Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

God exists

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

And Matthew Alper is a scientist even when Jake_Ellison disagrees and he wrote a great book that could change the way humanity sees at the ancient discussion about the existence or non-existence of Gods and the origin of religions. His scientific approach to the "problem of God" is a turning point in this issue.

Being a scientist is a profession. He's a scientist exactly to the extent that I am an electrician, or a brain surgeon. I am none of those things because I never studied to become an electrician or a brain surgeon, nor have I ever held a job as one. That is also true for Alper, when it comes to any field of science.

Instead, he's just like any charlatan who is pretending to belong to a profession, and is creating a myth around that fantasy. He has the same vaguely described background as any charlatan, with unverifiable credentials from far away places, the same delusions of grandeur (he apparently created a new field of science, neurotheology), and now he also has a supporter who speaks of his greatness on online forums. I just wish you'd move this carny show some place else.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 255
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
The word/concept Agnostic is clearly defined in the dictionary:
You might start by looking at a better dictionary, one that includes the definition that the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary includes, namely "a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something". But, guess what! The issue is not what the definition of "agnostic" is, the issue is that because of the fundamentally corrupt epistemology that agnostics embrace, they can't be trusted with a laptop, and that is why I advise people to always get their money up front when dealing with an agnostic. I was just reminding Gruff that those people have no rational "oughts".
Link to post
Share on other sites
I just wish you'd move this carny show some place else.

Well... it is a luck for me that you don't manage this website, otherwise I would be kicked off instantly ;)

I generated this topic more than one year ago and it has had a lot of response from persons interested in the debate (228 posts so far to be more accurate)

I don't agree with your opinion that this is a "carny show" in any case you can start anytime your own topic do discuss your point of view about the existence of God and we will see in a year from now if it generates interest or not among other people, it is finally what forums are supposed to be for

Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

Agreed in part, you have to add the concepts of our mind that Rand brilliantly analyzes in her treatise about Objectivist Epistemology. These are entities that only exist in and are the base of our Reason

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?

Gods don't really exist outside men's minds. Gods are inventions. But inventions so powerful that have shaped the whole history of humanity since our remote beginnings as species. Wars, travels, art, architecture, foundations of cities and countries, etc. had happened in God's name, so I would not take so lightly these inventions, they probably deserve further analysis.

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 am not in favor of the cult of uncertainty, but I know that uncertainty exists as part of our human experience, fighting against uncertainty is the fight of Reason. But you can't erase uncertainty from the face of Earth just by decree, it has to be done rationally and I think that Matthew Alper did a decent effort in this direction.

I am Objectivist and I have read and analyzed Rand probably more than you. But Rand gave us just the big principles, sometimes in rough strokes. You still have to fill the gaps and personalize Objectivism to your own existence and take responsibility for your own ideas. Her legacy is also about being brave enough to have and rationally defend your own points of view. I try to do it every once in a while here and in my own blog about Objectivism.

Edited by Tonix777
Link to post
Share on other sites
Well... it is a luck for me that you don't manage this website, otherwise I would be kicked off instantly ;)

Yeah, but that's just because I would interpret the current rules a bit more strictly. This site is for discussing Objectivism, not some conman selling books while impersonating a scientist.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, but that's just because I would interpret the current rules a bit more strictly. This site is for discussing Objectivism, not some conman selling books while impersonating a scientist.

Well... I think that the existence or non-existence of God is a central topic concerning Objectivism since Rand so clearly fought against the irrationality of the concept of God and religions.

On the other hand it is funny that "you" are against Alper's theory because it is the most scientific proof I ever read in my 45 years against the existence of God. Alper is an atheist and in his book he finally explains why Gods are an invent of men.

Objectivist organizations should promote Alper's book as the ultimate proof of the non-existence of God.

I have read the book and I guess you didn't. Am I right?

Edited by Tonix777
Link to post
Share on other sites
Well... I think that the existence or non-existence of God is a central topic concerning Objectivism since Rand so clearly fought against the irrationality of the concept of God and religions.

On the other hand it is funny that "you" are against Alper's theory because it is the most scientific proof I ever read in my 45 years against the existence of God. Alper is an atheist and in his book he finally explains why Gods are an invent of men.

Objectivist organizations should promote Alper's book as the ultimate proof of the non-existence of God.

I have read the book and I guess you didn't. Am I right?

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.

Edited by Gruff
Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi,

... but please think about, apart from the first question please concider the other questions.

