before; where is the quote where I did what you claimed I did? Maybe I can clarify what I meant.
Which god are you defending when you say you can’t know such things? How do you know we can’t know such things?
If this is how you want to define knowledge as well as the standard for knowledge, then you’ve already give up on your position of agnosticism.
Quote from Taylor »
Because when logic fails it's customary to use personal preference. If you can't even make an educated guess, but still would like a position, you are free to pick one based on feelings. I assume that's how people end up rooting for sports teams, despite not knowing who will win.
That’s assuming that logic does fail. There are lots of philosophers that believe that a God fails to pass the logic test. One argument is that the whole concept of a God incoherent at best, there are also plenty of other philosophical arguments based on the variables that people have assigned to God based on whatever variables religions have set out – Omni-benevolence for example, suffers from the problem of evil.
Quote from Taylor »
If we can't know if there can or can't be a watchmaker God, but still would like to have an opinion, it is reasonable to use personal taste as the decider.
We can’t know anything with absolute knowledge. We can’t know with absolute knowledge if O.J. Simpson murdered his wife and Ron Goldman, We can’t know with absolute knowledge that you actually exist and aren’t a computer program, we can’t know with absolute knowledge that gravity exists, etc.
So if you want to reason like that, that says some bad things about concept of knowledge, in which case I have to conclude the problem isn’t the arguments, it’s your standard for what constitutes as knowledge.
Quote from Taylor »
Belief and faith are synonyms, so use whichever one floats your boat.
They can be based on the context in which they are used otherwise faith is a term that’s pretty easily equivocated. Faith is pretty specific toward a belief in something without evidence, usually god(s). However, you can believe something based on evidence. So I would say, that they aren’t actually synonyms in the context of our conversation.
Then again, I'm pretty sure I said the same thing like 3 years ago. If someone doesn't worship a god, does not believe in any of the world religions, and the only supernatural thing they don't explicitly disbelieve in is the kind of unknowable, untestable, non interventionist precursor god of deism than for all intents and purposes they are an atheist.
Except is not atheism explicit disbelief in deities?
necessarily? No. And he does explicitly disbelieve in everything but an extremely loose idea of a watchmaker god that he won't defend the existence of. Also, for all intents and purposes is an important part of my statement
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You can trust me, I work for the government
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Aimed squarely at the claim, "I guess the universe was created for a reason." You are as justified in saying that as in saying you guess zebra mussels speak Middle English.
Correct. (In this universe, anyway. If we were in a universe where miracles seemed to happen all the time, then the deist claiming that God was noninterventionist would be the one making the stronger claim.)
Yo.
Well, it's not the work most directly relevant to this topic, but I'm certainly all for you broadening your philosophical horizons.
I'm a weak theist. I concede the possibility that God exists; I don't believe the existence of God has been disproven with the absolute certainty of logical deduction. But it'd be misleading to call me an agnostic theist, because I do think that I know God does not exist. The three components of knowledge are (a) justified (b) true (c) belief. I certainly believe God does not exist. Tautologically I think my belief is true (pace G.E. Moore). And I think my belief is justified, even though it is not absolutely certain. After all, not all justifications must be logically absolute. If they did, we would know nothing scientifically, since science runs on the ever-uncertain method of induction. And the justification for my belief in the nonexistence of God is similarly inductive.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
You say you're an agnostic deist. By "deist," I assume you mean that you believe in the watchmaker deity that does not directly intervene in the world and whose only action is that he started existence. By "agnostic," it seems you are calling into question whether anyone can know about the existence of God.
This deity who does not interact with the world at all save at the initial start of it, and whom you have said that logic alone cannot prove.
But if logic cannot prove this God Equals First Cause concept, and you don't believe (by virtue of being a deist) that God interacts with the world outside of being the First Cause, and you're agnostic towards God's existence, then I repeat my question: How can you make a full out defense of God's existence?
I mean, isn't the "agnostic" part of "agnostic deism" the acknowledgement that you cannot make a full-fledged defense of your beliefs? If you can make a full-fledged defense of your beliefs, how are you agnostic? The whole point of being agnostic is that one has neither faith in nor the absence of faith in God!
My mind was blown until I read the rest of this paragraph. I think you meant "weak atheist," right?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
But, I've interrupted your ragging on me.* Let's continue.
