This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Atheism / Agnosticism
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Squishalot
How is it illogical to believe something COULD exist, but believe that it doesn't? For example, I believe that it's ENTIRELY possible that there COULD be a delicious dinner waiting for me in the kitchen, but I also believe that it's NOT actually there because there is no evidence to support there being a delicious dinner prepared (for a multitude of reasons, e.g. can't smell anything, didn't hear cooking, no one is here to cook, etc. etc.). Just because there isn't a dinner waiting for me, does NOT mean that it's IMPOSSIBLE for a dinner to be waiting for me.
It is very illogical. If you believe something could exist, then you can only believe that
it is unlikely to exist
, not that it
doesn't exist
. If you believe that it doesn't exist, then either your conclusion is flawed (because it does have the possibility of existing), or your second belief is flawed (because you know it cannot exist, yet you believe that it can possibly exist).
So basically, you accept that I meet all the criteria for what I and a few others in this thread would describe as an Agnostic Atheist but still don't accept the labels?
That's precisely it, noting that the main reason for this thread is:
I disagree with your definition of agnosticism, but that's a debate for another thread, rather than derailing this one.
I honestly don't care what you believe - it's none of my business to tell you what you should or shouldn't believe. My criticism that led to this thread is in the labeling of what you believe, and you were mistaken if you thought I had any other agenda.
Regardless, there's a generally accepted meaning for agnosticism, and it's not the one you have presented in this thread.
No, that's by your definition of Agnostic, which so far, nobody has seemed to share.
You're using an appeal to the majority. The majority of people screw up the definition of irony as well. Flawed argument.
If I say "I believe that six times nine is fourty-two" and someone else raises an objection, you can't claim to know what number the second person will say is the correct answer.
I can claim to know that the second person will say, at least, that it is not forty-two, because 'forty two' and 'not forty two' are both exhaustive and mutually exclusive possibilities. Likewise, 'at least 1 god exists' and 'no god exists' are exhaustive and mutually exclusive. Try again?
"I believe in God, but I'm not so arrogant as to say that I know it definitely exists". Just like that.
That's not belief, that's fence sitting. That's the Christian who goes to church 'just in case God exists'. He doesn't actually believe God exists.
Are you referring to this? Because Dawkins says nothing about "true atheism", he acknowledges that category 7 is very low population but never implies that anyone not in category 7 isn't a real atheist.
He refers to people in category 6 as 'de facto' atheists, according to that link (and I can't cross check that with my book, because I'm at work). 'De facto' implies "in practice or actuality, but without being officially established". They act as atheists act, live as atheists live, but they are not officially atheists.
Also note - Dawkins treats agnostics and atheists as separate points on a continuum, precisely what you're arguing against (i.e. that agnosticism doesn't sit on a continuum with atheism and theism). You can't reject an idea and subsequently use that as an appeal to authority!
@ Skreeran - I'll reply to you later when I get time.
Post by
StrangerWifCandy
How is it illogical to believe something COULD exist, but believe that it doesn't? For example, I believe that it's ENTIRELY possible that there COULD be a delicious dinner waiting for me in the kitchen, but I also believe that it's NOT actually there because there is no evidence to support there being a delicious dinner prepared (for a multitude of reasons, e.g. can't smell anything, didn't hear cooking, no one is here to cook, etc. etc.). Just because there isn't a dinner waiting for me, does NOT mean that it's IMPOSSIBLE for a dinner to be waiting for me.
It is very illogical. If you believe something could exist, then you can only believe that
it is unlikely to exist
, not that it
doesn't exist
. If you believe that it doesn't exist, then either your conclusion is flawed (because it does have the possibility of existing), or your second belief is flawed (because you know it cannot exist, yet you believe that it can possibly exist).
No, what we mean when we say it's possible to exist is that there exists a (sequence of) event(s) that have a cause-effect relationship with another event (time-like spacetime interval definition). What we mean when we say it doesn't exist, after we say that it's possible to exist, is simply the observation that the required sequence of events that make, let's say the existence of a unicorn on Earth true, are NOT met, therefore unicorns don't exist; BUT we acknowledge that going back in time, if events happened a little differently unicorns could have existed on Earth.