Your logic is correct but you don't need to use logic to convince me about the non-existence of God. I don't believe in God. And nobody needs to prove the non-existence of something that apparently doesn't exists, in any case the believers should be in charge of proofing the existence of God and they never have been able to do this. What is interesting about Alper's book is that it goes further than just saying "God doesn't exist", it propose a credible answer to the question: "Ok Gods don't exist but why men keep inventing them and believing in them since immemorial times?"

Edited by Tonix777
Link to post
Share on other sites
Your logic is correct but you don't need to use logic to convince me about the non-existence of God. I don't believe in God. And nobody needs to prove the non-existence of something that apparently doesn't exists, in any case the believers should be in charge of proofing the existence of God and they never have been able to do this. What is interesting about Alper's book is that it goes further than just saying "God doesn't exist", it propose a credible answer to the question: "Ok Gods don't exist but why men keep inventing them and believing in them since immemorial times?"

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well... I think that the existence or non-existence of God is a central topic concerning Objectivism since Rand so clearly fought against the irrationality of the concept of God and religions.

On the other hand it is funny that "you" are against Alper's theory because it is the most scientific proof I ever read in my 45 years against the existence of God. Alper is an atheist and in his book he finally explains why Gods are an invent of men.

Objectivist organizations should promote Alper's book as the ultimate proof of the non-existence of God.

I have read the book and I guess you didn't. Am I right?

There's no need to read the book. I went to his site. There is nothing in his background that would make him a scientist, and the one page description of the book and his theories are clearly not scientific in any way. Scientists build on previous knowledge, they don't make up a new mythology and call it the new field of neurotheology.

You may read all the books you want, but as long as you don't read a few explaining what science is, you will continue to lack the ability to diferentiate between real science and fake science.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's odd how Tonix777 ignores several replies and only responds to certain parts of certain posts, no?

If you mean Jake-Ellison's last post there is nothing more to reply because we don't share the definition of science and I will not change his mind. He believes he is infallible and will not accept any ideas coming from me. On the other hand I find not very "scientific" speaking about a book without reading it, just based on the "accepted" opinions of other people.

And beside all this I am not a "fanatic" of Matthew Alper and he doesn't need me defending him. I just found his book very interesting given my own mental structure and my experience. I don't judge authors of books just by their background otherwise I would never had read Ayn Rand who after all was just a Russian novelist who gave herself the title of philosopher. Certainly Jake_Ellison would not have read Rand in the '40s when she was still unknown and/or rejected by the academic mainstream (a big part of which still says that she is not a scientific, a philosopher or even a good writer)

What makes Ayn Rand a philosopher after all? First and foremost her own desire to be one and her passion, effort and seriousness in doing her work.

On the other hand I don't understand very much the aggressiveness showed by Jake_Allison and other people in this forum that is after all a place for discussion and learning not for attacking and denigrating. Don't you think?

Edited by Tonix777
Link to post
Share on other sites
If you mean Jake-Ellison's last post there is nothing more to reply because we don't share the definition of science and I will not change his mind. He believes he is infallible and will not accept any ideas coming from me. On the other hand I find not very "scientific" speaking about a book without reading it, just based on the "accepted" opinions of other people.

And beside all this I am not a "fanatic" of Matthew Alper and he doesn't need me defending him. I just found his book very interesting given my own mental structure and my experience. I don't judge authors of books just by their background otherwise I would never had read Ayn Rand who after all was just a Russian novelist who gave herself the title of philosopher.

You should probably first learn about Ayn Rand's life, then make claims about what titles she gave herself. She made the very clear point that she's nowhere near a philosopher for a long time after she finished her study of philosophy back in St. Petersburg. She knew she was going to become a philosopher, but she never claimed to be one before she did the work. Buy this, and watch it, if you actually care about subjects you post on:

http://www.amazon.com/Ayn-Rand-Sense-Direc...n/dp/B0002Q9VQ6

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Sorry, he doesn't have to, because ideas like "must" are based on having actual knowledge. Agnostics take knowledge to be random and arbitrary. An agnostic might refrain from asking for his money back, but then again he might decide to ask for his money back. The agnostic eschews reason, so men of reason have no basis for dealing with the agnostic qua man. Unfortunately, we also can't deal with agnostics qua non-volitional animal, since in fact their actions are not a consequence of their nature. I advise you to always get payment up front when dealing with an agnostic, since you're dealing with an unnatural aberration.

