Argument Against Agnosticism

[Nick900]

Whenever someone says that they are agnostic it causes a short circuit in my brain - how can you rationally make the statement that God might exist?

 

It's preferable that theories about reality should be true and so validity and accuracy is required. Since the concept God is inherently contradictory it fails validity and since we haven't observed God in reality it fails accuracy (also it's the complete negation of everything we can observe). So based on this, are we justified in saying that one ought not to make the argument "God might exist"?

[Jot]

I think they do not believe the concept of God is inherently contradictory.

[Tyler H]

Yeah I think most agnostics conflate God with a super-dude alien.  Get them to define God first, then proceed with the arguments. Is that helpful?

[EclecticIdealist]

It's preferable that theories about reality should be true and so validity and accuracy is required. Since the concept God is inherently contradictory it fails validity and since we haven't observed God in reality it fails accuracy (also it's the complete negation of everything we can observe). So based on this, are we justified in saying that one ought not to make the argument "God might exist"?

Not every conception of God is inherently contradictory. Belief in a God or the possible existence of a God that one knows or believes to be inherently (i.e., conceptually) contradictory is irrational. The lack of observation or evidence of something should not preclude the belief in the possibility of something that is inherently (i.e. conceptually) consistent. One may not have the evidence of aliens existing, but one can be rationally agnostic as to the existence of carbon-based life-forms existing on other planets similar to earth somewhere in the universe. Or, the absence of evidence for the conceptually rational is not evidence of the non-existence of the conceptually rational (nor is it evidence of its existence--there are infinitely many more things that are possible than are actual).

[Kikker]

As eclecticidealist said not every conception of god is inherently contradictory, you might find yourself switching between agnostic and gnostic depending on which god is discussed. Besides agnostic and gnostic do not determine whether you are an atheist or a theist. Richard Dawkins for example seems to be agnostic for practical reasons since he emphasizes the lack of scientific evidence for any god of any description instead of engaging in logical debate on why, specifically the monotheistic gods, are contradictory per definition.

[ValueOfBrevity]

Agnosticism is the position that god is not provable. Knowledge of the super natural is not considered obtainable.

It has nothing to do with whether one believes god exists or not. 

Honestly, it's silly not to be agnostic.
If something were outside the realm of reality as we know it, how then could we verify it?

[Jot]

Agnosticism is the position that god is not provable. Knowledge of the super natural is not considered obtainable.

 

It has nothing to do with whether one believes god exists or not. 

 

Honestly, it's silly not be agnostic.

If something were outside the realm of reality as we know it, how then could we verify it?

 

If something is outside of reality it is not real.

[Tyler H]

If something is outside of reality it is not real.

I agree, outside of reality is synonymous with non-existence.

I would even argue the phrase outside of reality is a contradiction in itself since there can be no outside of reality.

[sweathog1]

A true story.  Way back in the late sixties, I joined the army. Along with about 249 other recruits we were marched up to a barber shop for haircuts. It was an extremely hot day standing in line on black asphalt, waiting for your turn and my last name being very close to the end of the alphabet knew it would be  a long wait even if they had two or three barbers doing the chopping.

 

Then a strange thing happened, the drill sergeant not out of kindness but out of nco duty barked, "Any of you wimps or candy asses want to go to those two churches across the street feel free to do so take one step forward and march off ." (They are taught they must think of their men's well being first if possible)

 

Well  seeing as how I was second to last I stepped out, along with another fellow further up the line,midway up the alphabet. Yes only two of us. A lot of verbal abuse followed us to the two churches, I didn't give a damn, I was not religious in any form...just wanted out of the sun.

 

Inside the church God came to me, pure love, pure well being,pure peace of such intensity, even the colors inside the church were brighter. I would say 100 times better than sex if it could be put into words.

 

One experience, and never again repeated, a friend finished her masters in theology, read all the books she had,  still no positive results after that, good works,going to church, etc.

 

I know God exists but do not understand him/her/it. I consider myself an agnostic. For years wrote the experience off as heatstroke.

 

Last two posts are feelings real and do you see them?

[Tyler H]

Feelings as in the physiological response to perceptions? I believe those are real. If by "see" you mean perceive, then yes - we can see the results of those physiological responses in ourselves and others.

 

How do you know what you experienced was a god?

[sweathog1]

Sadly I do not know for sure. The words and language fall short.  Perhaps I should have used the words "all encompassing senses firing at the same time" along with what I previously wrote,pure love, pure well being,pure peace of such intensity, even the colors inside the church were brighter. I would say 100 times better than sex if it could be put into words.