Do you understand now? If you're confused by my wording I'll try again.
Post by
Squishalot
No, what we mean when we say it's possible to exist is that there exists a (sequence of) event(s) that have a cause-effect relationship with another event (time-like spacetime interval definition). What we mean when we say it doesn't exist, after we say that it's possible to exist, is simply the observation that the required sequence of events that make, let's say the existence of a unicorn on Earth true, are NOT met, therefore unicorns don't exist; BUT we acknowledge that going back in time, if events happened a little differently unicorns could have existed on Earth.
Then it's not possible that unicorns exist now.
Really, what you're saying is that unicorns could theoretically exist under these circumstances, but that they do not exist because these circumstances do not exist. Either way, the statement that 'unicorns can possibly exist' (past) is not in the same time context as your statement 'unicorns do not exist' (present). If they do not exist (present), it is illogical to say that they may exist (present).
This is contrasted with DoctorLore and Skreeran's statements that they don't believe that god exists (present), yet believe that god may exist (present).
Post by
StrangerWifCandy
No, what we mean when we say it's possible to exist is that there exists a (sequence of) event(s) that have a cause-effect relationship with another event (time-like spacetime interval definition). What we mean when we say it doesn't exist, after we say that it's possible to exist, is simply the observation that the required sequence of events that make, let's say the existence of a unicorn on Earth true, are NOT met, therefore unicorns don't exist; BUT we acknowledge that going back in time, if events happened a little differently unicorns could have existed on Earth.
Then it's not possible that unicorns exist now.
Really, what you're saying is that unicorns could theoretically exist under these circumstances, but that they do not exist because these circumstances do not exist. Either way, the statement that 'unicorns can possibly exist' (past) is not in the same time context as your statement 'unicorns do not exist' (present). If they do not exist (present), it is illogical to say that they may exist (present).
This is contrasted with DoctorLore and Skreeran's statements that they don't believe that god exists (present), yet believe that god may exist (present).
It's not past tense; The statement is (given a set of circumstances) it's possible for unicorns to exist NOW (now being a world similar to how we know it today, except append unicorns), and the statement "unicorns do not exist" is, again, the observation that the (given a set of circumstances) part is not met, and by simply looking around we confirm it to be true.
As for Skeeran and DoctorLore, if they're in the same boat as me, what they mean is that they ultimately admit that it's impossible to test for the existence of a God(s) today, and because there is no concrete proof (through scientific experimentation) of the existence or lack-thereof of God(s) they admit that it's entirely POSSIBLE(definition of possible being the same as what we've derived together) that some sort of God(s) exist; but at the end of the day they FEEL that it's the case that God does not exist, and the reasons for this differ from person to person.
In this fashion, I will defend rigorously my assertion that there is no God, but I'm also humble enough to admit that I'm not all knowing of the universe and that at least currently, it is impossible for humanity to devise an experiment that produces observable concrete results--thus agnostic atheist.
Post by
Squishalot
So again, if you believe it's impossible to get a concrete conclusion, what logic do you use to come to the conclusion that there is no God?
The only valid / logical conclusion to come to is that "
it is likely
there is no God." Hence, de facto atheist, but not a true atheist. And so, we're back to the definition of labels.
Post by
StrangerWifCandy
So again, if you believe it's impossible to get a concrete conclusion, what logic do you use to come to the conclusion that there is no God?
The only valid / logical conclusion to come to is that "
it is likely
there is no God." Hence, de facto atheist, but not a true atheist. And so, we're back to the definition of labels.
Now you're being pedantic. Not only do we believe it's unlikely for God to exist, we believe there is no God, much in the same manner as the unicorn and my dinner (which now exists if you're wondering). That last jump in reasoning, to go from unlikely to sheer non-existence is purely from feeling. Sure none of the evidence is concrete, but we see how the universe works, and when we interpret it we're sure that God does not exist.
So, I'll try to phrase it in your wording: Not only do we believe it's unlikely that God exists, we also believe that God DOESN'T exist. I know this is what you don't agree is possible, but what we mean is, in the same fashion as we say that it's possible for unicorns to exist today, we can look around and see that they do not exist.
