Does God exist? (7 Viewers)

[KFunk]

Personally, I haven't met an agnostic who arrived there by logic

Hello.

Sometimes people overlook how precise agnosticism is defined: "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". In other words, an agnostic person believes it's impossible to know whether god exists.

An agnostic position can be much more subtle than that. Some people will claim agnosticism on the basis of the impossibility of knowing either way, as you have pointed out. However, you can also be agnostic simply because you lack knowledge or justified belief in either direction (for or against god's existence). I think agnosticism often gets rejected as a 'fence sitting' position when people make the mistake of assuming that:

'X doesn't believe that god exists' implies 'X believes that god does not exist'

However, this is false as it is generally possible that:

'X doesn't believe that god exists' AND 'X doesn't believe that god does not exist'

I suspect this mistake comes from carrying the law of the excluded middle (that either 'P' is true or 'not P' is true) from the realms of truth into the realms of belief (thus asserting that either 'P' is believed or 'not P' is believed) where it doesn't properly apply. There are plenty of things I susped belief on (and hence am an agnostic about), e.g. whether kangaroos bear a closer genetic relationship to possums or quolls and whether a prime number exists between 10^50 and (10^50 + 2000) - I simply lack enough knowledge to judge either way.

More importantly in my opinion is your outlook on life. Atheism means you accept that there is no god and you look for meaning in a finite life, you appreciate what there is and the relationships you have. It also seems cliché to say so in light of how many times atheists say it, but the sense of awe is always there, even in simple things. Atheism can have the "spirituality" that theists so often [in my experience] deny it has. On the other hand, from my point of view agnosticism does not provide this; it seems unsure and doubtful and skepticism to both sides does not lend much to debate.

Note that I am able to do this as well. I do not accept the existence of a god and so I look for meaning elsewhere (in much the way you have described). As someone who suspends belief I certainly can't bank on the existence of god can I? This is why I say that I live as though there is no god even though I don't necessarily have a reasonable belief to the tune of 'god does not exist' (though I'm sure I have plenty of unreasonable ones).

 

[veloc1ty]

Hi.

I took agnosticism as the position that something (in this case, the existence of god) is inherently unknowable. It seems as though "suspension of belief" cannot truly be classed as agnosticism, it just means you have not decided one way or the other (hence "fence-sitting"; I used it as a way to describe it, sometimes people can think it is meant in a derogatory manner). I say this because ultimately we are all agnostic by your definition. Theists cannot provide irrefutable evidence that there is a god, nor can atheists provide irrefutable evidence that there is not. I say I am an atheist even though I admit there may be an iota of possibility that a god exists (much as there may be an invisible dragon behind me right now, and so on).

I feel the above is a moot point about definition though, and we are not going to solve it (as others have tried). I think you are in the same camp as me to a degree and thankyou for that last paragraph, it makes a lot of sense.

 

[KFunk]

If you consider atheism and theism then I reckon you can find a fairly unproblematic minimal agnosticism:

• A theist believes 'god exists'
• An atheist believe 'god does not exist'
• Going in between the two, a minimal agnostic believes neither proposition

Note that there are a number of different reasons one may have for taking this last position, yielding many variations of agnosticism. You may suspend belief because you think it is impossible to prove either way (the 'inherently unknowable' position you refer to), or simply because as of yet we have not provided a proof either way(my position), or because it allows for easier social interactions with theists (a pragmatic reason). I suppose, given this, we could get picky and suggest that we need to qualify our talk relative to different 'brands' of agnosticism. However, I don't think that this is necessary - all I really want to assert (at the end of the day) is that there is a position here that I view as most reasonable and that it happens to fall, most properly, within the agnostic camp.

 

[HalcyonSky]

I say I am an atheist even though I admit there may be an iota of possibility that a god exists (much as there may be an invisible dragon behind me right now, and so on)

I find this position to be much more reasonable than agnosticism. I dont see the logic in taking the stance that we cant prove it either way, because there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to even contemplate that a god has the probabiliity to exist, or worse yet, a 50/50 probability to exist (a viewpoint that many agnostics seem to take)

The way i see it, the probability of a god existing is just as velocity said: the same as that of an invisible dragon manifesting behind me right now. It is a logical nightmare to claim that there's a 50% chance that spiro the dragon is floating placidly behind my chair, and to take the stance of "I cant prove its floating behind me, but i cant prove its not, so ill stay agnostic on the matter" is completely unreasonable.

