NationStates Jolt Archive

I've just learned in school that agnostics believe in a superior power, but they don't want to call it God or Allah or Jahwe.
I think this is quite stupid, why won't you call it God if it's a superior power, is it that hard?
It does make it easier to talk about it.
So my question is: Is this really what agnosticism is about, or did I learned something wrong (I wouldn't be surprised from my fucked up elite christian school though)?
If I'm wrong can you explain me what it's really about?

Agnostics acknowledge the possibility of the existence of a higher power, that's all.

Then, still my question, why don't they call it AllaH, Jahwe or God?

Agnostics acknowledge the possibility of the existence of a higher power, that's all.

before you get the real answer as to what an agnostic is, memorize what you have been told, it will be on the test. they wont want you to be putting down the truth on the paper.

before you get the real answer as to what an agnostic is, memorize what you have been told, it will be on the test. they wont want you to be putting down the truth on the paper.

"Agnostics are gutless cowards that know god exists, but choose not to follow him."

That'll get you extra credit right there.

before you get the real answer as to what an agnostic is, memorize what you have been told, it will be on the test. they wont want you to be putting down the truth on the paper.

Seconded. Read the sentence about what agnostics "are" over and over until you will remember it for life, then come back here and read the thread.

Then, still my question, why don't they call it AllaH, Jahwe or God?

there are people who call themselves agnostics who believe as your teacher described.

they dont call "it" allah, yaweh, or god because they dont know that it IS any of those things. to call "god" allah is to imply that one should be muslim.
to call "god" jehova implies that you think that judaism or christianity is probably "right".

an agnostic doesnt think that so to use the term is to lie about what they believe.

Then, still my question, why don't they call it AllaH, Jahwe or God?

Because there's no certainty that one exists, thus no point in giving it a name.

:rolleyes:

a- = "without"

-gnosis = "knowledge"

Ergo, agnostics say that a God or gods could exist, or they could not --either is possible. The key is that humanity lacks the knowledge to find out for sure. Hence the Greek root words.

I myself am an agnostic leaning athiest. That is, I concede that it's impossible to disprove God, but that the existence of one is very unlikely based on what we know.

there are people who call themselves agnostics who believe as your teacher described.

they dont call "it" allah, yaweh, or god because they dont know that it IS any of those things. to call "god" allah is to imply that one should be muslim.
to call "god" jehova implies that you think that judaism or christianity is probably "right".

an agnostic doesnt think that so to use the term is to lie about what they believe.

Well why don't they call "it" god instead of God, then?

before you get the real answer as to what an agnostic is, memorize what you have been told, it will be on the test. they wont want you to be putting down the truth on the paper.

Well that's then too bad, I just want to know the truth and put it on the test, it isn't as it makes such a difference, it's just for a class that doesn't really matter.

ag·nos·tic /ægˈnɒstɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ag-nos-tik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
–adjective
3. of or pertaining to agnostics or agnosticism.
4. asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.


Fairly straight forward eh.



Failing that, I haven't pimped This church (http://apatheticagnostic.org/) in some time. Do it.

I've just learned in school that agnostics believe in a superior power, but they don't want to call it God or Allah or Jahwe.
I think this is quite stupid, why won't you call it God if it's a superior power, is it that hard?
It does make it easier to talk about it.
So my question is: Is this really what agnosticism is about, or did I learned something wrong (I wouldn't be surprised from my fucked up elite christian school though)?
If I'm wrong can you explain me what it's really about?

Why does it need a name? "God" has so many images associated with it in so many mythologies - why have to pick and choose one particular image to stick on your "power"?

It actually does it harder to talk about, but there you go.

You may or may not have learned something "wrong" provided your instructor had an understanding of what it was he was teaching.

Agnosticism is about knowing, or more accurately about what we cannot know. God is the big "unknowable" - to stick a name on it is to be able to say, "Hey, I know that thing."

Well why don't they call "it" god instead of God, then?

You've already had this explained to you. It's not such a difficult concept to grasp, y'know.

"Agnostics are gutless cowards that know god exists, but choose not to follow him."

That'll get you extra credit right there.


"Agnostics are gutless cowards who know there isn't a god, but don't want to offend anyone and can't be arsed to argue."

Just as good.

"Agnostics are gutless cowards who know there isn't a god, but don't want to offend anyone and can't be arsed to argue."

Just as good.

"Agnostics are nappy headed hos." *nods*

Truthfully, agnostics say that we can never really know the true name or wishes or form of god - we can't know anything about him/her/it/Bender so to follow any specific religion is just pointless because you can't know for sure.

I'm an indignant agnostic deist. I believe it doesn't matter if god exists, and that we can't find out if he does regardless, but if he does he's got some explaining to do.

You've already had this explained to you. It's not such a difficult concept to grasp, y'know.

Well then I'm probably not so smart, but that's oke.
I just mean, if you want to talk about it, wouldn't it be easier to say '"god" may or may not exist' instead of 'a superior power may or may not exist'?

Well why don't they call "it" god instead of God, then?


In modern western society, people tend to think that the Christian God is the only credible god. Therefore using the word can be misleading to the listener/reader.

Also because not everyone can pronounce capital letters. Say those two words - God and god - out loud. Did you notice they are quite similar?