We say that it's possible for God to exist, and then we also say that if ever there were some way to conduct an experiment to observe God, the experiment would show that there is no God.
I'm struggling to make this as clear as I can, sorry. Also, I'm of the opinion that the precise definition of the words don't matter, but the exact meaning behind them. Why care so much about whether or not atheist/whatever is the MOST right term to use? You know their beliefs (and mine as well) now, so the discussion should have just ended there, imho. Fight with the Oxford English Dictionary committee if you want the definition of a word changed.
We are what we are, whatever you want to call us is just language. Anyways, time to enjoy my delicious dinner.
Post by
Squishalot
Now you're being pedantic.
...
Also, I'm of the opinion that the precise definition of the words don't matter, but the exact meaning behind them. Why care so much about whether or not atheist/whatever is the MOST right term to use? You know their beliefs (and mine as well) now, so the discussion should have just ended there, imho.
As I reminded DoctorLore, if you go back to the original post, the whole thread started because I disagreed with his definition. I'm not arguing that the belief is wrong, I'm saying that what you guys are calling it is wrong / inappropriate / misleading.
Fight with the Oxford English Dictionary committee if you want the definition of a word changed.
The Oxford English Dictionary states:
atheist (athe|ist)
Pronunciation:/ˈeɪθɪɪst/
noun
a person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods:
We get that. We agree on the definition as it is written. What we disagree about is on the interpretation of that definition and whether it refers to 'hard' or 'true' atheism, or 'de facto' atheism, as we agree we understand the terms.
Post by
148723
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
StrangerWifCandy
As I reminded DoctorLore, if you go back to the original post, the whole thread started because I disagreed with his definition. I'm not arguing that the belief is wrong, I'm saying that what you guys are calling it is wrong / inappropriate / misleading.
Fight with the Oxford English Dictionary committee if you want the definition of a word changed.
The Oxford English Dictionary states:
atheist (athe|ist)
Pronunciation:/ˈeɪθɪɪst/
noun
a person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods:
We get that. We agree on the definition as it is written. What we disagree about is on the interpretation of that definition and whether it refers to 'hard' or 'true' atheism, or 'de facto' atheism, as we agree we understand the terms.
So, do you agree we're atheists? We don't believe God exists, regardless of whether or not we acknowledge the possibility of him existance.
Post by
Squishalot
We don't believe God exists, regardless of whether or not we acknowledge the possibility of him existance.
I think that it's an illogical conclusion, if you interpret 'don't believe God exists' in a precise manner (as opposed to 'it is unlikely that God exists').
I don't agree that you're 'true' atheists. I don't believe that you 'don't believe God exists' (with interpretation above), because I know that your viewpoint is that of 'de facto' atheism.
Going back to what you said before:
Not only do we believe it's unlikely that God exists, we also believe that God DOESN'T exist. I know this is what you don't agree is possible, but what we mean is, in the same fashion as we say that it's possible for unicorns to exist today, we can look around and see that they do not exist.
This is what I mean about preciseness. If you look around and see that they do not exist, then it is not possible for them to exist, providing that your search was exhaustive. If it's not exhaustive, then you cannot conclude that they do not exist.
I understand what you mean, and that is 'de facto' atheism. Not 'true' atheism.
Skreeran - I haven't forgotten about you.
Post by
124027
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Hard atheism is far more paradoxical and hypocrital than soft atheism.
What do paradoxes or hypocriticism have anything to do with it? People are hypocritical all the time. I'm not saying soft / de facto atheism is invalid, I'm saying it's not hard / true atheism.
Having said that, it's not truly hypocriticism. People who are hard atheists have examined the evidence and concluded (rightly or wrongly) that there is no god, with no room for maybes. To them, the evidence is a proof. Is it illogical? Yes. Is it any more illogical than a theist's belief? No. Is it blind belief? Not necessarily. It's just a different tolerance to the level of evidence required to be convinced. You have a belief that it is unlikely that a god exists. On what basis do you have that belief? What evidence do you have? How is it any different from the blind belief of any other probability of a god's existence?