-Im entering this melee of words to defend the agnostic view point, and provide some points of criticism of Atheistic and Objectivist beliefs. I am here to learn about and debate the social benefits and the practical application of Objectivism.-

Like it or not Atheists dont know everything. They cant claim with absolute certainty that there are not forces that exist beyond human detection which may have a profound effect on how the universe opperates. Just as we cannot prove string theory............ yet. So if atheists dont know everything, how do they know there is no "god"?

"Absence of proof does not always mean proof of absence"

On the other hand if you are open to the possibility of something existing outside of the realm of your perception, it heightens your sensitivity and awareness. You may become more receptive to new ideas, evidence, concepts or whatever. Once you comepletely rule out the possibility of one thing existing, whats to say you wouldnt deny the reality of something else existing? Atheists are begining to seem very unreliable and tempermental at this point.

Most Atheists I have met are so threatened by the idea of "god" or anything mystical in any form, that they have set up such elaborate mental barriers to protect themselves from "god" that it stunts their intuition and ability to relate to others. Some cant entertain anything that deals with the subject of "unknown" forces. Not even for sake of amusement, that kind of thinking is as dangerous as christians and their loathing of anything they view as "occult". IMO Atheists fear "god" as much if not more than christians. What a waste of energy.

Atheism seems to do more harm than good.

I wont debate the existence of "god" because it is not relevent to my identity. I have no "virtuous high ground" to protect. I dont have the type of ego to fuel that needs much of any high ground, let alone feel the need to defend any god archetypes. In my eyes, the existence or lack of existence of god has no bearing or relevance on anything I do with my life, at least not that I am aware of.

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?

@ David: In regards to your use of the terms "non-volitional" and "qua" if you were implying that agnostics are mindless animals, that would be rather close minded. Not to mention it would display immaturity and a lack of sophistication, especially for a mod. Dehumanizing the "enemy" is a poor way to rationalize your view point to others who think critically. "Let he without sin cast the first stone."

Link to post
Share on other sites

reason is just applying natural laws and reality. that what exists does exist. There is no basis for the existence of God hence no reason to give the claim of God's existence any credence. God by definition is the supernatural but the supernatural cannot exist, it defies reality and existence. So if you find some being akin to a God naturally existing it is not a God it is just a different lifeform with bounds and limitations within reality. And you cannot find the supernatural anyways so there is no proof of existence there. There is no Objective or reasoning way to prove God or any supernatural being's existence.

The existence of God is one giant contradiction chasing it's tale to evade the answer that it does not exist.

Also as reason is the application of knowledge of reality any irrationality or anti-reason idea is essentially evading reality.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Like it or not Atheists dont know everything.
That is not the point: it is not about what you know, it is about the very concept of knowing, and the fact that agnostics embrace an epistemology that makes knowledge impossible. An agnostic can't know, and until they get free of their nihilistic epistemology, they are no better than the theist.
Just as we cannot prove string theory............ yet.
That would be an excellent example. What is your reason for believing string theory? What is your reason for not believing cat-hair theory (that all matter is tightly-wound bits of muti-dimensional car hair).
I wont debate the existence of "god" because it is not relevent to my identity. I have no "virtuous high ground" to protect.
Do you believe that it is actually possible for man to have knowledge, and that failures of reasoning are a fundamental cause of many of the ills of the modern world? If you do understand these truths, then you do have a moral high ground that needs protecting. If you don't care about the consequences of epistemological and moral decay in our society and are absolutely certain that your own conduct is correct, then you will have embraced a huge contradiction (you are wrong that the mental problems of others do not affect you -- proof: you live in a country that requires you to pay taxes).
In regards to your use of the terms "non-volitional" and "qua" if you were implying that agnostics are mindless animals, that would be rather close minded.
You should re-read what I said: I said that they can't be reliably treated as mindless animals, which is what makes them so dangerous. Animals at least are predictable.
Link to post
Share on other sites
-Im entering this melee of words to defend the agnostic view point, and provide some points of criticism of Atheistic and Objectivist beliefs. I am here to learn about and debate the social benefits and the practical application of Objectivism.-

Like it or not Atheists dont know everything. They cant claim with absolute certainty that there are not forces that exist beyond human detection which may have a profound effect on how the universe opperates. Just as we cannot prove string theory............ yet. So if atheists dont know everything, how do they know there is no "god"?