Well then I'm probably not so smart, but that's oke.
I just mean, if you want to talk about it, wouldn't it be easier to say '"god" may or may not exist' instead of 'a superior power may or may not exist'?

No, because it could be that there are more than one. To say "god" implies just one monothestic deity, where we could just as easily assume there to be many.

"Agnostics are gutless cowards that know god exists, but choose not to follow him."

That'll get you extra credit right there.

You don't mean that, do you?

...what kind of backwards 2+1=9 school do you go to?

really its quite scary either you didn't understand what the teacher was saying (though Agnostic isn't really part of the national curriculum) or should should bring a dictionary in and slap the teacher with the page on agnostics

Also because not everyone can pronounce capital letters. Say those two words - God and god - out loud. Did you notice they are quite similar?

God is a divine figure, or diety. Unfortunately Christians are too arrogant to name theirs so they just use the generic title. Ask an ancient viking if they believe in god and they'll simply say: "What? Like which one do I like most?" *pillage*

"Agnostics are nappy headed hos." *nods*

That's it, you're fired. :p

Well then I'm probably not so smart, but that's oke.
I just mean, if you want to talk about it, wouldn't it be easier to say '"god" may or may not exist' instead of 'a superior power may or may not exist'?

The most accurate thing an agnostic could call it is "nothing," and people tend to get upset or bored when you start talking about nothing.

You don't mean that, do you?

Being an agnostic, absolutely.

I've just learned in school that agnostics believe in a superior power, but they don't want to call it God or Allah or Jahwe.
I think this is quite stupid, why won't you call it God if it's a superior power, is it that hard?
It does make it easier to talk about it.
So my question is: Is this really what agnosticism is about, or did I learned something wrong (I wouldn't be surprised from my fucked up elite christian school though)?
If I'm wrong can you explain me what it's really about?

You learned something wrong.

Agnosticism isn't about whether you 'believe' or not.

It is about whether it is possible to know (for sure), either way.

As such, there are agnostic atheists, and there are agnostic theists... because accepting you don't know, doesn't mean you won't believe.


As for calling it 'god', 'God', or anything else... there are specific implications to the term 'god', and even more to the concept of 'God'. Both imply a (degree of) monotheistic assumption, and both tend to lead towards culturally-accepted models of the divine.

That's it, you're fired.

No it's cool, I'm an agnostic so I can say whatever I want about them. :p

Just watch out for them Baptist jigabo- oops

No, because it could be that there are more than one. To say "god" implies just one monothestic deity, where we could just as easily assume there to be many.

But if there are more gods, then you can't say a superior power either, then you'd have to say 'one or more superior powers may or may not exist' or maybe 'one or more godsmay or may not exist' I still think the second is easier.

God is a divine figure, or diety. Unfortunately Christians are too arrogant to name theirs so they just use the generic title. Ask an ancient viking if they believe in god and they'll simply say: "What? Like which one do I like most?" *pillage*

lmao@pillage.

Well why don't they call "it" god instead of God, then?



Well that's then too bad, I just want to know the truth and put it on the test, it isn't as it makes such a difference, it's just for a class that doesn't really matter.

some DO call "it" god instead of God. some dont. depends on what they believe. once you leave formal religion behind, you dont have a model for what a supreme being might be like.

ok here goes. its kinda complicated so try to read it with an eye to my being right, then ask questions about what doesnt make sense

AGNOSTIC isnt a faith, theology or religion. its a "point of view" if you will. (someone else will use a better phrase)

an agnostic QUESTIONS the truth. they dont take religious questions "on faith" as you do. if someone claims that there is a god, they ask "how do you know?" and "what does that mean?" and "but what about the gods of the hindus, why arent THEY real?". if someone claims there ISNT a god they ask "how do you know?", "what does that mean?" and "well what started the universe then?"

THEY COME TO NO CONCLUSION. if your argument for christianity convinces them, they are no longer agnostic but a christian eh? if MY argument against the existence of any god convinces them, they are atheists eh?

some agnostics have a basic belief in some kind of higher power. since they dont know what that higher power IS, DOES, and WANTS, they still question everything about other people's theories on the subject. they are agnostic theists. some agnostics have a basic belief that there IS no higher power but they still question the truth of that, they are agnostic atheists.

the adjective "agnostic" means that they remain unconvinced.

there is also the stance that many agnostics take that IF god exists, he is completely unknowable to us. his mystical "outside the universe" existence means that he is unaccessible to us. they feel that it is IMPOSSIBLE TO EVER KNOW whether or not god exists.

some DO call "it" god instead of God. some dont. depends on what they believe. once you leave formal religion behind, you dont have a model for what a supreme being might be like.

ok here goes. its kinda complicated so try to read it with an eye to my being right, then ask questions about what doesnt make sense

AGNOSTIC isnt a faith, theology or religion. its a "point of view" if you will. (someone else will use a better phrase)

an agnostic QUESTIONS the truth. they dont take religious questions "on faith" as you do. if someone claims that there is a god, they ask "how do you know?" and "what does that mean?" and "but what about the gods of the hindus, why arent THEY real?". if someone claims there ISNT a god they ask "how do you know?", "what does that mean?" and "well what started the universe then?"

