Why I'm not agnostic

by Coded Logic 84 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  David_Jay

  I wrote the post. The context is clearly about scientific evidence because I begun by speaking about string theory:

  A lack of evidence does not mean something does not exist. String theory, the theory of parallel universes or a multiverse are things I am not willing to dismiss though some scientists do. I don't need my wife to give me scientific evidence of her love for me or expect to find any evidence that my dog likes me. I believe in these things, but there is no evidence of things like "love" and my dog's appreciation for me.

  Despite there being scientific evidence for either or not doesn't mean I don't believe in them or require scientific evidence of them to believe in them. People don't always accept things on the basis of evidence.

  And you can't produce any kind of evidence or argument to prove either of those things anyway because my beloved died 7 years ago and my dog died last year.
  
  
• 

  Mephis

  My agnosticism is around knowledge of whether a being I'd call 'God' exists. I don't know. To all intents and purposes, I don't care. It's irrelevant to my life. If one did exist, up til now my life is irrelevant to it. For me, that's an intellectual honesty check on my beliefs, well, my lack of them. Until some pretty major questions about the origin and nature of the universe are answered then I see little point in being overly dug into a position. Should those questions be answered, then I'll reassess. This is as of equal priority in my thinking, actually less, to 'what is at the bottom of a black hole?'.

  I could also happily recite lists of gods I don't believe in. It's probably as long as the number of gods imagined up by humans. Agnosticism to me certainly isn't a 'sitting on the fence' position because of a lack of thought. It's a word which pretty perfectly describes where I'm at with things. If I were convinced either way, then I'd use a different word.
• 

  cofty

  But there is evidence of love and loyalty.

  Long and consistent patterns of behaviour would be evidence. Biometric reactions to the sight of a loved one or doing brain scans would provide very good evidence. Blood tests might show increased serotonin levels etc. I could think of all sorts of experiments we could set up.

  The point is that the majority of humanity orders their lives around the idea that a deity exists. It affects their decisions, loyalties and conduct. It creates divisions and even motivates acts of mass terror.

  Many of the claims made by theists are scientific ones. We can and should challenge them with evidence.

  It is not "childish, stupid or a waste of time" to do so.
• 

  slimboyfat

  When we talk about God and evidence and compare it to determining the existence of mythical creatures like the Unicorn it betrays a rather two dimensional view of what kind of God there can be. Is God a being? Does talking about existence in relation to God make even sense? Evidence may be lacking for a certain kind of God. The kind who is a being, like other beings, only more so, and to a perfect degree. But what about a God beyond being? Not in the category of beings whose existence can be determined one way or another. That's the sort of conception many agnostics have in mind. Or the echo of such a possibility is what they consider may be beyond the mind to contain or words to define.
• 

  cofty

  SBF - Theist take refuge in that sort of sophistry as soon as you bring evidence to the discussion. I couldn't count how many times theists have suddenly converted to deism for a few minutes when you mention the problem of natural evil.

  The rest of the time they know exactly what sort of god they believe in and it's not "a God beyond being" whatever that means.

  The word "god" is vacuous and that is the problem.

  
  
• 

  Coded Logic

  I agree Crofty. "Atheist" isn't really a label I use to identify myself. Because I prefer to use labels that stand for what I do believe. Not what I don't believe.

  It's all been said before, but I think it bears repeating. Atheism is not a philosophy or worldview. It has no dogma, no tenants, no leader and no holy books. It's a single position on a single issue.
• 

  slimboyfat

  So you accept that evidence only makes sense in relation to a certain kind of God? Maybe existence itself is something God made.

  Either the world makes sense or there is no God. Or the world makes sense and there must be a God follows. Therefore there must be a God.
• 

  cofty

  Gibberish
• 

  Coded Logic

  But what about a God beyond being? Not in the category of beings whose existence can be determined one way or another.
  -SBF

  How do we tell the difference between beings whose existence cannot be determined from beings that don't exist at all?

  I could just as well put unicorns, bigfoot, or pyramid building aliens in the category of 'beings whose existence cannot be determined'. Because things for which there is no evidence and things which don't exist are, for all intents and purposes, identical.

  I am open to their existence pending evidence. But in the meantime the only rational position is disbelief. Why do people have such a hard time with this?
• 

  slimboyfat

  Gibberish

  Which is indeed the point. What if a human trying to understand God is like a dog trying to understand how to plan a vegetable patch? Gibberish.