Ignosticism (Prove to me there is a God)

[Kralizec]

DC: following the logic of Pascals wager still leaves you with the question wich particular religion is in the right.

[Ice]

DC: following the logic of Pascals wager still leaves you with the question wich particular religion is in the right.

That question is impossible to answer, until the time it is revealed.

It all boils down to what you believe, what you finding fitting, and which one appeals to you.

[Banquo's Ghost]

That question is impossible to answer, until the time it is revealed.

It all boils down to what you believe, what you finding fitting, and which one appeals to you.

If it were a matter only of your personal faith, that would be fine. But almost all modern religions feel it necessary to involve themselves in other people's morals and indeed politics.

Thus the question is entirely valid, and requires an answer. If Rupert's god tells me I should despise homosexuals, but Fred's god tells me I should cuddle one on a daily basis, and both try to influence my political representative, how do I know which is right? Which is my moral compass?

@ Don, I don't contend that there are many gods but that mankind has conceived of many gods and spirits. Most of these impose different requirements on the believer. The "logical" position that it is better/safer to believe in a god as an insurance policy is fallacious, since most of them demand one does something to earn the reward. If one does the wrong thing, even for the right reasons, many of these jealous gods (yours being a prime example, tolerating none but he) visit eternal punishment.

Frankly, I don't know why tree spirits fell out of vogue. IIRC they were really hot chicks with strategically placed leaves (a forest being kinda like a Beirut's Ultimate Fantasy Babe thread) and you can see trees.

[Cowhead418]

You really needn't look any further than 'Red Dwarf' for an answer. Kryten summed it up nicely: 'Human Heaven? Goodness me, humans don't go to Heaven! No, someone made that up to prevent you all from going nuts!'

The only annoying thing is that when you all finally do die and nothing happens, none of you will actually realise it!

Hey! Someone with my exact views! There are a few points/views I'd like to make/raise:

@ Sasaki - I'm atheist but I still can't sleep in because I work on Sundays! There, your divinity is disproved.

@ DC - I have heard this argument several times. To put it in other words, you are telling me that I should believe in God because it is the convenient thing to do. I will not dispute this notion, though I think this argument is absurd. Yes, I would like to believe that after I die I will go to a paradise and everything will be fine and dandy. However, life rarely works out that way and I fail to see why I should make an exception here. There are many negative aspects of life that I'd like to not believe in, but sadly there is often no alternative option. Yes, many of these aspects are concrete and religion is not, but this argument just provides evidence to my theory that people believe in Heaven because they can't face up to the possibility that there is not happiness after death. To me it is why fairy tales are so popular. And it is also why you will sad endings are much rarer in books and movies. People just won't accept a 'bad' ending.

@ lancelot - it is a bit ridiculous, isn't it? I was raised Roman Catholic, and they preach that God's love is unconditional, and that he is very forgiving of even the most extreme of sins. Yet Christians hold the belief that the simple act of disputing the existence of said God is enough to damn you to the fiery pits of Hell for all eternity. I've even heard some Christians say that Gandhi is in Hell just for choosing not to believe in the Christian God. It doesn't paint a very loving or forgiving picture of God, does it? It seems to me that this God is not loving after all but actually evil and intolerant.

Finally, @ GB - I agree 100%. I do not believe there is a God and the arguments about the creation of the universe are absurd because the same arguments could be used against the existence of God. Also, my view of life after death is that there is none. After you die you go back to the same state you were before you were conceived - oblivion. Unfortunately, in this view, it means that we will never actually know if God existed, because after death we won't be able to say or think: "Oh, I guess I was wrong/right after all." On the bright side, at least we won't be able to think: "Well, this really sucks." Yes, it is quite a pessimistic view because we won't actually discover what death brings, and I hope it doesn't occur this way, but my beliefs are what they are.

[Quietus]

Never heard of Ignosticism before but I've had similar arguments months ago.

Understanding is a function of knowledge. No knowledge, no understanding. Hence one cannot define anything without any knowledge of it.

Example:
1) Define "Yfkgmaoggwokf". Try.
a) You have no knowledge nor any proof of "Yfkgmaoggwokf".
b) You can't define it either.
c) You can't claim it exists.

However, if you replace it with "GOD":
1) Define "God". Well?
a) You have no knowledge or proof of "God"
but magically,
b) God is the creator of the universe etc etc.
c) and God exists.

[Papewaio]

Now, you in the backroom can either try to prove to me that there is a God, or just give me an amen in agreement, or give me your own take on faith and religion.

Exhibit A:
The scratch marks on my back...

I'll let you fill in the dots.

[BDC]

To reiterate Banquo's point Don:

You sure you worshiping the correct God? There are many of them and you might not be right.

Could be a lot of really confused and annoyed looking pacifist Buddhist monks in Valhalla...

[macsen rufus]

Could be a lot of really confused and annoyed looking pacifist Buddhist monks in Valhalla...