I would agree with this only in the sense it is as reasonable as saying "I guess the universe wasn't created for a reason." In that all three statements are based on nothing more than conjecture.
I'm guessing you'll now talk about the anthropomorphic quality of "reason" to show that "no reason" is more reasonable than "reason" when talking about a complete unknown?
Not to disagree with someone agreeing with me, but to further clarify.
"Zebra mussels speak Middle English" has many hidden assumptions within it. I mean my "I guess the universe was created for a reason" to contain as many hidden assumptions as "I guess the universe wasn't created for a reason." Which--I hope we can both agree--is considerably less than "Zebra mussels speak Middle English."
"Jesus was the son of God" is more akin to "Zebra mussels speak Middle English" than any claim I'm making.
Umm... what? How does that disagree with what I said?
Highroller was essentially claiming no agnostic--of ANY flavor--could defend their position. I was pointing out you, as an agnostic atheist defend your agnostic atheist position. I didn't call you an agnostic theist, or a weak one for that matter. I called you what you are: an agnostic atheist. Highroller's statements didn't discriminate between kinds of agnostic: theist, atheist, or true.
*meant as a joke.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
An agnostic does not believe in or disbelieve in God. So how can you have agnostic theism? That's a direct contradiction.
As I am not Stephen Hawking, I do not understand how the existence of Negative Gravitational Energy means that the universe was created from nothing naturally, nor do I understand how quantum fluctuations and vacuum energy could exist if the universe did not exist.
If matter cannot be created naturally from nothing and the universe is natural, then the universe can't be the prime mover. A supernatural being or force would have to have caused it. If matter can be created from nothing and I am wrong, please let me know. I am not a physics person.
By god-like, I meant supernatural.
While I agree that what we don't understand should be talked about, what we can't understand we gain nothing from discussing.
I don't. My argument is that either a supernatural being/force exists or this is all outside of human understanding so this discussion is pointless.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
Dude. Don't even try. Just own up to your mistake if it is a mistake on your part to have written this, or explain how you reach that logical conclusion.
I'll admit that I shouldn't have written that second quote, especially since I contradicted it within that same post.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
I do.
I wish more people did that. The world would be such a nicer place.
Now, onto more substantial things-
This also doesn't make much sense. By that line of logic, we shouldn't have attempted to talk about diseases in the first place. Or anything really.
Also, how exactly do we know that we don't understand something? The entire premise of science is "to the best of our knowledge, this is probably how this certain thing works". People either forget the "to the best of our knowledge" part or REALLY over-emphasize it, but the fact remains that virtually all scientific pursuits are not iron-clad absolutes.
Therefore, if we applied your thinking as in the quote, then we wouldn't have gained anything from attempting to understand physics or medicine. Yet our modern world says otherwise.
You guess, anyway.
I honestly don't know what you were thinking saying that. Have you forgotten my posting history? I'm hardly terrible at this.
Thank you. I might not have your fancy book learnin' but I've picked up a scrape or two scrappin wit some unsavory types in the existentialism mines
(I wonder after 9 years he doesn't at least know the gist of it. When it comes to religion, as near as I can tell, what, when or how either of us would talk about a given religious issue comes down more to stylistic differences (outside of personal history things) than some massive difference of opinion.
That's how I've generally described my agnostic atheism and I've seen it described as such in a number of places. Then again, I've been under the impression that Strong/Hard/Positive/Gnostic atheism vs Weak/Soft/Negative/Agnostic atheism all being basically synonyms, outside of definitions specific to a particular academic or paper, with the big difference being "whether they think it can be proven 100 or whatever" as being the deciding factor in term. The popularity of the any given term rising and falling in the 15+ years I've been looking into this stuff.
Reminds me a bit of when Dawkins described himself as a 6.999 or whatever on his 7 point scale and some people lost their minds. Weak isn't the best word for it. If not for using the term agnostic atheist to open up conversation pathways, I'd go with soft atheism from a PR perspective (1. It doesn't use the existing word Agnostic, so it avoids confusion and, 2. Both Negative and Weak have, well, negative connotations that soft doesn't have, therefore, soft should win!)
Although, now that I think about it I'd rather just drop the precursor word for weak/etc atheists in conversational english since its the majority group
"Being" is a loaded term, and by sneaking it into your assertion you're begging the question.