Let's look up the definition of 'Agnostic', since you claim I'm disagreeing with it. The Oxford Dictionary says:
"a person who believes that
nothing is known or can be known
of the existence or nature of God"
This is contrary to atheism, which implicitly contends that god (or gods) does (do) not exist. That, by definition, implies a knowledge of the existence or nature of God. QED
In fact, if you can place a probability on the likelihood of God's existence (eg, God is unlikely to exist), you cannot theoretically be agnostic, because you claim to know something of the existence or nature of God (i.e. the probability of his existence).
You see, I'm not disagreeing with dictionary definitions. The core of our disagreement is in the interpretation and application of those definitions.
Post by
Squishalot
I do not believe that any god exists
based on the definition of every major religion
I have ever encountered. I do not believe I will ever
encounter anything that accurately defines a "god"
BUT
I don't discount the probability of it occurring
as it has never been proven conclusively that god doesn't exist. I made my conclusions based on the complete lack of evidence that god does exist rather than the evidence that he doesn't exist.
What does that make me? (By your definition).
Key points highlighted in bold.
I would suggest that you're agnostic in a non-deism (or fence sitter) sense. In those statements, you're making a probabilistic claim about whether you would encounter a godlike being, but no claim about its existence, nor the probability of its existence. You're rejecting several theist religions as well, but that doesn't influence what your belief is - that it's completely unknown.
Is that satisfactory?
Post by
124027
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
StrangerWifCandy
We don't believe God exists, regardless of whether or not we acknowledge the possibility of him existance.
I think that it's an illogical conclusion, if you interpret 'don't believe God exists' in a precise manner (as opposed to 'it is unlikely that God exists').
I don't agree that you're 'true' atheists. I don't believe that you 'don't believe God exists' (with interpretation above), because I know that your viewpoint is that of 'de facto' atheism.
No, we -really- don't believe God exists. We are atheists. It seems like you're pent up on some sort of 'pure' atheism. Given the dictionary definition, you either are atheist or not, and we don't believe in God, so we're just atheists. de facto, true, this makes no sense to me.
Going back to what you said before:
Not only do we believe it's unlikely that God exists, we also believe that God DOESN'T exist. I know this is what you don't agree is possible, but what we mean is, in the same fashion as we say that it's possible for unicorns to exist today, we can look around and see that they do not exist.
This is what I mean about preciseness. If you look around and see that they do not exist, then it is not possible for them to exist, providing that your search was exhaustive. If it's not exhaustive, then you cannot conclude that they do not exist.
I understand what you mean, and that is 'de facto' atheism. Not 'true' atheism.
Skreeran - I haven't forgotten about you.
Take some time to rethink it again. Just because unicorns do not exist right now does not mean that they could have never existed. The way everything turned out just happened to be in a manner such that there are no unicorns.
In the same manner, because there is no God now, does not mean that it is impossible for one to exist(remember when I say God I mean some sort of conscious being that's responsible for the creation of the universe or maintaining of it, be it some bearded guy in the sky or some kid working on a physics simulation on a super-computer). I'm sure the ambiguity is what bugs you, but you need to admit that you have no clue whether or not there is some sort of thing that is responsible for creating the universe, be it a force, conscious being, or otherwise. We're just no where near advanced enough to know this.
How am I failing to construe this point? Let's say that there are a deck of cards, where each card is an entire universe with different aspects. Let's say this deck is infinitely large, matching the literally infinite amount of different universes there COULD be. One of these cards is the exact same as our universe except there is an intelligent being responsible for the creation of the universe, while another card represents our universe as is, but without a God, instead some sort of physical force or explainable physical phenomena. We say that when a card was randomly picked from the deck, it was the universe without a God, but we acknowledge that the card with God exists.
Now replace the card metaphor with possibility, and it should make sense.
