Ignosticism (Prove to me there is a God)

[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]

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.

[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.

[AntiochusIII]

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

Wiki interpretation

However, Merriam-Webster does not recognize the word.

From what I can derive, it is a position in which explicitly declares the meaninglessness of the Big Question; whereas agnosticism in general dances around the topic with an "I'm not sure," Ignostics, in my interpretation, would say "I don't care."

In a way, it might be closer than Occam's Razor that it first appears.

[Red Peasant]

Wiki interpretation

However, Merriam-Webster does not recognize the word.

From what I can derive, it is a position in which explicitly declares the meaninglessness of the Big Question; whereas agnosticism in general dances around the topic with an "I'm not sure," Ignostics, in my interpretation, would say "I don't care."

In a way, it might be closer than Occam's Razor that it first appears.

Thanks.

OED doesn't recognize it either, but if people are using it then I suppose it exists. I like the 'apathetic agnosticism' definition, but as most agnostics I know are apathetic anyway the term would seem just a little redundant.