In the 19th Century, based on irregularities in the orbit of Uranus, astronomers inferred the gravitational influence of another body, which of course would eventually be discovered as the planet Neptune. Wouldn't it have sounded odd for these astronomers searching for the new body to have referred to it as "a trans-Uranic force or being"? "Being" implies that they expect it might be sapient. But of course, they didn't expect that; they had absolutely no reason to. And we have equally little reason to believe the cause of the universe might be sentient - less, even. So inserting "being" into your conjectures on an equal footing with "force" is wildly premature. (Heck, "force" is a misleading term too.)
It all comes down to the fact that "agnostic" can mean just about anything these days. Hell, I call myself "agnostic" when I sense an argument and I'm not in the mood for it. It's just a convenient handwave.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Agnosticism is about whether you believe knowledge is obtainable or not. Agnostic deist would simply mean that while you believe is deism, you do not believe that absolute knowledge on the truth of deism is possible.
Yes, the problem though is that he's favoring deism to another religious view, now I'm not asking him to justify deism. My problem personally with Taylor is that he throws around the "agnostic" in his proclaimed Agnostic-Deist as a cop-out whenever his "deism" is questioned. In other words, I don't believe that he's actually an agnostic-deist, he's a deist who put agnostic in front of his religious view so he can just resort to a "well you can't know absolutely that my view is wrong".
Okay, fine. But then we can't have absolute knowledge that any other god(s), religion, or any other thing for which we don't have first hand experience in witnessing with absolute knowledge either. In, fact we can't really have absolute knowledge about anything by this standard (after all, I can't be certain with absolute knowledge that we don't all exist in this reality vs. some other reality). In other words, the problem isn't the argument(s) - but the standard by which agnosticism proclaims we must have for knowledge.
Back to Taylor, why does he favor deism as opposed to another view? Well, I'm going to guess that it's probably like other religious views, it comes down to faith. Taylor has faith that his deist views are correct and other views are incorrect.
That's why I agree with Highroller, Taylor is an agnostic toward every other view regarding god - except his own deist god, which he has faith in. This isn't any different than any other religious person out there. Christians don't have absolute knowledge that their god exists either and quite a few will tell you that it comes down to their faith that their god exists and I don't think we should start calling them agnostic-Christians because it's inaccurate.
But that still contradicts deism. Fundamental to deism is that one understands God through logic and observation of the world and natural law. How can one hold this belief and still be agnostic? That makes no sense.
One can be an uncertain deist, but that's totally different from being an agnostic deist. If one does not believe that knowledge of God is possible, then one cannot be deist.
In fact, Taylor also states that logic alone cannot determine God, which is a rejection of a major element of deism.
Well, I don't believe he's a deist. If you don't believe God can be known, and don't believe God can be logically proven, you're not a deist.
But I do think he's married to labeling himself a "deist," for whatever reason, so he's saying he's an agnostic deist. Except that doesn't make sense. The whole point of deism is that God can be known and logically proven.
Incidentally, I'm doing it right now. I'm answering your question with a demonstration, since it seems about half the people posting here not only think my belief is WRONG, they think it's nonsensical.
Clarification -then- must be the first step, since it seems we are still talking past each other. I don't mean "agnostic" in the way that you seem to think I do. I can only assume I was using the term incorrectly. I meant it in the sense Elvish Crack Piper used it, as in "unsure."
Had to read that a few times.
You are correct, I wouldn't defend knowing a watchmaker God exists.
I would defend the idea one can't (currently) know if a watchmaker God exists. But, in saying that, I would also claim it is REASONABLE to believe in a watchmaker God (which might have its own 'first cause.' I want to be clear I'm not necessarily advocating a belief in an uncaused cause). Further, I would claim it is as reasonable to believe in this watchmaker God as it is to believe there isn't one. Alright. I misunderstood what you meant in post #51 then. I thought you were saying no agnostic could defend his/her position without voiding their agnosticism.
Also, while we're here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism
Particles can be spontaneously created as long as an equivalent amount of "negative" particles are also created. Interesting enough, working with this principal is what Steven Hawking's first big breakthrough was about. Hawking radiation contain the positive energy part while the negative energy is given to the black hole, causing it to shrink. (blows my mind too sometimes)
Terrible? No, no, no, you misunderstand. I would put myself in the "less iron clad then BS" camp as well. Why do you think my goal is just to tie BS? BS's atheistic argument -to me- represents an upper limit on "iron clad."