Let's say that there is a
pool of possibilities
, where each
possibility
is an entire universe with different aspects. Let's say this
pool
is infinitely large, matching the literally infinite amount of different universes there COULD be. One of these
possibilities
is the exact same as our universe except there is an intelligent being responsible for the creation of the universe, while another
possibility
represents our universe as is, but without a God and instead the result of some sort of physical force or other explainable physical phenomena. We say that when a
probability
was randomly picked from the
pool
, it was the universe without a God, but we acknowledge that the
possibility
of God exists.
Actually, when I think about it this way, I believe the crux of our issue here is that you're thinking about the possibility of God AFTER the card is drawn, is zero; e.g. after we drew the card of our no-God universe, the instant after that moment, the possibility of God existing became zero, because the universe now exists, therefore it doesn't matter what COULD have been before it did, because the aspect of the universe we drew is that there is no God, it's impossible for God to exist in a no-God universe by definition.
However, I'm not arguing that; from this perspective the argument I'm making is that we
don't know
what card we drew, and while I honestly and truly believe we drew the no-God card, because I can't PROVE that we did, I must acknowledge that it's possible that we drew a God card (no Yu-Gi-Oh pun intended).
Wow, this turned out very long, my apologies, but I think it's important to expound on these points. Does this analogy make the logic clear to you? I don't think I have enough juice in me to make another one tbh, heh.
Post by
Squishalot
@ IronGolem: So let me get this straight - you think god doesn't exist, but people will convince (read: delude) themselves into thinking that they've found god?
Just because unicorns do not exist right now does not mean that they could have never existed.
You're confusing past and present again! (Though you've corrected it later in your post.) The underlying principle behind the arguments being put forward is that there is a belief that God doesn't exist RIGHT NOW (being an implicit belief, based on the lack of belief that God exists), and that there is a belief it's possible that God exists RIGHT NOW. This is where the conundrum is.
Actually, when I think about it this way, I believe the crux of our issue here is that you're thinking about the possibility of God AFTER the card is drawn, is zero; e.g. after we drew the card of our no-God universe, the instant after that moment, the possibility of God existing became zero, because the universe now exists, therefore it doesn't matter what COULD have been before it did, because the aspect of the universe we drew is that there is no God, it's impossible for God to exist in a no-God universe by definition.
Indeed, it is. My point is that we don't know and cannot know what card was drawn, so you cannot possibly come to a logical conclusion that "we drew the no-God card". So your second point is fine - you acknowledge it's possible that we drew a God card - but is logically inconsistent with your belief that "we drew the no-God card". If, indeed, we drew the no-God card, then it's not possible that we drew a God card, by definition.
Post by
StrangerWifCandy
So let me get this straight - you think god doesn't exist, but people will convince (read: delude) themselves into thinking that they've found god?
What? Is this at me or IronGolem?
Just because unicorns do not exist right now does not mean that they could have never existed.
You're confusing past and present again! (Though you've corrected it later in your post.) The underlying principle behind the arguments being put forward is that there is a belief that God doesn't exist RIGHT NOW (being an implicit belief, based on the lack of belief that God exists), and that there is a belief it's possible that God exists RIGHT NOW. This is where the conundrum is.
It's not simultaneously believing that God exists and doesn't exist, it's that
because
I don't know what card was drawn, God may exist right now, but I'm certain that God does not exist right now (because of various reasonings, loose evidence, and gut feelings).
Actually, when I think about it this way, I believe the crux of our issue here is that you're thinking about the possibility of God AFTER the card is drawn, is zero; e.g. after we drew the card of our no-God universe, the instant after that moment, the possibility of God existing became zero, because the universe now exists, therefore it doesn't matter what COULD have been before it did, because the aspect of the universe we drew is that there is no God, it's impossible for God to exist in a no-God universe by definition.
Indeed, it is. My point is that we don't know and cannot know what card was drawn, so you cannot possibly come to a logical conclusion that "we drew the no-God card". So your second point is fine - you acknowledge it's possible that we drew a God card - but is logically inconsistent with your belief that "we drew the no-God card". If, indeed, we drew the no-God card, then it's not possible that we drew a God card, by definition.