THEY COME TO NO CONCLUSION. if your argument for christianity convinces them, they are no longer agnostic but a christian eh? if MY argument against the existence of any god convinces them, they are atheists eh?

some agnostics have a basic belief in some kind of higher power. since they dont know what that higher power IS, DOES, and WANTS, they still question everything about other people's theories on the subject. they are agnostic theists. some agnostics have a basic belief that there IS no higher power but they still question the truth of that, they are agnostic atheists.

the adjective "agnostic" means that they remain unconvinced.

there is also the stance that many agnostics take that IF god exists, he is completely unknowable to us. his mystical "outside the universe" existence means that he is unaccessible to us. they feel that it is IMPOSSIBLE TO EVER KNOW whether or not god exists.

Perspective!

Perspective!

Philosophy!

haha I win.

I've just learned in school that agnostics believe in a superior power, but they don't want to call it God or Allah or Jahwe.
I think this is quite stupid, why won't you call it God if it's a superior power, is it that hard?
It does make it easier to talk about it.
So my question is: Is this really what agnosticism is about, or did I learned something wrong (I wouldn't be surprised from my fucked up elite christian school though)?
If I'm wrong can you explain me what it's really about?

Or do you mean Gnostics?

But if there are more gods, then you can't say a superior power either, then you'd have to say 'one or more superior powers may or may not exist' or maybe 'one or more godsmay or may not exist' I still think the second is easier.

Meh. We get to a point where we don't care how specific we get. I think "a higher power" or "a higher existence" covers it well enough, considering "a higher power" could encompass one or more deities.

Philosophy!

haha I win.

Fuck the rules, I have green hair!

Well why don't they call "it" god instead of God, then?


Typically they do. Moreover God is a title, while Allah, YHWY, Jehova are names.

To call the possible higher power "God" or even "god" summons images of a conscious being, probably humanoid figure. The problem this creates is that we are then assigning, even unofficially, beliefs about something we don't necessarily believe in. (Not sure if that made sense to anyone but me) The possibility exists that the higher power is just that, literally some sort of power, or energy and not a sentient being at all. To call it God would be just plain wrong if that were the case.

Being an agnostic, absolutely.

But I'm an agnostic and I'm not a gutless coward...
Nor do I know that a god exists; I'm officially Uncertain.

Meh. We get to a point where we don't care how specific we get. I think "a higher power" or "a higher existence" covers it well enough, considering "a higher power" could encompass one or more deities.

Also - a 'superior power' isn't necessarily the same as a 'god'. Aliens could have created the world. Aliens far superior to us. To us, they are a 'superior power' (and yes, I realise that makes 'superior power' plural, there...) ... but does that make aliens the same as gods?

some DO call "it" god instead of God. some dont. depends on what they believe. once you leave formal religion behind, you dont have a model for what a supreme being might be like.

ok here goes. its kinda complicated so try to read it with an eye to my being right, then ask questions about what doesnt make sense

AGNOSTIC isnt a faith, theology or religion. its a "point of view" if you will. (someone else will use a better phrase)

an agnostic QUESTIONS the truth. they dont take religious questions "on faith" as you do. if someone claims that there is a god, they ask "how do you know?" and "what does that mean?" and "but what about the gods of the hindus, why arent THEY real?". if someone claims there ISNT a god they ask "how do you know?", "what does that mean?" and "well what started the universe then?"

THEY COME TO NO CONCLUSION. if your argument for christianity convinces them, they are no longer agnostic but a christian eh? if MY argument against the existence of any god convinces them, they are atheists eh?

some agnostics have a basic belief in some kind of higher power. since they dont know what that higher power IS, DOES, and WANTS, they still question everything about other people's theories on the subject. they are agnostic theists. some agnostics have a basic belief that there IS no higher power but they still question the truth of that, they are agnostic atheists.

the adjective "agnostic" means that they remain unconvinced.

there is also the stance that many agnostics take that IF god exists, he is completely unknowable to us. his mystical "outside the universe" existence means that he is unaccessible to us. they feel that it is IMPOSSIBLE TO EVER KNOW whether or not god exists.

(I can't help but thinking that you think I'm a christian, which I'm not, I think I'm an atheist.)
So agnostics don't know whether there is a god or not because the ultimate proof isn't given yet?

ok here goes. its kinda complicated so try to read it with an eye to my being right, then ask questions about what doesnt make sense

AGNOSTIC isnt a faith, theology or religion. its a "point of view" if you will. (someone else will use a better phrase)

an agnostic QUESTIONS the truth. they dont take religious questions "on faith" as you do. if someone claims that there is a god, they ask "how do you know?" and "what does that mean?" and "but what about the gods of the hindus, why arent THEY real?". if someone claims there ISNT a god they ask "how do you know?", "what does that mean?" and "well what started the universe then?"

Labelling it a "perspective" is just fine in my book. *grin

Good description. I would add that, more than just questioning the truth of things, an agnostic questions truth itself --can we ever actually know it?

THEY COME TO NO CONCLUSION. if your argument for christianity convinces them, they are no longer agnostic but a christian eh? if MY argument against the existence of any god convinces them, they are atheists eh?