Pretty much all I've learned about such arguments I've learned here; BS being the one who -far and away- taught me the most, both from arguing with him and from reading his posts independently. I am sure he'll cringe a little reading this, but I consider him to essentially be my mentor when I comes to this kinda thing. But, I also envy BS's knowledge in this matter, and envy isn't an emotion I've ever done well with.
Yet, as fair as I know, you've never really had a real argument with him about this, since -despite your differences- you two are closer in mindset than I am to him.
That is why I was both excited and dreading this confrontation. Debating BS on this point has always been my ultimate test of my beliefs. But, it seems his typo made him not respond to my other points. :/
Well, it seems you used the handwave enough to have confused me. I thought you considered yourself an agnostic atheist, and thought that was equivalent to being a weak atheist. I would've completely agreed with what Elvish Crack Piper wrote... now I just feel confused and lost... and I was psyching myself up to go after my white whale one more time (I think this would be the first time I'd have done it will on the medication). But, a mutual definition of "agnostic" was kinda pivotal to any argument I was planning on making. I always assumed my definition was derived from yours, and that little chart you made all those years ago....
O ye of little faith.
Seriously though, the point of my belief is that I believe it because logic and experience fails in this instant and -therefore- I feel justified using personal preference instead.
Well that seems contradictory.
uh...that also seems contradictory.
I'm not really sure, I haven't paid that much attention to your posts, mainly because I haven't really felt like debating in the religion forum and you like to hang out here for the most part. That's not to say I haven't read anything of yours either. I think I have an vague idea, but I think it's better if you explain yourself rather than me making assumptions on my own, about what it is that you think and if I do make assumptions that are wrong, feel free to correct me.
I'm going to assume that you mean you're arguing logic/reasoning and not trying to "occasionally attempt to use misdirection, implication, obfuscation and deflection". Because giving an answer via a demonstration does not seems to be doing any of those things because you're actually trying to lead to a point, which presumably is relevant.
I'm not sure if you're nonsensical yet. I don't think you've adequately explained yourself well enough for me to make that judgment. For all intents and purposes, you appear rational enough to engage with intellectual rational discourse.
Okay, lets go with that. I'm probably not being clear myself, so I'll try to make my position clearer as well.
That said, again let's go with that definition. It's your definition and I have no disagreement with that.
Moving past that…
Your posts also seem to indicate that you are a theist. That is to say that you have faith that there is some type of deity out there.
If that is correct, then you are an agnostic-theist, that is to say one who believes that the nature of god, god’s existence, etc. is unknowable. I have some philosophical disagreements with this stance, but we’ll deal with those later, because it’s not important for my point here.
Anyway, you don’t call yourself an agnostic-theist, you specifically call yourself an agnostic-Deist. You make it clear that this if God exists, god must be “X”, X being whatever you define deism as, in relation to your theistic view.
That’s where my objection comes in. Agnosticism doesn’t favor one religious view over others, one god over others. All of those claims are equal in terms of knowledge in the agnostic view point. By attaching –“deist” you are favoring one specific claim over all others and thus you can’t be agnostic by definition.
My next point is that you say that you specifically defined agnosticism as unsure, as in you are unsure about your own views.
In other words. You have doubts about your beliefs. I’m going to guess these doubts don’t lead you to disbelief which seems obvious since you call yourself a “–deist”. But how is that any different from a Christian, Hindu, Muslim, etc. that has doubts about their religious views? I don’t really see how having doubts about your faith makes you any different.
Instead, I would say you are a weak-deist based on the above.
Now going back to my other problem with your agnosticism…
But my other objection comes in the way you have argued in the past. Whenever, your theistic view is called into question, you resort to a full on agnostic-view points. You switch back and forth when it’s convenient.
From what I’ve seen of your posts, you seem think this is some kind of logical/reasonable foolproof position. When challenged on your theistic views, you think you can just say ‘Well you can’t know for sure because it’s unknowable’.
You are a deist, you have deist views and you have faith in your deist god. Your faith is not any different from any other faith. You’ll promote your deist-views, but once questioned you go back to being an agnostic.