 

[veloc1ty]

I suppose, given this, we could get picky and suggest that we need to qualify our talk relative to different 'brands' of agnosticism.

My line of thought was that agnosticism is a certain position (i.e. that a claim is unknowable or inherently unknowable) seperate from the rest, and not just the midpoint between theism and atheism. For the purposes of the original question and to prevent wasting more time I will just accept your definition.

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

I think Chadd meant being atheist is more consistent because we don't call ourselves agnostic to other things we see no evidence for

yup.

However, you can also be agnostic simply because you lack knowledge or justified belief in either direction (for or against god's existence). I think agnosticism often gets rejected as a 'fence sitting' position when people make the mistake of assuming that:

I'd say as equally as you lack knowledge about god you lack knowledge about pixies, yet you'll still say you're more than agnostic about these things.

There are plenty of things I susped belief on (and hence am an agnostic about), e.g. whether kangaroos bear a closer genetic relationship to possums or quolls and whether a prime number exists between 10^50 and (10^50 + 2000) - I simply lack enough knowledge to judge either way.

I agree it's possible to have sound agnosticism, however I'd argue that what's important is that the reason for agnosticism stays the same, it's not good enough to say 'lack of knowledge' because I'd argue for everything you have a lack of knowledge yet often you go down on one side of the fence... You have to look at the specific reason.

I.e. You can be agnostic about scientific claims about animals because you have not been able to investigate these things and be consistent as long as you don't for another scientific claim about an animal where u haven't investigated it hold a position (convoluted shit language, I hope you guys can read it - Unfortunately I'm probably too lazy to edit it). With supernatural things I'd say your reason for not having knowledge is probably something along the lines of 'unknowable', therefore I think in order to be consistent all unknowable things you must be agnostic about (the definition of unknowable of course being a little less than objectively true).

-NTB

 

[KFunk]

I find this position to be much more reasonable than agnosticism. I dont see the logic in taking the stance that we cant prove it either way, because there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to even contemplate that a god has the probabiliity to exist, or worse yet, a 50/50 probability to exist (a viewpoint that many agnostics seem to take).

Try not to make a straw man argument out of agnosticism - it is not a central feature of the agnostic position that we assign 50/50 odds. That is simply faulty reasoning.

In order to make a case for atheism against agnosticism you need to make a convincing argument for the proposition 'god does not exist'. I can think of many semi-decent reasons to believe this proposition but, at the end of the day, I find it more intellectually responsible to take a position of agnosticism.

 

[KFunk]

I'd say as equally as you lack knowledge about god you lack knowledge about pixies, yet you'll still say you're more than agnostic about these things.

In offhand, naive way I will act as though I am more than agnostic. But once rational contemplation enters the picture I find agnosticism to be a very reasonable position. As with god, as with pixies, as with string theory.

I agree it's possible to have sound agnosticism, however I'd argue that what's important is that the reason for agnosticism stays the same, it's not good enough to say 'lack of knowledge' because I'd argue for everything you have a lack of knowledge yet often you go down on one side of the fence... You have to look at the specific reason.

I don't think you need to use the same form of agnosticism in all cases. If you can show both that 'P', and 'not P', cannot be proven, in principle, then you have a good reason to be agnostic. However, I can't think of any examples off the top of my head where this is the case (bar constructions that I've created for the sake of argument --> see my issues with Pascal's wager on the previous page) so when I take an agnostic position on issues it is almost always of the 'there is no current proof in either direction' variety.

Also, I'm not sure what the importance of 'consistency' is in this instance - it seems as though, and correct me if I'm wrong, you might be equivocating. I think we should aspire to maintain consistency in as much as this means avoiding contradiction. But when we're talking about a more everyday meaning of consistency such as 'falling into a regular and recogniseable pattern' I'm not sure that it is so valuable. Mightn't it be the case that a single, consistent (free of contradiction), conception of what it means to be reasonable can advocate more than one type of agnosticism? If this can be done then is there an issue? If an 'unprovability' proof can be provided then I will side with a strong agnosticism, and if proof is merely lacking, in the absence of such a proof, then I will go with a minimal form.

Regarding string theory, would you count yourself as an agnostic or an 'atheist'?

 

[veloc1ty]

In order to make a case for atheism against agnosticism you need to make a convincing argument for the proposition 'god does not exist'.

I think it is more reasonable to be an atheist than agnostic based on two fundamental reasons:

• Complete lack of real evidence for a god.
• No necessity for a god.