If you question truth itself, there can be no conclusion, eh?
:D

some agnostics have a basic belief in some kind of higher power. since they dont know what that higher power IS, DOES, and WANTS, they still question everything about other people's theories on the subject. they are agnostic theists. some agnostics have a basic belief that there IS no higher power but they still question the truth of that, they are agnostic atheists.

the adjective "agnostic" means that they remain unconvinced.

...or that, in knowing what it is "to know" (gnosos), there is no convincing to be had.

there is also the stance that many agnostics take that IF god exists, he is completely unknowable to us. his mystical "outside the universe" existence means that he is unaccessible to us. they feel that it is IMPOSSIBLE TO EVER KNOW whether or not god exists.

I would say that should properly be the stance of all agnostics.

Good post.

Typically they do. Moreover God is a title, while Allah, YHWY, Jehova are names.

Doesn't Allah, in Arabian means God? I thought so, just like Jehova in Hebrew or some other language.

But I'm an agnostic and I'm not a gutless coward...
Nor do I know that a god exists; I'm officially Uncertain.

I was kidding. :p

The total sum of energy in the universe is the closest thing we are knowing that is god right now. Whether it has conscious behavior we just don't know, and I garuntee you the pope doesn't either. While our god is not alpha and omega, I believe it's sigma (the sum of all things).

an agnostic doesnt think that so to use the term is to lie about what they believe.

Which, really, isn't anything besides "I believe I don't know." :rolleyes:

Also - a 'superior power' isn't necessarily the same as a 'god'. Aliens could have created the world. Aliens far superior to us. To us, they are a 'superior power' (and yes, I realise that makes 'superior power' plural, there...) ... but does that make aliens the same as gods?

It depends on how one defines a god.

No it's cool, I'm an agnostic so I can say whatever I want about them. :p

Just watch out for them Baptist jigabo- oops

Ooooh, now you've gone and done it. I think Sharpton might be a Baptist :eek:

:rolleyes:
a- = "without"
-gnosis = "knowledge"
Ergo, agnostics say that a God or gods could exist, or they could not --either is possible. The key is that humanity lacks the knowledge to find out for sure. Hence the Greek root words.


you sir have been sig-ed

I was kidding. :p

The total sum of energy in the universe is the closest thing we are knowing that is god right now. Whether it has conscious behavior we just don't know, and I garuntee you the pope doesn't either. While our god is not alpha and omega, I believe it's sigma (the sum of all things).

*points out that he's a mathematician by nature*
I know what sigma means. :D

Ooooh, now you've gone and done it. I think Sharpton might be a Baptist :eek:

I won't give him the satisfaction!

*sepukku*

(I can't help but thinking that you think I'm a christian, which I'm not, I think I'm an atheist.)
So agnostics don't know whether there is a god or not because the ultimate proof isn't given yet?

Maybe it is impossible to ever even recognise the 'ultimate proof', even if it is right in front of you.


Regarding the Athesim bit: If you find yourself doubting any of the versions of god you can conceive, and arrive at a point where you decide there are NO gods - you are an Explicit Atheist.

If you reject any version of god, but don't rule out the possibility - you are an Implicit Atheist.

I would say that should properly be the stance of all agnostics.

Good post.

thank you.

i feel its important to leave room for those agnostics who are "in flux" and havent gotten it all worked out in their head yet. maybe they will end up as believers of some sort; maybe they will be atheists; maybe they will end up at true agnostics who say that its impossible to know the truth. in the meantime, as questioners, they are still agnostics.

I was kidding. :p

The total sum of energy in the universe is the closest thing we are knowing that is god right now. Whether it has conscious behavior we just don't know, and I garuntee you the pope doesn't either. While our god is not alpha and omega, I believe it's sigma (the sum of all things).

Wouldn't that just be alpha, then? The "omega" is nothing. Sigma should properly be "the sum of all and nothing".

It depends on how one defines a god.

Wouldn't it depend more on how 'god' defines 'god'?

I think the heart of 'god' suggests something supernatural. I'm not sure 'extraterrestrial' and 'supernatural' are actually synonyms.

...or Kevin - they could call it Kevin. Everyone pray to the great Kevin

His name isn't Kevin! It's Kevan!

Holy Waaaaaaaaaaaaar! Huh! Yeah! What is it good for?

I've just learned in school that agnostics believe in a superior power, but they don't want to call it God or Allah or Jahwe.


...or Kevin - they could call it Kevin. Everyone pray to the great Kevin

It depends on how one defines a god.

Yup, because if you say someones a god when he can create a planet where millions of different creatures can live, and one kills itself constantly in masses, then for me you are a god.

Which, really, isn't anything besides "I believe I don't know." :rolleyes:

Do you believe that? How do you know?

Doesn't Allah, in Arabian means God? I thought so, just like Jehova in Hebrew or some other language.

Yes, and it's Arabic.

His name isn't Kevin! It's Kevan!

Holy Waaaaaaaaaaaaar! Huh! Yeah! What is it good for?

Eatin' lots of muffins, muffins. :D

Wouldn't that just be alpha, then? The "omega" is nothing. Sigma should properly be "the sum of all and nothing".

The sum of all and nothing would simply be 0, and last I checked the universe was pretty unstable.

His name isn't Kevin! It's Kevan!