"Absence of proof does not always mean proof of absence"

On the other hand if you are open to the possibility of something existing outside of the realm of your perception, it heightens your sensitivity and awareness. You may become more receptive to new ideas, evidence, concepts or whatever. Once you comepletely rule out the possibility of one thing existing, whats to say you wouldnt deny the reality of something else existing? Atheists are begining to seem very unreliable and tempermental at this point.

Most Atheists I have met are so threatened by the idea of "god" or anything mystical in any form, that they have set up such elaborate mental barriers to protect themselves from "god" that it stunts their intuition and ability to relate to others. Some cant entertain anything that deals with the subject of "unknown" forces. Not even for sake of amusement, that kind of thinking is as dangerous as christians and their loathing of anything they view as "occult". IMO Atheists fear "god" as much if not more than christians. What a waste of energy.

Atheism seems to do more harm than good.

I wont debate the existence of "god" because it is not relevent to my identity. I have no "virtuous high ground" to protect. I dont have the type of ego to fuel that needs much of any high ground, let alone feel the need to defend any god archetypes. In my eyes, the existence or lack of existence of god has no bearing or relevance on anything I do with my life, at least not that I am aware of.

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?

@ David: In regards to your use of the terms "non-volitional" and "qua" if you were implying that agnostics are mindless animals, that would be rather close minded. Not to mention it would display immaturity and a lack of sophistication, especially for a mod. Dehumanizing the "enemy" is a poor way to rationalize your view point to others who think critically. "Let he without sin cast the first stone."

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Objectivists seem to hold onto reason with such a stranglehold that they have little to no tolerence for any deviation from it.

Sounds like my kind of peeps. I suppose the alternative - ignoring reason for mysticism - would be better?

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Sounds like my kind of peeps. I suppose the alternative - ignoring reason for mysticism - would be better?

Value judegments seem to be a corner stone of Objectivist thought, it is contradicotry to their own beliefs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
reason is just applying natural laws and reality. that what exists does exist. There is no basis for the existence of God hence no reason to give the claim of God's existence any credence. God by definition is the supernatural but the supernatural cannot exist, it defies reality and existence. So if you find some being akin to a God naturally existing it is not a God it is just a different lifeform with bounds and limitations within reality. And you cannot find the supernatural anyways so there is no proof of existence there. There is no Objective or reasoning way to prove God or any supernatural being's existence.

The existence of God is one giant contradiction chasing it's tale to evade the answer that it does not exist.

Also as reason is the application of knowledge of reality any irrationality or anti-reason idea is essentially evading reality.

Reasoning something doesnt exist doesnt it make it so, just means its less likelty. Reasoning is reliant upon data, data is not always accurate. It can give you pieces of the picture but never the whole sum. an example is this: You can determine the speed of a particle but once you do this, you do not know its location, and if you determine its location you do not know its speed.

"god" could potentially defy what you and I know to be reality, thus making it supernatural. Mine and your perception are not so great that we can claim to know without doubt what exists beyond that.

I agree with most of your assertions and thats where I come from as an agnostic. I also happen to think there is also no reason to believe "god" doesnt exist.

When value judgements are included in rationalization it then just becomes justification.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If anything supernatural exists reality's rules are breakable. That cannot and will not happen. If you find a being akin to a God as long as it Rationally exists with explanations behinds its properties and characteristics it is not a God. God is defined by not being defined or constrained. For it to be a God it would have to break defined rules and limits with no reasoning behind them.

The definition of God is something that contradicts reason and reality.

There may be other forces we do not know or understand but they are not Gods, they are rational, explicable and quantifiable phenomena; God and the supernatural cannot be.

Reality exists or God does.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Like it or not Atheists dont know everything. They cant claim with absolute certainty that there are not forces that exist beyond human detection which may have a profound effect on how the universe opperates. Just as we cannot prove string theory............ yet. So if atheists dont know everything, how do they know there is no "god"?

sangra.gifIf man knew everything about reality, logic would be needless. There is no way to consider any idea in the absence of evidence. By definition, God contradicts the facts of reality, so you can throw out the proposition on that grounds alone. Not to mention that any arbitrary assertion detached from the realm of evidence is automatically invalidated. Refutation must start with that which exists. You do not need know everything in order to know what you know.

"Absence of proof does not always mean proof of absence"

sangra.gifWhat do you mean by “proof of absence”? There is no such thing as the proof of absence. What do you mean by “proof”?