[Tyler H]

Well then I think it's fair to say you are agnostic about the source of the experience, however the God defined by most religions cannot exist due to the inherent contradictions in their definition. I can be agnostic about unicorns or an alien super-dude, but not about square circles or an omniscient/omnipresent/omnipotent being.

[ValueOfBrevity]

If something is outside of reality it is not real.

 

Outside reality as we know it.

If there exists an entity which supersedes all laws of our reality (god), the knowledge about that entity is not obtainable by definition.

 

Let me clarify that I am not arguing for the existence of such an entity; nearly explaining the definition of agnosticism.

 

Thomas Huxley explained it this way:

 

"In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable."

[Will Torbald]

Outside reality as we know it.

If there exists an entity which supersedes all laws of our reality (god), the knowledge about that entity is not obtainable by definition.

 

Let me clarify that I am not arguing for the existence of such an entity; nearly explaining the definition of agnosticism.

 

Thomas Huxley explain it this way:

 

"In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable."

 

Agnosticism is believing the impossible to be possible if you believe that the impossible can be possible somewhere, somehow, somewhat, by somewho. Now why would anyone believe that?

[sweathog1]

Well then I think it's fair to say you are agnostic about the source of the experience, however the God defined by most religions cannot exist due to the inherent contradictions in their definition. I can be agnostic about unicorns or an alien super-dude, but not about square circles or an omniscient/omnipresent/omnipotent being.

 

Read some St. John of the Cross ~Dark Night of the Soul or  Teresa of Avila to understand the absolute ecstasy,  But you are correct it does come down to perceptions of feelings.

[Worlok]

Whenever someone says that they are agnostic it causes a short circuit in my brain - how can you rationally make the statement that God might exist?

 

It's preferable that theories about reality should be true and so validity and accuracy is required. Since the concept God is inherently contradictory it fails validity and since we haven't observed God in reality it fails accuracy (also it's the complete negation of everything we can observe). So based on this, are we justified in saying that one ought not to make the argument "God might exist"?

 

As per my response below, we don't know if god does or does not exist. We also don't know if it is possible or impossible for a god to exist regardless of whether a god does or does not exist.

 

Obviously the argument IS NOT that god might exist. That would assume that something can happen. The argument is that you can't prove either way, so the only definitive statement that you can make is that you do not know.

 

Well then I think it's fair to say you are agnostic about the source of the experience, however the God defined by most religions cannot exist due to the inherent contradictions in their definition. I can be agnostic about unicorns or an alien super-dude, but not about square circles or an omniscient/omnipresent/omnipotent being.

 

Your argument is faulty. The "contradictions" in the definition of god are simply logical inconsistencies. God can do anything that can be done. You can't do a thing that isn't a thing. You can't purple because it isn't a verb. An immovable object isn't a thing because the premise is not logical. To say that god can do anything is to say that god can do anything that can be done. To be able to do something that cannot be done is a logical inconsistency. Logically, one would and should use this information to define what God is and can do.

 

People like to say that "anything is possible." The thing is, only that which is possible is possible, you simply don't know what is and is not ultimately possible. If you have to explain to your teenager that when you say, "you can be anything that you want to be" that it only means that she can do anything that is possible for her to do, then your child is a moron. Ex, ("you can be anything you want to be." "I can be a t-rex with laser eyes?!" "no, you fucking idiot. Just the stuff that is actually scientifically possible.") You don't have to know a thing is possible for it to be possible or to know that something is impossible for it to be impossible. Regardless of your knownledge, all things that are possible are possible and all things that are impossible are impossible. However, things that are currently possible may later become impossible and vice versa. As I pointed out the logical inconsistency with the godly contradictions, you are left only with the idea that god is possible or impossible. On this premise, you cannot prove and cannot know and thus only agnosticism is logically consistent. 

 

Theists cannot prove a god exists. Atheists cannot prove that god does not exist. Agnostics can prove that they have no proof.

 

Theism is a positive belief that something that they cannot prove does exist. Atheism is a positive belief that something that they cannot disprove does not exist. Agnosticism is a positive belief that you can only know what you can prove. Some people like to say that atheism is not having a belief, but that would be agnosticism because you cannot know whether a god does or does not exist, making it a belief to say that god does not.

[WorBlux]

Sadly I do not know for sure. The words and language fall short.  Perhaps I should have used the words "all encompassing senses firing at the same time" along with what I previously wrote,pure love, pure well being,pure peace of such intensity, even the colors inside the church were brighter. I would say 100 times better than sex if it could be put into words.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceanic_feeling

 

Though we know the feeling strikes even the most seemingly ordinary people from time to time, it's not exactly exactly agreed that the experience is supernatural in origin though.  Especially given that experiments have induced or replicated similar state with chemical compounds. (Though curiously even induced experienced are often described with religious terms) and induced or not tend to be considered life-changing towards the positive. 