Holy Waaaaaaaaaaaaar! Huh! Yeah! What is it good for?

Die heretic bastard

There is no proof of God. There is no proof that there is no god. Athieism and religion are BOTH faiths. WHY THE HELL ARE PEOPLE SO UTTERLY SHITTING THEMSELVES SCARED TO ADMIT THAT THEY DON'T KNOW?

Ooooh, now you've gone and done it. I think Sharpton might be a Baptist :eek:

nah, i looked it up. he's pentacostal.

which seems to be one of those denominations that dont require graduating from a seminary as qualification for the ministry. he was ordained at age 10.

There is no proof of God. There is no proof that there is no god. Athieism and religion are BOTH faiths. WHY THE HELL ARE PEOPLE SO UTTERLY SHITTING THEMSELVES SCARED TO ADMIT THAT THEY DON'T KNOW?

You're wrong: atheism isn't a faith.
And it isn't because there is no proof of god that there is one and at the same time there isn't one.
Either atheism or religion is right, it can't be both wrong.

Do you believe that? How do you know?

Yes. How do I know? It's all these posts defining agnosticism in a nutshell.

(I can't help but thinking that you think I'm a christian, which I'm not, I think I'm an atheist.)
So agnostics don't know whether there is a god or not because the ultimate proof isn't given yet?

Well, not so much "ultimate" proof, as there is mostly none at all one way or the other.

You're wrong: atheism isn't a faith.
And it isn't because there is no proof of god that there is one and at the same time there isn't one.
Either atheism or religion is right, it can't be both wrong.

Doesn't change the fact that, while on Earth, we'll never know the answer.

Either atheism or religion is right, it can't be both wrong.

Sure they can. There are workings in the universe that are infinitely beyond our understanding, and futher still, our description.

Well, not so much "ultimate" proof, as there is mostly none at all one way or the other.

Except then proof against the Christian, Islamic and Jew god, because they should be almighty and good.

Doesn't change the fact that, while on Earth, we'll never know the answer.

Probably true

Sure they can. There are workings in the universe that are infinitely beyond our understanding, and futher still, our description.

So according to you there is a god and there isn't a god?

You're wrong: atheism isn't a faith.
And it isn't because there is no proof of god that there is one and at the same time there isn't one.
Either atheism or religion is right, it can't be both wrong.

You are right, Atheisim isn't a faith, but to be Atheist you do belive that there is not God, right?

Except then proof against the Christian, Islamic and Jew god, because they should be almighty and good.

That's not even proof, because it's all based on faith regardless. You can't disprove it, because it can always be backed up with faith that you can't argue against.

You are right, Atheisim isn't a faith, but to be Atheist you do belive that there is not God, right?

yeah, it's a belief, but no faith, it's a way of life.

You are right, Atheisim isn't a faith, but to be Atheist you do belive that there is not God, right?

No, they just don't believe in god. You can twist the words around as much as you want to make it look like they do believe in something, even if it's believe in a negative, but it's the same thing. Belief in nothing.

Yes. How do I know? It's all these posts defining agnosticism in a nutshell.

You missed the point: if you can't "know" things, then you can't know anything, like "belief," or "all these posts," or "agnosticism in a nutshell." You can't even know you.

The agnostic position is that "things" are all we can know, and they are "things" a) because we know them, and b) apart from our knowing them.

It's the "apart" part that is "outside the universe"; the "universe" is "all things".

If we don't know things, we don't know anything.

You are right, Atheisim isn't a faith, but to be Atheist you do belive that there is not God, right?

No.

Only Explicit Atheism states a faith in lack.

Implicit Atheism is all about lack of belief.

Those two things sound similar, but there is a world (and maybe a heaven, and a hell) of difference.

So according to you there is a god and there isn't a god?

Possible.

I don't know, but I know I don't know everything, and the answer probably lies in there. I am ignorant of 99.99999% of the universe, and somehow people are trying to convince me they have all the answers in a single book? No thankies.

You missed the point: if you can't "know" things, then you can't know anything, like "belief," or "all these posts," or "agnosticism in a nutshell." You can't even know you.

The agnostic position is that "things" are all we can know, and they are "things" a) because we know them, and b) apart from our knowing them.

It's the "apart" part that is "outside the universe"; the "universe" is "all things".

If we don't know things, we don't know anything.

Do you say that we can't know anything?
Sounds familiar, Descartes said it too, and with that he proved that God (the Christian one) exists.
So I'd say you're a christian

Probably true



So according to you there is a god and there isn't a god?

There might be, there might not be. There's evidence that there was an event that began the universe's creation, so we can only assume it was caused by something - be it caused by some sort of extraversal phenomena, god, gods, Charlie Sheen, whatever. We don't know.

Do you say that we can't know anything?
Sounds familiar, Descartes said it too, and with that he proved that God (the Christian one) exists.
So I'd say you're a christian

I don't see the logic between "we can't know anything" and "god exists". If anything it's leaving the question blank because there is no answer.

Possible.

I don't know, but I know I don't know everything, and the answer probably lies in there. I am ignorant of 99.99999% of the universe, and somehow people are trying to convince me they have all the answers in a single book? No thankies.

Well if there is a god and there isn't one, then both atheism and all religions are right and wrong at the same time, wow that's weird.