Thanks, BDC, for the best mental image in the thread so far!

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Here's what I don't get about agnosticism:

If you are having a conversation with someone and they asked you what you thought of the Flying Spaghetti monster, would you really say "I'm sorry, but due to the fact that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not subject to our causal laws and such, I cannot ascertain whether or not His Noodliness exists"? I think the most rational answer there would be "No".

Or how about (for some of the more conservative people): If someone asked you if you were actually a woman trapped in a mans body would you really say "I'm not sure, I can't prove it one way or another, it is a definite possibility"? Even if you said that would you really be thinking that?

[Lemur]

Sasaki, I think it's more about humility than anything else. When you consider how vast and mysterious our universe is, it makes more sense to say "I'm open to the possibility," than to say "There is no God." Anybody with half a brain and a healthy dollop of imagination can surmise that there's more to life than can be easily perceived or measured.

We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are. This isn't a good or bad thing, it just is. To a greater or lesser extent, we are all bound by limitations of our minds, imaginations, and perspectives. There's no harm in being humble, and admitting that we don't know everything, and by virtue of our nature we can't know everything.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Sasaki, I think it's more about humility than anything else. When you consider how vast and mysterious our universe is, it makes more sense to say "I'm open to the possibility," than to say "There is no God." Anybody with half a brain and a healthy dollop of imagination can surmise that there's more to life than can be easily perceived or measured.

We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are. This isn't a good or bad thing, it just is. To a greater or lesser extent, we are all bound by limitations of our minds, imaginations, and perspectives. There's no harm in being humble, and admitting that we don't know everything, and by virtue of our nature we can't know everything.

How do you know we can't know everything? You can't prove that. That's the other problem with Agnosticism. They say you can't prove or disprove god, but they never prove that you can't prove or disprove god. It's an objection to taking a firm position on god, and yet it itself is a firm position. I don't get it.

Also, I don't think the universe is that vast or mysterious.


edit: you did answer my question as to why someone would say that in conversation though. I don't see that personally though. And I still don't get the philisophical position.

[Lemur]

I don't think the universe is that vast or mysterious.

Eh? Are we talking about the same universe?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Eh? Are we talking about the same universe?

Maybe. You can't prove the universe is vast

[Lemur]

I think I've already made my feelings clear about the use of the word "prove" in this context. Anybody who claims they can "prove" something in a chat board, or anybody who demands that something be "proved" in a chat board, well, they should at least lose style points.

Call it Lemur's Corollary to Godwin's Law.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I think I've already made my feelings clear about the use of the word "prove" in this context. Anybody who claims they can "prove" something in a chat board, or anybody who demands that something be "proved" in a chat board, well, they should at least lose style points.

Call it Lemur's Corollary to Godwin's Law.

Yes, agnosticism essentially rejects proof entirely, saying nothing can be proven, but it's basis for rejecting proof is no more sound than claiming there is no god.

[Lemur]

Just to be absolutely clear -- I'm not rejecting proof as a tool or a concept. I'm saying that its use as a demand or offering in a chat board context is not only counter-productive, but detrimental to the argument of the user. I'm classifying "prove" in the chat board context much the way "Nazi" gets classified in the most common readings of Godwin's Law.

There's a much ruder version of what I'm trying to formulate, but it wouldn't be appropriate for the Org.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I agree sure, but you can't discuss Agnosticism without using "prove". It's like trying to discuss republicans without using the word "pork".

[Mithrandir]

Eh? Are we talking about the same universe?

I must agree with Sasaki. If you would've told someone from medieval times that we could travel to the moon, light actually has weight, there are colours which the eyes can't see, that certain microbes can kill a person etc. etc. etc. they would've said you were insane and burnt you at the stakes.

Point I want to make, in 'just' a 1000 years (and especially the last 200 years) sience has taken a giant leap. I don't think that, unless humanity is destroyed soon [very possible] this trend will stop. Thus in a few hundred years we will have massive amounts more knowledge about the universe, maybe then we'll finally get rid of all those silly religion threads

[Lemur]

I guess my belief is that knowledge is fractal, and that the more we learn, the more we'll discover we don't know. Which is not in any way to imply that it's a zero-sum game -- far from it. More knowledge is great! Huzzah for science!

But how many physicists have predicted the "end of physics"? How many careers have been flushed down the bottomless hole known as the Grand Unified Theory?

We should learn everything we can, but we will never learn everything. Prove me wrong!

[Mithrandir]

We should learn everything we can, but we will never learn everything. Prove me wrong!

No problem, after about 18 reïncarnations we can come here and discuss the fact that there's no god...

There's just reïncarnation which enables us to discuss this topic till the end of days .

[Papewaio]

I
But how many physicists have predicted the "end of physics"? How many careers have been flushed down the bottomless hole known as the Grand Unified Theory?

So how many physicts have dropped their GUTs?