On the other hand if you are open to the possibility of something existing outside of the realm of your perception, it heightens your sensitivity and awareness. You may become more receptive to new ideas, evidence, concepts or whatever. Once you comepletely rule out the possibility of one thing existing, whats to say you wouldnt deny the reality of something else existing? Atheists are begining to seem very unreliable and tempermental at this point.

sangra.gifHow would anybody be more receptive to new ideas, evidence and concepts, by rejecting ideas, evidence and concepts? The arbitrary is neither true nor false, but zero. God has no relation to evidence whatsoever, and therefore it must be treated as if nothing had been said. You cannot establish the false by reference to a nothing. “Possibility” applies only to what has some evidence in its favor, and nothing known that contradicts it. You’re using “possible” as a stolen concept.

Most Atheists I have met are so threatened by the idea of "god" or anything mystical in any form, that they have set up such elaborate mental barriers to protect themselves from "god" that it stunts their intuition and ability to relate to others. Some cant entertain anything that deals with the subject of "unknown" forces. Not even for sake of amusement, that kind of thinking is as dangerous as christians and their loathing of anything they view as "occult". IMO Atheists fear "god" as much if not more than christians. What a waste of energy.

sangra.gifWhat do you mean by “fear”? Faith and force entail each other, just as reason and freedom. That is why they seek to protect themselves from any attacks on their rational faculty, and it's perfectly legitimate. The concept of “God” clashes with the facts of reality, and therefore it threatens man’s life. Whose energy is being wasted?

Atheism seems to do more harm than good.

sangra.gifWhat is the context of that claim? If you’re attempting to be taken any seriously, at least provide some examples.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That is not the point: it is not about what you know, it is about the very concept of knowing, and the fact that agnostics embrace an epistemology that makes knowledge impossible. An agnostic can't know, and until they get free of their nihilistic epistemology, they are no better than the theist.That would be an excellent example. What is your reason for believing string theory? What is your reason for not believing cat-hair theory (that all matter is tightly-wound bits of muti-dimensional car hair).Do you believe that it is actually possible for man to have knowledge, and that failures of reasoning are a fundamental cause of many of the ills of the modern world? If you do understand these truths, then you do have a moral high ground that needs protecting. If you don't care about the consequences of epistemological and moral decay in our society and are absolutely certain that your own conduct is correct, then you will have embraced a huge contradiction (you are wrong that the mental problems of others do not affect you -- proof: you live in a country that requires you to pay taxes).You should re-read what I said: I said that they can't be reliably treated as mindless animals, which is what makes them so dangerous. Animals at least are predictable.

"That is not the point: it is not about what you know, it is about the very concept of knowing, and the fact that agnostics embrace an epistemology that makes knowledge impossible. An agnostic can't know, and until they get free of their nihilistic epistemology, they are no better than the theist."

That is the point though, and that is the nature of Atheistic logic, they think they know, when in reality they really dont know if "it" doesnt exist. They cant admit they dont know, otherwise their logic self-destructs. I will state again, Just because you dont know something doesnt mean it isnt true. Just because you dont know something doesnt mean you stop looking for answers and invent a belief to satisfy your view of the world. You can claim to know something all you want but it doesnt mean that it is true everytime.

It is an unrealistic and dellusional claim to know "god" doesnt exist when you cant prove it, just as it is dellusional to claim it does. Your current perception has limitations. We rely on our belief in the facts and data gathered by machines and humans who are not perfect. Atheists are content to stop thinking critically, and be content with dogma and concrete answers. If we were to apply this logic to other things we would never question anything that went against our preconceived notion of reality. If Agnosticism is a lack of commitment to reason, then Atheism is the end of thought.

"That would be an excellent example. What is your reason for believing string theory? What is your reason for not believing cat-hair theory (that all matter is tightly-wound bits of muti-dimensional car hair)."

Ive no reason to believe, or study string theory as it has no relevance to my life, I have little interest in it. TBH It is some rather dry material for me to enage. Aside from that you still cant prove that there are not forces outside our realm of perception that profoundly effect our existence. If you cant prove that, you cannot disprove the possibilty of "god" existing. No scientist has been able to come up with the origin of the universe yet. So IMO its possible for any REASONABLE theory to be relevent. Yes! I value judge things to. Does that mean I will agree with any theory no matter how wacky or outlandish? Just as much as you or any other objectivist would.

"Do you believe that it is actually possible for man to have knowledge, and that failures of reasoning are a fundamental cause of many of the ills of the modern world? If you do understand these truths, then you do have a moral high ground that needs protecting. If you don't care about the consequences of epistemological and moral decay in our society and are absolutely certain that your own conduct is correct, then you will have embraced a huge contradiction (you are wrong that the mental problems of others do not affect you -- proof: you live in a country that requires you to pay taxes)."