I don't see the logic between "we can't know anything" and "god exists". If anything it's leaving the question blank because there is no answer.

Well you can start reading Descartes work, which is a lot I know.
I'll try to find what I learned about how he proved it.

Descartes only 'proved' that he exists.

Well at least he thought he did

Do you say that we can't know anything?
Sounds familiar, Descartes said it too, and with that he proved that God (the Christian one) exists.
So I'd say you're a christian

I say that "things" is all we can know, and that "can know" is what gnosos is about.

Descartes only 'proved' that he exists.

I say that "things" is all we can know, and that "can know" is what gnosos is about.

Descartes only 'proved' that he exists.

you also said you can't know this you can't know that, you can't even know yourself, so that's exactly what descartes said, he said we can only be sure about our doubts, we cannot doubt that we doubt.

Well if there is a god and there isn't one, then both atheism and all religions are right and wrong at the same time, wow that's weird.

There's a lot of middle ground between 'No it doesn't' and 'Yes it does'. Say that god did during the big bang: Atheists would be right in that there no longer is a divine presence, while Religion would be right in that there was a divine creation.

There's also a ton of other theories: God is dormant, God was eaten by a super massive quasar (my particular favorite), and Ragnorak.

You're wrong: atheism isn't a faith.
And it isn't because there is no proof of god that there is one and at the same time there isn't one.
Either atheism or religion is right, it can't be both wrong.

Actually, if you take a quantum mechanics approach to it, deity(ies) both exist and do not exist at the same time, until we find some means to determine whether it(they) exist for sure.

Actually, if you take a quantum mechanics approach to it, deity(ies) both exist and do not exist at the same time, until we find some means to determine whether it(they) exist for sure.

Yea well if you use quantum mechanics, a religious one won't believe it because quantum mechanics uses the law of 'equilibrium between mass and energy' where no mass disappears nor appears out of nothing (only out of energy).

Actually, if you take a quantum mechanics approach to it, deity(ies) both exist and do not exist at the same time, until we find some means to determine whether it(they) exist for sure.

Ah yes, the famous Schrodinger's God experiment.

Well why don't they call "it" god instead of God, then?


Perhaps the "higher power" is not an entity likes the "gods" were. The term "god" implies a Supreme Being. A higher power simply means something more powerful than us-not necessarily "supreme".

Also, agnosticism can infact accept the possibility of no higher power.

Actually, if you take a quantum mechanics approach to it, deity(ies) both exist and do not exist at the same time, until we find some means to determine whether it(they) exist for sure.what? it seems you are confusing a statistical perspective with actual existence or non-existence.

Ah yes, the famous Schrodinger's God experiment.Yes, that famous world-religion...

Descartes resoning went like this (snatches up a copy of Sophie's World):

"Descartes tried to work forward from the zero point (non-existence). He doubted everything, and that was the only thing he was certain of. But now something struck him: one thing had to be true, and that was that he doubted. When he doubted, he had to be thinking, and because he was thinking, it had to be certain that he was a thinking being. Or, as he himself expressed it: Cogito, ergo sum."
"Which means?"
"I think, therefore I am."
"I'm not surprised he realized that."
"Fair enough. But notice the intuitive certainty with which he suddenly perceives himself as a thinking being. Perhaps you now recall what Plato said, that what we grasp with our reason is more real than what what we grasp with our senses. That's the way it was for Descartes. He perceived not only that he was a thinking I, he realized at the same time that this thinking I was more real than the material world which we perceive with our senses. And he went on. He was by no means through with his philosophical quest."
"What came next?"
"Descartes now asked himself if there was anything more he could perceive with the same intuitive certainty. He came to the conclusion that in his mind he had a clear and distinct idea of a perfect entity. This was an idea he had always had, and it was thus self-evident to come from himself. The idea of a perfect entity cannot have originated from one who was himself imperfect, he claimed. Therefore the idea of a perfect entity must have originated from that perfect entity itself, or in other words, from God. That God exists was therefore just as self-evident for Descartes as that a thinking being must exist."

Now, of course, the whole thing hangs on "This was an idea he had always had..." It was the understanding of God that was almost universally had at this time in history that God was perfect being.

"Descartes only meant that we al possess the idea of a perfect entity, and that inherent in that idea is the fact that this perfect entity wouldn't be perfect if it didn't exist. Neither would we posses the idea of perfect entity if there were no perfect entity. For we are imperfect, so the idea of perfection cannot come from us."

You're wrong: atheism isn't a faith.
And it isn't because there is no proof of god that there is one and at the same time there isn't one.
Either atheism or religion is right, it can't be both wrong.

It takes considerable "faith" to make a claim when you have no proof of what you claim, only conjecture.

Atheism and Religions both do this. Atheists have faith that there is no higher power, without any proof as to otherwise(Citing instead a lack of evidence-which isn't a strong argument against a higher power), and the Religious have faith that there is a higher power, regardless of the fact that there is no evidence supporting their claim.

you also said you can't know this you can't know that, you can't even know yourself, so that's exactly what descartes said, he said we can only be sure about our doubts, we cannot doubt that we doubt.

No, I hope I didn't say that. I am tring to build a position that knowing is a Good Thing.