So we agree that we don't know which card we've drawn, that's good I feel like we're finally reaching compromise; but I'm here to say that we
CAN
come to a logical conclusion that we drew the no-God card. We can't right now of course, but some time in the future near or far, when we gain the means to find out, I'm saying that we
WILL
find that we drew the no-God card, and when we finally do prove this I'll finally be able to drop the belief in even the possibility of God. Until that happens though, I have to accept that it is possible for God to exist.
(Note: When I say we can reach a conclusion means that it's possible to, but not right now.)
Now, like I mentioned before, that last logical leap (saying that we'll find no God) ultimately depends on faith. Surely every rational person gets to the point where they say they can't know whether or not God exists, but at their very core what they BELIEVE is either God exists (in whatever form) or doesn't.
To clarify, even though it's a leap, I still dub it logical, because we all have our own premises that lead to a logical decision in regards of which direction to leap. The reason it is a leap instead of a conclusion is SOLELY because of the nature of the fact that it's impossible for us to know which card was drawn. This is what it means to
believe
in something as opposed to
knowing
, right? Atheism isn't defined as knowing that God doesn't exist, it's defined as believing God doesn't exist.
So, to summarize, I was saying the argument that we drew the no-God card is a logical leap; that is I believe that if or when we find the truth, we will affirm that we indeed drew the no-God card, and as a consequence the possibility of God will be destroyed; and finally it'll be changed from a leap/theory/hypothesis into a conclusion.
I finally think we've reached the point of argument in logic here: it's this last step, am I correct? If you want to argue about this, this is the exact point where atheists/christians/whatever everywhere all argue why or why not God exists and supply their own personal reasons for support, and I believe warrants ANOTHER topic for full discussion, and much flaming.
You ended it with saying that it's logically inconsistent to conclude that we know we drew the no-God card when we also say we don't know which card we drew; something I fully agree with, but what I've been trying to construe the entire time is that we're not claiming we
know
which card was drawn. It's ultimately just what we
believe
. We don't
know
which card we drew, but we have reason to
believe
that we drew the no-God card.
Until then, it's logically consistent to say that we believe in something, but because of something else we don't know whether or not the belief is true. When we reach the proof of no-God (or vice-versa) then it's logically inconsistent, as you so called us out for, to claim to
know
God exists when you
know
that we exist in a no-God universe; and by extension it's just silly to
believe
God exists if you
know
that we exist in a no-God universe.
I certainly never intended to claim to
know
that we drew the no-God card and that I
don't know
which card was drawn at the same time.
Here's my updated statement built on everything so far, and I hope it's specific enough that you'll agree with me:
I
don't know
what card was drawn, but I have
reasons
to
believe
that we drew the no-God card, but because I
don't know
what card was drawn I
know
my
belief
may be wrong and if it is then God exists.
or, rephrased: I believe there is no God, but I also believe that God may exist.
Do you still think it's a fallacy to say we don't believe in God, but know we might be wrong?
Post by
Squishalot
What? Is this at me or IronGolem?
Sorry, that was at IronGolem. I'll edit my post to clarify.
It's not simultaneously believing that God exists and doesn't exist, it's that because I don't know what card was drawn, God may exist right now, but I'm certain that God does not exist right now (because of various reasonings, loose evidence, and gut feelings).
That's where I think the logical inconsistency is. If God may exist right now, then how can you be certain the he does not?
I'm saying that we WILL find that we drew the no-God card, and when we finally do I'll finally be able to drop the belief in even the possibility of God. Until that happens though, I have to accept that it is possible for God to exist.
Are you open to the possibility of finding out that we drew the God card instead? Because if so, you can't logically say that we WILL find that we drew the no-God card, because you're acknowledging that there is an element of doubt. By definition, we can only find that we drew the no-God card IF God doesn't exist (i.e. we didn't draw the God card). So by saying that we WILL find we drew the no-God card, you are explicitly saying that God doesn't exist. If you know the probability is 0% in the future, in the same universe, we can determine that the probability must be 0% in the present also, in this card drawing scenario that we're hypothesising.
If you honestly
believe
that we WILL find that no-God card, then you are a true Atheist. But only if you also concede the Bayesian probability above - that the implication of your belief is that you must conclude that there is no possibility that God can exist. Otherwise, your beliefs are simply illogical.