Evidence for a god tends to centre around the necessity of a god - for example, god as the creator of the universe. In this case the only property truly necessary would be the power to initiate the big bang or something similar; a pretty abstract reading of the meaning of god.

If there is no evidence and no necessity for god, I see no reason to believe in god, and consider it unreasonable to be agnostic.

Can you give a convincing argument that it is more reasonable to be agnostic than atheist? The only argument seems to be that there is not enough evidence either way, but when it's an imaginary being it can be rather hard to prove or disprove. (On a vaguely related note, this essay is a good read for those with time).

Regarding string theory, would you count yourself as an agnostic or an 'atheist'?

I would say neither: I do not know enough about the subject to cast judgement. I don't consider being uninformed as agnostic.

 

[KFunk]

I think it is more reasonable to be an atheist than agnostic based on two fundamental reasons:

• Complete lack of real evidence for a god.
• No necessity for a god.

Evidence for a god tends to centre around the necessity of a god - for example, god as the creator of the universe. In this case the only property truly necessary would be the power to initiate the big bang or something similar; a pretty abstract reading of the meaning of god.

If there is no evidence and no necessity for god, I see no reason to believe in god, and consider it unreasonable to be agnostic.

Once again, having no reason to believe that 'god exists' is different to having reason to believe that 'it is not the case that god exists'. Similarly with the string theory case - you have no good reason to believe that string theory is true, but that does not equate to disbelief. What you really need is a demonstration of contradiction or impossibility.

Can you give a convincing argument that it is more reasonable to be agnostic than atheist? The only argument seems to be that there is not enough evidence either way, but when it's an imaginary being it can be rather hard to prove or disprove.

All I need to show is that atheists lack good reason to believe 'god does not exist' while showing that theists lack reason to believe 'god exists'. This is roughly what I have been doing above.

I would say neither: I do not know enough about the subject to cast judgement. I don't consider being uninformed as agnostic.

Given my definition of P-agnosticism as not believing 'P' or 'not P' you would count as a a string theory agnostic when you say "I do not know enough about the subject to cast judgement." Note how I earlier talked about 'suspending belief/judgement' and how this equates to this P-agnosticism? That is the kind of position you take with respect to string theory, even if you dislike the label.

 

[KFunk]

Interesting link btw. It looks like it's quite a good blog. I'm actually reading one of Daniel Dennett's books on the mind at the moment, so it had some extra relevance for me.

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

In offhand, naive way I will act as though I am more than agnostic. But once rational contemplation enters the picture I find agnosticism to be a very reasonable position. As with god, as with pixies, as with string theory.

Then I'd say you're a philosophical agnostic but a practical atheist. The agnostic position is the best for all things imho, however for whatever reason it appears people in practice create more meaning in their lives than nothingness, so it then becomes a matter of at the very least being consistent to avoid contradiction.

If you can show both that 'P', and 'not P', cannot be proven, in principle, then you have a good reason to be agnostic.

That is true for ALL things though and ultimately I agree it is the best position, however there are many instances in your life where you take the leap towards saying P or Not P. I feel we have to identify the rules by which we decide this and then argue on the basis of them.

I think we should aspire to maintain consistency in as much as this means avoiding contradiction. But when we're talking about a more everyday meaning of consistency such as 'falling into a regular and recogniseable pattern' I'm not sure that it is so valuable.

I can't see a situation where you can be inconsistent and not create a contradiction... unless perhaps we're talking about grey areas where it's not sure if the same principles are being applied?

 

[KFunk]

Then I'd say you're a philosophical agnostic but a practical atheist. The agnostic position is the best for all things imho, however for whatever reason it appears people in practice create more meaning in their lives than nothingness, so it then becomes a matter of at the very least being consistent to avoid contradiction

That is true for ALL things though and ultimately I agree it is the best position, however there are many instances in your life where you take the leap towards saying P or Not P. I feel we have to identify the rules by which we decide this and then argue on the basis of them.

Aye, in the past, as you would know, I have agree to the philosophical agnostic but practical atheist label. However, I'm not sure that I ever really need to leap towards saying P or Not P because in so far as these magical beings are concerned it doesn't really make much difference whether I believe 'X does not exist' versus simply not believing that 'X exists'. Generally I can remain indifferent and just not think about them and so I am not forced to take a position. When theories are being proposed seriously, as with god and string theory, I'm not sure that I loose much by holding the agnostic position (though it does make conversation simpler to just accept the 'atheist' label).