I did say we cannot know "god" or "it" or Descartes "perfect being," although Descartes believed it could be known.

Do you say that we can't know anything?
Sounds familiar, Descartes said it too, and with that he proved that God (the Christian one) exists.
So I'd say you're a christian

Care to explain that, bub? We went over Descartes in Philosophy, and I don't seem to remember that.

Descartes resoning went like this (snatches up a copy of Sophie's World):



Now, of course, the whole thing hangs on "This was an idea he had always had..." It was the understanding of God that was almost universally had at this time in history that God was perfect being.

Yeah, that's my problem with Descartes: why couldn't we have the image of a perfect creature in our heads, just by taking the perfect parts of different people and making a perfect human out of it (in our heads), which would of course mean that it'll probably be different for everyone.

Descartes does more for proving Plato's 'ideal' than he does prove 'God'.

Descartes does more for proving Plato's 'ideal' than he does prove 'God'.

Descartes 'proof' of god is pretty weak.

"As a craftsman leaves his name on his work, god has done the same with us."

Or something to that effect. Satre is still my favorite. :D

It takes considerable "faith" to make a claim when you have no proof of what you claim, only conjecture.

Atheism and Religions both do this.


Not all Atheists posit an opinion of faith.


Atheists have faith that there is no higher power, without any proof as to otherwise(Citing instead a lack of evidence-which isn't a strong argument against a higher power), and the Religious have faith that there is a higher power, regardless of the fact that there is no evidence supporting their claim.

Why does an Atheist need 'proof' stronger than 'lack of evidence'? Why assert that isn't a 'strong argument against a higher power'?

Surely, the absolute lack of empirical evidence of any gods is the only evidence needed for a skeptical position?

Descartes resoning went like this (snatches up a copy of Sophie's World):



Now, of course, the whole thing hangs on "This was an idea he had always had..." It was the understanding of God that was almost universally had at this time in history that God was perfect being.

do YOU find that to be a persuasive argument?

do YOU find that to be a persuasive argument?

I think the significant difference for the agnostic between 'god' or 'it' and Plato's 'ideal' - which if I understand correctly he originally referred to as 'idea' but a new term was assigned, probably in the Middle Ages, because Aristotle defined that 'ideas' are _our_thinking, so in us - is that the 'ideal' is known from our point of view, as a conceptual "thing", and 'God' is "the uknowable" in all things from no fixed point of view, that is to say "objectively."

I think the significant difference for the agnostic between 'god' or 'it' and Plato's 'ideal' - which if I understand correctly he originally referred to as 'idea' but a new term was assigned, probably in the Middle Ages, because Aristotle defined that 'ideas' are _our_thinking, so in us - is that the 'ideal' is known from our point of view, as a conceptual "thing", and 'God' is "the uknowable" in all things from no fixed point of view, that is to say "objectively."

um

does that mean "no because god is unknowable therefore any perfect picture we have of him must be wrong?"

Surely, the absolute lack of empirical evidence of any gods is the only evidence needed for a skeptical position?

There is a difference between skepticism and out-right denial. Lack of any evidence is good grounds for a great deal of skepticism, but not so much so as far as outright denial of the possibility.

It's kind of like saying what the Theory of Relativity described didn't exist before Einstein created the theory itself. Of course, Relativity has always existed, just we were unable to make the necessary observation. As well, our observation's disproved Newton's Theory of Gravity.

The same holds true for a "higher power", in sense. Not in that it is obvious that one exists, but instead that we do not currently have the means to make any sort of conclusive statement one way or the other.

um

does that mean "no because god is unknowable therefore any perfect picture we have of him must be wrong?"

No, it is to say that the perfect picture of god is not god itself.

There is a difference between skepticism and out-right denial. Lack of any evidence is good grounds for a great deal of skepticism, but not so much so as far as outright denial of the possibility.

It's kind of like saying what the Theory of Relativity described didn't exist before Einstein created the theory itself. Of course, Relativity has always existed, just we were unable to make the necessary observation. As well, our observation's disproved Newton's Theory of Gravity.

The same holds true for a "higher power", in sense. Not in that it is obvious that one exists, but instead that we do not currently have the means to make any sort of conclusive statement one way or the other.

But, why leap to the idea of 'god' in the first place? You seem to plead special exception for god... I don't think you'd use the same defense for fairies, goblins, or little green men, would you?

The assertion of a god that cannot be empirically evidenced is logically flawed. To refute the existence of such a god is flawed also... but no MORE flawed than the original assertion. Indeed... since there is NO evidence for something that is a pretty extraordinary claim, even the Explicit Atheist position is 'more logical' than the religious argument.

But, most Atheists are actually closer to the Implicit Atheism position - it isn't that they state a faith in the LACK of god(s)... they just have a lack of faith - and, that is pre-eminently logical.

I think you need to pay better attention in school, and also learn to look things up for yourself. I have no idea if there is a Superior Power or not, and until there is repeatable, verifiable, empirical evidence one way or the other, "I don't know." As far as I'm concerned, I'm agnostic, but if you want to stick on some other label, it's your glue ;)

No, it is to say that the perfect picture of god is not god itself.

ya but wasnt descartes point that the perfect picture had to come from SOMEWHERE and that that somewhere must be from god himself? he doesnt claim that the perfect picture IS god only that it reflects god.

what? it seems you are confusing a statistical perspective with actual existence or non-existence.