Do you still think it's a fallacy to say we don't believe in God, but know we might be wrong?
I think that if you know you might be wrong, it would be a fallacy to come to a firm conclusion.
Post by
StrangerWifCandy
It's not simultaneously believing that God exists and doesn't exist, it's that because I don't know what card was drawn, God may exist right now, but I'm certain that God does not exist right now (because of various reasonings, loose evidence, and gut feelings).
That's where I think the logical inconsistency is. If God may exist right now, then how can you be certain the he does not?
Forgive me, I should have used the word believe instead of certain. When I say certain here, I don't mean it in the way Descartes did, I meant believe.
I'm saying that we WILL find that we drew the no-God card, and when we finally do I'll finally be able to drop the belief in even the possibility of God. Until that happens though, I have to accept that it is possible for God to exist.
Are you open to the possibility of finding out that we drew the God card instead? Because if so, you can't logically say that we WILL find that we drew the no-God card, because you're acknowledging that there is an element of doubt. By definition, we can only find that we drew the no-God card IF God doesn't exist (i.e. we didn't draw the God card). So by saying that we WILL find we drew the no-God card, you are explicitly saying that God doesn't exist. If you know the probability is 0% in the future, in the same universe, we can determine that the probability must be 0% in the present also, in this card drawing scenario that we're hypothesising.
Yep! In fact, I'm completely open to the possibility that we drew the God card instead! That was actually the entire point of why we say we also believe that God
may
exist, after saying we don't believe God exists. It's to account for the fact that we know we might be wrong! Now, when I was saying that we will find no-God, that was my belief, not a certainty. I was imagining that we'd come up with some sort of device or advance far enough in physics and developing an everything theory that will fully explain the mysteries of our universe, and in that manner we'll find no-God.
In any case, I believe you skimmed over the very last statement in my last post, so I'll requote it here:
I don't know what card was drawn, but I have reasons to believe that we drew the no-God card, but because I don't know what card was drawn I know my belief may be wrong and if it is then God exists
What this means is exactly what you've pointed out above: We believe that there is no God, but because we don't know what card was drawn, we have to account for the possibility that we're wrong, e.g. the possibility that there is a God.
This translates to I believe there is no God, but I also believe that God may exist.
or I believe there is no God, but I also know that I might be wrong.
If you honestly
believe
that we WILL find that no-God card, then you are a true Atheist. But only if you also concede the Bayesian probability above - that the implication of your belief is that you must conclude that there is no possibility that God can exist. Otherwise, your beliefs are simply illogical.
Yes, I truly
believe
there is no god, in the sense of some sort of intelligent being, but I
know
that
because
it's a
belief
that the possibility I'm wrong exists. This possibility that I'm wrong equates to the possibility of God existing. I feel this is logical because I'm accounting for the possibility of error, because of the nature of believing. Once we find sufficient proof that no God exists, then I can finally smugly change those beliefs into knowledge, and I can abandon the possibility of error--the possibility of God.
So finally, on that note...
I think that if you know you might be wrong, it would be a fallacy to come to a firm conclusion.
When we use the word believe, it automatically is not a firm conclusion, it's a belief, not a certainty. So we can agree that there is no fallacy with the original statement now?
"I believe there is no God, but I also believe that God may exist."
Post by
Squishalot
Your use of the word 'believe' is different from the religious use of the word 'believe.
I'm curious what you think the probability of your beliefs being wrong are. In saying that though, from a religious perspective, you have no belief. Your lack of conviction in your belief, in my opinion only, suggests that you shouldn't refer to yourself as an atheist, but rather, as someone who is continuing to search for answers, especially since you believe that it's actually possible to find an answer!
Should there be a word to describe someone who's looking for their 100% belief? Yes. DoctorLore and Skreeran are arguing that it's the definition of 'Agnostic', but it can't be in the sense that they're describing it as.
For clarity's sake - the reason why I believe you need that 100% belief is to avoid the 'silly' situation of being a Christian Muslim - trying to have a seat in both camps.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.