Speaking on behalf of myself: Its not that one cant know something as an agnostic, it is that we are never enitrely 100% beyond a doubt sure that our conclusion is the most correct, there are no absolute truths only varrying degrees based on falible perception. In our eyes an atheists perception is just as falible as ours. That fact is something we are comfortable with knowing and Atheists are afraid of not knowing just as much as christians. It is not nihilistic so much as being realistic and acknowledging the fact that my perception has current limitations. This does not mean I stop looking for answers. There are always exceptions to fundamental truths and laws.

You are right, I do have a moral high ground to protect, just not a concept of "god". The point you made is taking what I said out of context. However, if you want to debate morality though I can do that to. You dont have to bait me, lets be upfront.

"You should re-read what I said: I said that they can't be reliably treated as mindless animals, which is what makes them so dangerous. Animals at least are predictable."

No need to be full of ourselves, an Objective Atheists sense of reason stems from value judgements. You can "rationalize" putting a value on data and conclusions but that is not logical and therefore defies reason. "let he without sin cast the first stone."

Link to post
Share on other sites
"That is not the point: it is not about what you know, it is about the very concept of knowing, and the fact that agnostics embrace an epistemology that makes knowledge impossible. An agnostic can't know, and until they get free of their nihilistic epistemology, they are no better than the theist."

That is the point though, and that is the nature of Atheistic logic, they think they know, when in reality they really dont know if "it" doesnt exist. They cant admit they dont know, otherwise their logic self-destructs. I will state again, Just because you dont know something doesnt mean it isnt true. Just because you dont know something doesnt mean you stop looking for answers and invent a belief to satisfy your view of the world. You can claim to know something all you want but it doesnt mean that it is true everytime.

It is an unrealistic and dellusional claim to know "god" doesnt exist when you cant prove it, just as it is dellusional to claim it does. Your current perception has limitations. We rely on our belief in the facts and data gathered by machines and humans who are not perfect. Atheists are content to stop thinking critically, and be content with dogma and concrete answers. If we were to apply this logic to other things we would never question anything that went against our preconceived notion of reality. If Agnosticism is a lack of commitment to reason, then Atheism is the end of thought.

"That would be an excellent example. What is your reason for believing string theory? What is your reason for not believing cat-hair theory (that all matter is tightly-wound bits of muti-dimensional car hair)."

Ive no reason to believe, or study string theory as it has no relevance to my life, I have little interest in it. TBH It is some rather dry material for me to enage. Aside from that you still cant prove that there are not forces outside our realm of perception that profoundly effect our existence. If you cant prove that, you cannot disprove the possibilty of "god" existing. No scientist has been able to come up with the origin of the universe yet. So IMO its possible for any REASONABLE theory to be relevent. Yes! I value judge things to. Does that mean I will agree with any theory no matter how wacky or outlandish? Just as much as you or any other objectivist would.

"Do you believe that it is actually possible for man to have knowledge, and that failures of reasoning are a fundamental cause of many of the ills of the modern world? If you do understand these truths, then you do have a moral high ground that needs protecting. If you don't care about the consequences of epistemological and moral decay in our society and are absolutely certain that your own conduct is correct, then you will have embraced a huge contradiction (you are wrong that the mental problems of others do not affect you -- proof: you live in a country that requires you to pay taxes)."

Speaking on behalf of myself: Its not that one cant know something as an agnostic, it is that we are never enitrely 100% beyond a doubt sure that our conclusion is the most correct, there are no absolute truths only varrying degrees based on falible perception. In our eyes an atheists perception is just as falible as ours. That fact is something we are comfortable with knowing and Atheists are afraid of not knowing just as much as christians. It is not nihilistic so much as being realistic and acknowledging the fact that my perception has current limitations. This does not mean I stop looking for answers. There are always exceptions to fundamental truths and laws.

You are right, I do have a moral high ground to protect, just not a concept of "god". The point you made is taking what I said out of context. However, if you want to debate morality though I can do that to. You dont have to bait me, lets be upfront.

"You should re-read what I said: I said that they can't be reliably treated as mindless animals, which is what makes them so dangerous. Animals at least are predictable."

No need to be full of ourselves, an Objective Atheists sense of reason stems from value judgements. You can "rationalize" putting a value on data and conclusions but that is not logical and therefore defies reason. "let he without sin cast the first stone."

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...