Yes, that famous world-religion...

Yes, but only for the furtherance of my own amusement. I'm not seriously applying a facet of quantum mechanics to the existence of god.

ya but wasnt descartes point that the perfect picture had to come from SOMEWHERE and that that somewhere must be from god himself? he doesnt claim that the perfect picture IS god only that it reflects god.

His claims are as reaching as Rousseau's Noble Savage.

Nevermind that the evolution of the idea of god is born from mysticysm, a profound misunderstanding of the surrounding world. While he believes god is born on his dna, ask an aborignal their view on god, or if they even have one.

But, why leap to the idea of 'god' in the first place? You seem to plead special exception for god... I don't think you'd use the same defense for fairies, goblins, or little green men, would you?


Some of those we have evidence as to the otherwise, other not so much. Even otherwise, we can find a likely origin there of. I don't necessarily jump to the idea of "god" in the Abrahamic sense, merely that there is a possibility of a higher power, either natural or supernatural. I make no distinction between what that higher power may be.


The assertion of a god that cannot be empirically evidenced is logically flawed. To refute the existence of such a god is flawed also... but no MORE flawed than the original assertion. Indeed... since there is NO evidence for something that is a pretty extraordinary claim, even the Explicit Atheist position is 'more logical' than the religious argument.


Quite true. To assert that your "God" is the only possible god that exists seems silly to me, or to assert that "god" does not exist, without allowing the possibility, seem equally silly. I simply state that "A higher power, if it exists, is well beyond our current understanding." and leave it that.


But, most Atheists are actually closer to the Implicit Atheism position - it isn't that they state a faith in the LACK of god(s)... they just have a lack of faith - and, that is pre-eminently logical.

Ah, true, I see your point now. Unfortunately, the Explicit Atheists are the loudest, which is unfortunate, really. I was referring to the Explicits, not the implicits(Took me a second to figure out what you were saying).

Descartes 'proof' of god is pretty weak.

"As a craftsman leaves his name on his work, god has done the same with us."

Or something to that effect. Satre is still my favorite. :D

You mean Sartre? Atheistic existentialism? "Hell is other people" &c?

His claims are as reaching as Rousseau's Noble Savage.

Nevermind that the evolution of the idea of god is born from mysticysm, a profound misunderstanding of the surrounding world. While he believes god is born on his dna, ask an aborignal their view on god, or if they even have one.

well yeah.

the notion that an idea has to have been put into our heads by some outside supernatural force is stupid. there is no perfect anything; its all a mental concept. it seems especially true of GOD because when you ask someone about their idea of god, it is always bound up with ideas common in their culture.

His claims are as reaching as Rousseau's Noble Savage.

Nevermind that the evolution of the idea of god is born from mysticysm, a profound misunderstanding of the surrounding world. While he believes god is born on his dna, ask an aborignal their view on god, or if they even have one.

Quite interesting, the idea of "godlessness"(Which does exist-which isn't to say they have no religion, just that they don't believe in "Gods" in the traditional sense). There is almost always a religion of sorts, however, usually regarding "spirits", or supernatural powers, but the idea of "gods" is absent from a great deal of aboriginal people.

ya but wasnt descartes point that the perfect picture had to come from SOMEWHERE and that that somewhere must be from god himself? he doesnt claim that the perfect picture IS god only that it reflects god.

Yes, I agree. That is what I meant when I said Descartes did more to 'prove' Plato's ideal than 'God'.

But at the same time, it does say that god is perfect being, because the idea of perfect being comes from there being a 'perfect being'. In other words, it _is_ implicitly saying that a perfect picture of god is god, and that gives god a knowable characteristic. A name.

You mean Sartre? Atheistic existentialism? "Hell is other people" &c?

Yeah, soy my key sticks. :(

Yes, I agree. That is what I meant when I said Descartes did more to 'prove' Plato's ideal than 'God'.

But at the same time, it does say that god is perfect being, because the idea of perfect being comes from there being a 'perfect being'. In other words, it _is_ implicitly saying that a perfect picture of god is god, and that gives god a knowable characteristic. A name.

in as far as he does that--to suggest that his perfect image IS what god is--he is engaging in blasphemy. he is disparaging god by suggesting that god is limited by the scope of the human mind.

Yeah, soy my key sticks. :(

No worries, I was just confused as hell for a second, and wanted to confirm my suspicions before I went off to figure out who Satre was.

Yes, I agree. That is what I meant when I said Descartes did more to 'prove' Plato's ideal than 'God'.

But at the same time, it does say that god is perfect being, because the idea of perfect being comes from there being a 'perfect being'. In other words, it _is_ implicitly saying that a perfect picture of god is god, and that gives god a knowable characteristic. A name.Which name?

in as far as he does that--to suggest that his perfect image IS what god is--he is engaging in blasphemy. he is disparaging god by suggesting that god is limited by the scope of the human mind.

Right; he is idolizing 'god'.

Which name?

'Perfect Being'.

*cough*

The Jewish form, you spelled it wrong...

Besides, YHWH or G-d...