Also, we seem to have split the debate into two different questions here. (1) Which is the most rational position? and (2) Which is the most practical position?

Now that I think about it, I'm not even that sure that agnosticism is really all that impractical.

I can't see a situation where you can be inconsistent and not create a contradiction... unless perhaps we're talking about grey areas where it's not sure if the same principles are being applied?

I was identifying that there are multiple ways of using the word consistent, namely (1) 'free of contradiction' and (2) 'falls into a regular and recognisable pattern'. I was just trying to work out whether you were equivocating between the two because while I don't believe I was displaying type (1) inconsistency, there was a sense in which you could accuse me of type (2) inconsistency. I was just suggesting a reason why you might have made that mistake.

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

However, I'm not sure that I ever really need to leap towards saying P or Not P because in so far as these magical beings are concerned it doesn't really make much difference whether I believe 'X does not exist' versus simply not believing that 'X exists'.

Well what I mean with regards to 'practical' is that when we turn our minds to philosophical thought, it's often easy to see that the agnostic approach is the most true and agree with that, however I'd question whether practical questions would still make you appear agnostic. For instance, if I gave you a list of things and asked you to tick whether you believe/are agnostic/don't believe starting with such metaphysical concepts as brain in the vat/god and going down to the simplest 'that you exist', do you think your agnostic principle would wane and you'd find yourself feeling the need to say you do believe/not believe in some things? If not then I'd say in practice you don't live a life like that so perhaps we should deal with the constructed reality that you do practically believe in, if you do have some rules by which things come to no longer be in a position of agnosticism then I'd like to argue with you regarding why it's acceptable to make them different.

I believe 'X does not exist' versus simply not believing that 'X exists'.

I think it's mostly a bit of a trick of language which makes this seem to same. While it's true that there appears semantically very little difference between saying basically "I don't believe God exists" and "God doesn't exist", you have to also include that the person saying "I don't believe God exists" is also going to say "I don't believe God doesn't exist".

 

[katie_tully]

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/evolution

I'm out of sustainable arguments.

 

[katie_tully]

HAHA. is that to say that australia isnt run by 'actual people'?
oh maybe those trolls run it.. YEAH DENKS.

think about what ur saying.

I... I cannot fathom how you made that link.

 

[KFunk]

Well what I mean with regards to 'practical' is that when we turn our minds to philosophical thought, it's often easy to see that the agnostic approach is the most true and agree with that, however I'd question whether practical questions would still make you appear agnostic. For instance, if I gave you a list of things and asked you to tick whether you believe/are agnostic/don't believe starting with such metaphysical concepts as brain in the vat/god and going down to the simplest 'that you exist', do you think your agnostic principle would wane and you'd find yourself feeling the need to say you do believe/not believe in some things? If not then I'd say in practice you don't live a life like that so perhaps we should deal with the constructed reality that you do practically believe in, if you do have some rules by which things come to no longer be in a position of agnosticism then I'd like to argue with you regarding why it's acceptable to make them different.

I don't take a position of agnosticism on matters where it seems as though I have sufficient evidence, e.g. I believe myself to exist and I believe myself to be sitting in front of a computer. Edit: also, you can find evidence for negative facts (even negative existential facts). For example, I can go to my wardrobe and safetly conclude that it does not contain penguins (though undetectable penguins are a different matter).

I think it's mostly a bit of a trick of language which makes this seem to same. While it's true that there appears semantically very little difference between saying basically "I don't believe God exists" and "God doesn't exist", you have to also include that the person saying "I don't believe God exists" is also going to say "I don't believe God doesn't exist".

I'm not trying to make them look the same. It's important to my case that semantically they are very different. We have four basic statements to work with (where Gx = god exists, and ~Gx = It is not the case that god exists) I apologise for the use of the numbers in the sentences below, but I decided it is less confusing that actually writing out what they stand for... things are about to get pedantic...:

(1) I believe Gx
(2) I believe ~Gx
(3) I do not believe Gx
(4) I do not believe ~Gx

As I have already argued, in the case of belief (3) does not logically imply (2) and (4) does not logically imply (1). This is roughly because it is possible for in individual to claim both (3) AND (4), as an agnostic does.

My point was not that (2) and (3) have the same semantic content (they don't), but rather that it seems that they probably have similar practical consequences, largely because both of them involve a rejection of (1).

 

[veloc1ty]

Once again, having no reason to believe that 'god exists' is different to having reason to believe that 'it is not the case that god exists'. Similarly with the string theory case - you have no good reason to believe that string theory is true, but that does not equate to disbelief. What you really need is a demonstration of contradiction or impossibility.