=][=

I agree that science appears to be fractal, but fractals have simple explanations (their formulas are simple, even if the output is infinite in complexity).

=][=

Anybody who claims they can "prove" something in a chat board, or anybody who demands that something be "proved" in a chat board, well, they should at least lose style points.

Two problems I have with this. Specifically why bother posting anything at all if you cannot get any closer to a proof/truth/understanding/etc?

Secondly your own arguement if correct will form a paradox and disproves itself.

[Lemur]

Two problems I have with this. Specifically why bother posting anything at all if you cannot get any closer to a proof/truth/understanding/etc?

Why bother posting? Certainly not to prove anything. Is anybody going to "prove" evolution to Navarros? There are no rules as such, no way to declare something proved or disproved, and no way to reach someone who has an entrenched position. Rather, I see this as spirited conversation, with ebbs and flows. And I like it that way. I'd much rather be in a good conversation than in a debate.

Secondly your own arguement if correct will form a paradox and disproves itself.

All Cretans are liars? Not exactly. I'm asserting that proof is an irrelevant concept in this context. And I'm not trying to prove it.

[Ianofsmeg16]

Of course there's a god...It's me..I realized it a while back when I was praying and suddenly realized I was talking to myself.


Thank you I'll sign autographs after the show...

[Mithrandir]

Of course there's a god...It's me..I realized it a while back when I was praying and suddenly realized I was talking to myself.

[Vuk]

There is no way to prove that there is a God! However, give me any other theory of the origin of life/earth and I'll disprove it! It is the logical conclusion that there is a God, however it cannot be proven by natural means (since God is supernatural) and gets down to a conviction of faith.

[AntiochusIII]

There is no way to prove that there is a God! However, give me any other theory of the origin of life/earth and I'll disprove it! It is the logical conclusion that there is a God, however it cannot be proven by natural means (since God is supernatural) and gets down to a conviction of faith.

...

By definition, logic and faith are two mutually exclusive things. Therefore, it cannot be a "logical conclusion that there is a God" and "gets down to a conviction of faith" at the same time, sorry.

If you ask me, I believe that there aren't any bloody gods to claim superiority over me. There are, however, hobbits, elves, morlocks, Argonians, and Smarties -- all of which are proven to exist and are related to the humanfolk one way or another.

[Red Peasant]

I don't know what 'Ignosticism' is, but my take on 'Agnosticism' is that it is a cop-out, a kind of intellectual cowardice.

It is irrational to suspend judgement on the question of the existence of God/gods [I wouldn't want to privilege the monotheists ;) ]. The burden of proof lies with the believer, the 'theist', which means that the logical stance to take is atheism.

Ockham's Razor posits that when you have two equally supported hypotheses then you pick the simpler of the two. It is a commonsense approach. So, you can say, on the one hand, that you have some of those pesky, yet invisible, Leprechauns in your garden as well as a lawn and some flowers, or you can say that there is only a lawn and a bunch of flowers out there. The evidence for both might be irrefutable - I mean how can you prove that the invisible Leprechauns don't exist?

Yet, the rational, commonsense thing to do is to believe the latter hypothesis, unless you are drunk or worse. Why should I be 'agnostic' about this and suspend judgement?

Also, some people erroneously claim that 'atheism' is as much a matter of faith as 'theism', but they are not intellectually equal positions. It's true that we cannot prove that God/gods exist, and that we cannot prove that they positively do not exist, however this does not mean that it would be just as commonsensical or sensible for us to believe that they do exist as it is to believe that they do not. The latter is the rational, more logical and sensible stance to adopt.

[Vuk]

...

By definition, logic and faith are two mutually exclusive things. Therefore, it cannot be a "logical conclusion that there is a God" and "gets down to a conviction of faith" at the same time, sorry.

If you ask me, I believe that there aren't any bloody gods to claim superiority over me. There are, however, hobbits, elves, morlocks, Argonians, and Smarties -- all of which are proven to exist and are related to the humanfolk one way or another.

The logic that I'm refering to is that if there is no other way for the earth to have come into existance, than it must have been through a god, since the earth is in existence! (I just stated that I could prove any other theory wrong).

[Cowhead418]

The logic that I'm refering to is that if there is no other way for the earth to have come into existance, than it must have been through a god, since the earth is in existence! (I just stated that I could prove any other theory wrong).

This argument is absurd. How did God come into existance? Fight fire with fire, I say. The exact arguments you are using for the existance of God I can use against the existance of God.

[Red Peasant]

There is no way to prove that there is a God! However, give me any other theory of the origin of life/earth and I'll disprove it! It is the logical conclusion that there is a God, however it cannot be proven by natural means (since God is supernatural) and gets down to a conviction of faith.

Well, when a theist resorts to the old 'Faith' tactic, then this is an admission that you can't prove the existence of God ... although they will usually still try if pressed. Just merely believing, or having faith is irrational.