Against Agnosticism - or - God is Provable

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Prince_James, Jun 21, 2008.

  1. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    Surely you have a belief in gods or you don't?

    Anyway what you are saying is similar to what many atheists here are also saying. They don't believe in any god/gods but they are not claiming that any definitely don't exist.

    As do I. Our position is similar. I call myself an atheist because as I don't believe in any gods, while you call yourself an agnostic. Anyone who lacks a belief in any deities can be called an atheist.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    JDawg:

    Why would it be proved by empirical evidence if it is not an empirical thing? That's in and of itself, silly.

    Go look for empirical correlates to logic. You'll find you won't get anywhere with that, either.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    A god without free will is useless.
    It suggests God is just a name given to the anthropomorphism of nature.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    Enmos:

    That depends entirely on there being free will in ANYTHING to change things.
     
  8. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    How is that ?
    If God doesn't have free will, how is he omnipotent ?
    How can you describe omnipotence without the notion of free will ?
     
  9. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    Enmos:

    Easily: God has (far more than) sufficient power to do anything which is non-contradictory. That he does things deterministically just as everything else might, does not diminish the power to do such - when/if he is determined to do so.
     
  10. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    God doesn't do anything by choice, apparently.
    How come we need to assume there is a God ?
    Seems that "it just happened" is sufficient.. as there is no way of distinguishing "it just happened" from your concept of God.

    Also, this means that God must obey his own creation. Smart move.. lol He is a prisoner by his own doing. What a moron

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Not to mention that God existed before the universe did because he created everything, which is in itself a huge fallacy.
     
  11. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    Enmos:

    Do we? Some would say we do: Anselm. I have not made this argument personally.

    If ever there is an action that requires God, the notion of "just happened" would not sit well with the facts. In fact, "it just happened!" is not an answer to any question. Things have causes. Investigation of the causes would lead to one finding God if God indeed caused such things.

    Only in some views. I would agree that it is fallacious to view God as a creator.
     
  12. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Very well.
    But what then is the point of your argument, if you don't believe in it yourself ?

    It's as good as "God did it". In fact, I like it better than "God did it".

    Then what is his role ?
     
  13. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,824
    How does that compute? If I know all about a gene and I can mutate it, and know the results of that mutation ad nauseum, how is that mutually exclusive?
     
  14. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    Enmos:

    This is about showing agnosticism to be absurd, not that God is real or not real.

    I actually do believe in "God", but in a non-personal pantheist sense, and also in the validity of Anselm's ontological argument. But that is not at all interesting or pertinent to this debate.

    Save the phrase "God did it" can be correct. "It just happened" is never.

    Irrelevant to the topic at hand. But if you must ask my personal position on the matter: God is a conveinent name for discussing existence on the infinite and necessary scale.
     
  15. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    "It just happened" indicates that it did happened but for unknown reasons.
    "God did it" leaves no room for uncertainty. God did it and that is that, no further question needed.
     
  16. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    Prince James,

    How is it truth without evidence? Without evidence, you must assume. That's the point I'm driving at. I'm not saying that there's no place for philosophy in the world, I'm just saying that you don't get the answers from it.
     
  17. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,865
    The best attempt Ive ever read is a book by Dr. Francis Collins (director of the human genome project) called 'The Languauge of God'.

    Heres a video summary:
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=DjJAWuzno9Y
     
  18. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Prince_James

    Can I do something this God can not do?
    Can this God learn?

    Michael


    I suppose it just seems that this God is an eternal hard drive in the sky - the Universe itself. It is not rational because it can not think, it can not think because it is all knowing. There is nothing to think about. It's an irrational nonfeeling nothing. is this a God? If a God has all information then I'd say it is all information. As it doesn't think, then it's the Universe. If it's the universe then why the need for the word God?
     
  19. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    That's knowing a principle, not the future. You aren't omniscient.
     
  20. codanblad a love of bridges Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,397
    even if he does make it 5 dollars higher, he knew he was going to change it sometime in the future. all omniscience proves is that he is incapable of making mistakes, 'mistakes' is just the easy way to describe choices which sucked for us, or seem stupid.
     
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2008
  21. codanblad a love of bridges Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,397
    i agree, the only god which fits the description by christianity would be a god who is imperfect, he's just a powerful entity. As such, we're just as entitled to worship satan, or ourselves, as the value of opinions or influence is debatable.
     
  22. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,942
    Prince_James, you state in the OP that God is either necessarily existent or necessarily non-existent, but you don't say why.
    Why do you dismiss the "not-necessarily existent or not-necessarily non-existent" options?

    Further, you say that IF God's necessity (one way or the other) is provable by reason alone then agnosticism is a flawed position - yet noone has ever managed to prove God's necessity by reason - and you have not given any argument that suggests otherwise.

    The Ontological argument is all well and good, if that is what you are basing this discussion on - until you realise that all they are describing is existence itself, not God. And that existence is necessarily existent. (NB: I think one could go further and equate existence to the Universe.)
    Nothing that can be said about God through the Ontological argument can not be attributed to existence.
    But since we already have a word for existence... which is... er... "existence", we have no use for the word "God".

    If you think differently, please explain what the Ontological Argument says about God, and we'll compare it to "Existence".

    Or if you are not basing this on the OA, what exactly are you arguing? That IF God is provable by reason THEN the agnostic position would be flawed? Well, duh, yeah. IF.
    But if you're saying that God IS provable by reason alone - please demonstrate, and prove.
     
  23. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    He can't. Nobody can. Despite the claims that philosophy can prove or disprove God, not one philosopher has been able to do so. So I guess in that case, they are philosophizing on the ability or non-ability of...philosophy!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page