In this case though, lack of reason to believe that 'god exists' [combined with lack of necessity] also gives me reason to believe that 'it is not the case that god exists'.

There are a few demonstrations of contradiction/impossibility but they rely on attaching certain characteristics to god (e.g. that evil exists, but this only attempts to disprove a god both omnipotent and perfectly good).

So what I am saying is that it seems to be unreasonable (and that's the key word, as we all agree that ultimately, agnosticism is correct) to keep an agnostic position on the existence of god. I don't see why it is necessary to attempt to disprove something that has no evidence or necessity in itself, unless we differ on our definition of 'reasonable'.

All I need to show is that atheists lack good reason to believe 'god does not exist' while showing that theists lack reason to believe 'god exists'. This is roughly what I have been doing above.

I've already told you my reasons to believe 'god does not exist' (to a reasonable degree) if they are at fault please tell me so I can re-evaluate.

Given my definition of P-agnosticism as not believing 'P' or 'not P' you would count as a a string theory agnostic when you say "I do not know enough about the subject to cast judgement." Note how I earlier talked about 'suspending belief/judgement' and how this equates to this P-agnosticism? That is the kind of position you take with respect to string theory, even if you dislike the label.

I have not acknowledged whether or not I believe 'P' or 'not P'; being apathetic does not mean you disbelieve both sides.

 

[KFunk]

Truth be told I probably sit so close to you two that this debate isn't really that important. If I mustered up enough of the anti-god arguments I have come across I could probably convince myself to take the atheistic position on god as commonly conceived. Some rough outlines would be:

• Suffering creates an issue for the all loving + omnipotent + omniscient god
• Examples of bad design bring into question the notion of an intelligent designer
• One wonders why a god would require a lawless period at the start of the universe (as such a period leaves it up to chance whether any of their desires are fulfilled)
• A genealogy of religious belief seems to suggest that belief in god is best explained in social and evolutionary terms rather than needing to invoke the existence of a supernatural being (in fact, I favour a similar argument against the objectivity of morality)
• Stark contradictions can be derived from godly properties: e.g. issues raised by the fact that omniscience seems to imply predistination (not to mention inconsistency with certain brands of quantum mechanics!) and logical contradictions resulting from strong forms of omnipotence (can god create a square circle or a rock that cannot be lifted?)
• Etc...

Whilst no argument is perfect nor conclusive the above gives a semi-reasonable coverage of god as presented in Abrahamic religions. However, a greater variety of gods (/god-like entities) can be thought up which differ in enough respects to render themselves immune to such arguments. Indeed, some theologians make a career of backtracking in order to insulate their god from any logical assault. This is partly why I find it hard to accept a blanket position of 'atheist'. While my intuition tells me that god does not exist I still lack a knock down argument which is all-encompasing enough to knock down all conceptions of god (there are some interesting, though perhaps dubious, arguments suggesting that it is likely that our world is just a simulation being played out on a super-powerful computer - perhaps some kind of meta-moderator is looking over us?). While it might not strike you as a solid position, my agnostic indifference seems to get me by just fine.

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

I don't take a position of agnosticism on matters where it seems as though I have sufficient evidence, e.g. I believe myself to exist and I believe myself to be sitting in front of a computer.

So what is the rule for sufficient evidence? Where does it end? I know these sort of rules will be complex and you might (like me) often find yourself weaving through a need for a practical belief and the ultimate truth, but I think this sort of an investigation is necessary to show why a position of atheism with regard to any supernatural...

((i.e. Event unknowable even down to a decent level of plausibility (where for instance statistics might mean something), even after granting things such as that I'm willing to accept perceptions as real given some tests in extrenuating circumstances.))

event, object, concept etc is superior to agnosticism.

My point was not that (2) and (3) have the same semantic content (they don't), but rather that it seems that they probably have similar practical consequences, largely because both of them involve a rejection of (1).

Oh well I agree that agnosticists in practice act a lot like atheists (I'm afraid some of my 'in practice' talk earlier was with regard to a sort of ... 'practical philosophy vs philosophical philosophy' comment) but this, I only think is true, because a lot of agnostics are really atheists just pressing a philosophical point (that most atheists ultimately agree with anyway).

Of course if we took your example and replaced God with say A new flu vaxxine that may kill people, uncertainty leads to the agnostics acting entirely different.