That’s my other objection. You can’t say on one hand that you’re a deist and then once questioned, pop out the other hand with the ‘god is unknowable’ agnostic arguments.
If god is unknowable, why are you assigning attributes to the nature of god? Secondly, this type of reasoning is not productive. If god is unknowable, then ALL arguments including your deist views are gone. Also if god is unknowable, then what's the point in having any type of discourse about it? By making this argument, you've killed ALL argumentation.
What is knowledge? What is the standard we should have for knowledge?
Why is it reasonable to believe in a watchmaker god?
Why? What is the default position? Who has the burden of proof?
I don’t think anyone objects to that. At least I don't.
You mean it’s the ultimate test of your faith. I say faith because unless you have some type of evidence that tilts knowledge toward your deist views, I don’t see how it’s merely belief. After all, one can believe all sorts of things that don’t require faith, (I believe that I exist, that I have a mind, a brain, blood, etc.). What you have is faith. You have no evidence of your god, but you believe your god exists, nonetheless. That’s why you try to understand the nature of this god, that’s why I imagine that you call yourself a –deist.
I do have ~12k post on this forum. I would be lying if I claimed I never lied, and -as I said above- that's something I try very hard to avoid doing. K.
I wasn't talking to you anyway. You're not the "you" in my sentence, Highroller is. Thanks for the benefit of the doubt here at the begining, but it's likely going to be a long road regardless.
I was with you up until about this part. To me "deism" is the base theistic claim. As in, it contains the one claim necessarily to be a theist: the universe was created for a reason.
I would be perfectly happy being labeled an "agnostic-theist," based on how you seem to define that term, I would say that definition you use is how I think of myself. I use "agnostic deism" myself because I find it more descriptive. The deist God is bare-bones when it comes to assumptions, a simple negation of the base atheistic claim. At least, again, how I define it. I understand "deism" has meant many things in its history. Umm... where are you getting me doing this? Do you have an example of me defending straight-up deism? I know I rarely claim to know anything. And, I certainty don't remember claiming I know a deist god exited, or that one could know there was one. Pretty sure I've only ever claimed you can't know such things... But, I've been wrong before; where is the quote where I did what you claimed I did? Maybe I can clarify what I meant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology#Knowledge
Because when logic fails it's customary to use personal preference. If you can't even make an educated guess, but still would like a position, you are free to pick one based on feelings. I assume that's how people end up rooting for sports teams, despite not knowing who will win.
If we can't know if there can or can't be a watchmaker God, but still would like to have an opinion, it is reasonable to use personal taste as the decider.
Since we're throwing dictionary links at one another:
https://www.google.com/search?q=belief
https://www.google.com/search?q=faith definition
Belief and faith are synonyms, so use whichever one floats your boat.
Flame infraction. - Blinking Spirit
You haven't answered anything. You just posted a long ramble about yourself. Incidentally, not the first time you've done this.
It IS nonsensical.
No, agnostic means something very different from unsure.
And incidentally, if you are an uncertain deist, doesn't my question still stand? My question being how can you launch into a full-fledged defense on a belief you yourself are uncertain towards?
Then you are not deist. That's the core of deism.
You said that logic cannot cause one to arrive at a Watchmaker Deity.
So what, then, is your basis for the claim that it is reasonable to believe in deism?
Well that's interesting, considering it's a major point of deism.
If it's equally reasonable to believe there is something as it is to believe that there isn't, then it is NOT reasonable to advocate one over the other.
So basically what you're claiming is it isn't reasonable to be a deist. So in what way are you a deist, as opposed to someone who's just really attached to calling himself a deist for some reason despite not actually holding any of the beliefs of deism?
What, because there's a Wikipedia article that's supposed to lend it credibility? There's an article about Christian atheists! And agnostic deism is arguably even more contradictory than that!
Which is a rejection of deism!
Deism is the belief that God is knowable, that God can be proven, that divine truth can be arrived at through reason and logic.
If you believe none of those things, you are not deist. If you are agnostic, which is the belief that divine truth is unknowable and can never be proven, then you are not deist.
So this is where we are at (nothing new) and are likely to stay.
...and the last 3 pages have said nothing to challenge that.
