Gruff

Am I still missing something, what makes this un-knowable (God) so important, why aren't invisible unicorns, elves etc... given the same "they might exist" treatment as god? If this 'God' entity is un-knowable, by what standard can you derive it's existance from the countless other possibilities of 'invisible' entities?

Hi, I still don't understand why is 'God' given special treatment because we can't disprove his existence, surely the same logic can be applied to invisible frogs on motor bikes. "Objectivists seem to hold onto reason with such a stranglehold that they have little to no tolerence for any deviation from it. Why so serious, what are you afraid of losing control of?" Why is tolerence a good thing?

Hi, I do apologies if I misunderstood you, I thought we were debating the existence of 'God' and in particular agnostisism. I think it is quite simple why men continue to believe in gods; they refuse to think, take responsibility for their lives, and to judge reality.

Hi, Refering to other books is not a way of addressing an argument. It's nice that you have analysed Rand more than me, but please think about, apart from the first question please concider the other questions.

Hi, Would you agree that existence consists of matter and/or energy? and that it can be detected through our senses? be it audible/visual or through a spectrograph/x-ray/infra-red machine etc... And that non-existence cannot be detected through any sense? Thus 'God' possess all the properties of non-existence? If 'God' possess all these properties, how can you say to an atheist that they cannot say that god doesn't exist, compared to what? compared to the un-knowable? how can you know? do you see the logical fallacy? I still don't follow your logic that Agnostisism only applies to 'God' and not invisible elves etc... as the same rules apply. because a dictionary says other wise does not address the argument. What criteria can be used to determin the existence of 'God' if the same non-existence properties apply to invisible flying fish? an un-knowable criteria? If someone says "there is a god" because 'God' intervened in their life some way, then it changes from subjective to objective, because if 'God' did not interfere in any way with the human then there would be no way of knowing at all because of the properties of non-existence. This must also have taken place outside the imagination of the person or else they would say "I imagine there is a God". Once it is established that it is now objective, the criteria of proof becomes relevent. Therefore the effects of 'God' must be measurable, but, the proposition that 'God' exists as a conscious outside of matter, or a mind without a brain is the same as saying that electricity exists without energy. They are one and the same, electricity is a form of energy, the conscious or mind is an effect of matter. Therefore you get into a round about argument where the goal posts are always moved. So they 'believe' in something that has no evidence and is innately contradictory. Maybe you think that agnostisism is a compromise? there is no compromise between principles, there is only correct and incorrect, agnostisism is a false compromise. Man 1: "the sun rises in the west." Man2 : " no it rises in the east." Agnostic : "no, it's somewhere inbetween." "...the cult of uncertainty is a revolt against reason...a revolt against the absolutism of reality." (Rand. the virtue of selfishness 1961:90) What do you think?

I get really annoyed when debating with an agnostic. They are perfoming intellectual cowardice, and saying that because they can't prove the existance nor the non-existance of an entity they have thus taken the virtuous high ground by abstaining from the debate. Why is the existance of a god given 'special' status? by an agnostics logic they also can't prove the existance of invisible gremlins or unicorns that might traverse the planet. If I say to an agnostic that I'll sell him a laptop for £10.00, he gives me £10.00 and I send him an empty box, he can't prove that I haven't sent the laptop, thus he must abstain from asking for his money back.