It doesn't mean "unsure" in the context of agnostic atheism where its synonymous with the other forms of atheism weak/negative/etc. The agnostic atheist is unsure about god in the same way that we are, technically, unsure about Brahman. It is a possibility, however unlikely, but some formulations of an idea are, by their nature or by design, unable to be conclusively disproven even as no evidence actually points in their favor and what little is said to point in their favor is generally a lack of knowledge in a subject and not any sort of positive evidence.
Any weak atheism argument boils down to "we don't have any good reasons to believe in a god" and the rest is just stamping out positive theistic arguments if the need arises. Any sort of positive argument that relate to a religion, as a whole, fall more properly under strong atheism which tries to actually disprove god, or gods, in some fashion. In this way, BS's ability to make an ironclad argument is good, but it is not the same kind of game ender that it is when making the positive case since there are always more stupid arguments for the existence of god to stamp down, but it only takes one really good argument for something that people can then fail to assail. Feasibly, the argument for atheism ends up being the paucity of arguments for any given religion, not so much against the idea of a god in general (since it can always be formulated as one step past our level of understanding), but against the religions that actual make claims and, you know, matter outside of scholarly debate. You believe that its equally justifiable to believe or disbelieve in this watchmaker god (is this any different from Spinozas god?) and I think this is pretty flawed.
Invoking that kind of god is a function of our ultimate ignorance about the origin of reality and cannot be disproven simply because, by its very nature, it gets pushed outside of where we could try anything. To then say that it is just as justfiable to believe or disbelieve in this seems to be quite the strong claim.
What differences are you thinking of anyway? Between BS and I?
Knowing in the 100% deductive sense? Because if thats all you're really going for then thats functionally equal to weak atheism.
Then again, I'm pretty sure I said the same thing like 3 years ago. If someone doesn't worship a god, does not believe in any of the world religions, and the only supernatural thing they don't explicitly disbelieve in is the kind of unknowable, untestable, non interventionist precursor god of deism than for all intents and purposes they are an atheist.
This makes no sense. In order to be lying, you have to be telling a lie.
If you are using misdirection, implication, obfuscation and deflection, and know that you are doing so, then you aren't being truthful. You are presenting something you know is a falsehood. It would be like if someone stole the money out of your wallet and then when questioned about it they go, "I don't know what happened to the money" and then reason that they didn't lie, they only used misdirection. What you’re saying makes no sense to me.
So… you lied?
If the question was only meant for Highroller, perhaps this conversation would have been better off in a private message then, yes? As it is, you’ve posted this in a public forum and as such it seems to me that the arguments you present here are up for examination by the forum’s users.
Please explain more. What claim is necessary? Why is it basic? Why do you think the universe was created? Why do you think there was a reason?
From what you are describing, it’s not more descriptive, it’s just really confusing. So I think you need to make yourself clearer. What does deism mean? Why do you lean toward the “theist” side?
What is the nature of your deist God? Why do you consider this bare-bones?
Then you’ll understand why people get confused when you use a religious term that has a specific type of belief system in place interchangeably with whatever it is that you seem to be describing. So I think you have some explaining to do to clear that up.
Which god are you defending when you say you can’t know such things? How do you know we can’t know such things?
If this is how you want to define knowledge as well as the standard for knowledge, then you’ve already give up on your position of agnosticism.
That’s assuming that logic does fail. There are lots of philosophers that believe that a God fails to pass the logic test. One argument is that the whole concept of a God incoherent at best, there are also plenty of other philosophical arguments based on the variables that people have assigned to God based on whatever variables religions have set out – Omni-benevolence for example, suffers from the problem of evil.
We can’t know anything with absolute knowledge. We can’t know with absolute knowledge if O.J. Simpson murdered his wife and Ron Goldman, We can’t know with absolute knowledge that you actually exist and aren’t a computer program, we can’t know with absolute knowledge that gravity exists, etc.
So if you want to reason like that, that says some bad things about concept of knowledge, in which case I have to conclude the problem isn’t the arguments, it’s your standard for what constitutes as knowledge.
They can be based on the context in which they are used otherwise faith is a term that’s pretty easily equivocated. Faith is pretty specific toward a belief in something without evidence, usually god(s). However, you can believe something based on evidence. So I would say, that they aren’t actually synonyms in the context of our conversation.
necessarily? No. And he does explicitly disbelieve in everything but an extremely loose idea of a watchmaker god that he won't defend the existence of. Also, for all intents and purposes is an important part of my statement