 

What you describe is definitely not the usual symptoms of sunstroke (cramps, headache, fatigue, confusion) though.

[sweathog1]

I'm an old guy, have nothing to prove, talk to my grandson about Cornelius, the big Pike  we've been always trying to catch, sometimes he says he had him on, but to no avail.. These old bones, the constant pain.

 

Should have accepted the calling  when it was given imo. instead raised a brood. Sorry for my interruption of academia. Yes why would a god talk to some dumb soldier recruit?

[Jot]

Outside reality as we know it.

If there exists an entity which supersedes all laws of our reality (god), the knowledge about that entity is not obtainable by definition.

 

Let me clarify that I am not arguing for the existence of such an entity; nearly explaining the definition of agnosticism.

 

Thomas Huxley explained it this way:

 

"In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable."

 

I do not see how that "as we know it" saves you here.

 

Reality = the state or quality of being real.

 

Naturally, anything outside of the category of reality is not real. 

 

The laws of reality a.k.a the laws of logic do not need empirical verification to determine what can be real and what cannot.

[ValueOfBrevity]

I do not see how that "as we know it" saves you here.

 

Reality = the state or quality of being real.

 

Naturally, anything outside of the category of reality is not real. 

 

The laws of reality a.k.a the laws of logic do not need empirical verification to determine what can be real and what cannot.

 

A god has some property that is not derived from the laws of our universe. A god breaks or ignores the "rules" of our existence.

 

If something like a god did exist, we would not necessarily be able to know about it because we could not measure magic.

 

To say that nothing can be outside of nature is begging the question.

 

 

 

 

[Jot]

A god has some property that is not derived from the laws of our universe.

 

What property? And how do you know that he has it/can have it?

 

We were not talking about the laws of our universe...we were solely talking about the laws of logic here (the laws of reality). 

 

I am under the impression that you do not differentiate between the laws of physics and the laws of logic...

 

A god breaks or ignores the "rules" of our existence.

 

In what way and how do you know?

 

Now you switced back to talking about the laws of logic but the prior statement was about the laws of matter...you are confusing me...

 

If something like a god did exist, we would not necessarily be able to know about it because we could not measure magic.

 

And by magic you mean something that is logically inconsistent or violates the laws of physics?

 

To say that nothing can be outside of nature is begging the question.

 

Did I say this? 

[ValueOfBrevity]

 

A god has some property that is not derived from the laws of our universe.

 

What property? And how do you know that he has it/can have it?

 

We were not talking about the laws of our universe...we were solely talking about the laws of logic here (the laws of reality). 

 

I am under the impression that you do not differentiate between the laws of physics and the laws of logic...

 

A god breaks or ignores the "rules" of our existence.

 

In what way and how do you know?

 

Now you switced back to talking about the laws of logic but the prior statement was about the laws of matter...you are confusing me...

 

If something like a god did exist, we would not necessarily be able to know about it because we could not measure magic.

 

And by magic you mean something that is logically inconsistent or violates the laws of physics?

 

To say that nothing can be outside of nature is begging the question.

 

Did I say this? 

 

A god has such a property by definition. I am not arguing that such properties exist. 

 

You stated: 

"Naturally, anything outside of the category of reality is not real. "

 

By your definition, something which does not conform to our reality does not exist. 

 

 

 

 

[Jot]

A god has such a property by definition. I am not arguing that such properties exist. 

 

You stated: 

"Naturally, anything outside of the category of reality is not real. "

 

By your definition, something which does not conform to our reality does not exist. 

 

 

 

 

 

You said that it has a property and I asked you what property...name that property.

 

What do you mean by our reality? Is not there only one reality? Is not this reality objective and universal?

[ValueOfBrevity]

You said that it has a property and I asked you what property...name that property.

 

What do you mean by our reality? Is not there only one reality? Is not this reality objective and universal?

The property is not specific. It is part of the definition of a god that it has qualities which are not possible within our reality.

By reality, I mean the universe and the physical laws by which it operates. In the context of agnosticism, we can not know something which is supernatural because the effects would be inconsistent and the causes immeasurable.

[Will Torbald]

The property is not specific. It is part of the definition of a god that it has qualities which are not possible within our reality.

By reality, I mean the universe and the physical laws by which it operates. In the context of agnosticism, we can not know something which is supernatural because the effects would be inconsistent and the causes immeasurable.

 

Yet, in order to give weight or credibility to this idea, you would have to give weight or credibility to the possible existence of the supernatural. You have to presume a supernatural is possible, or true. Why would you do that?

[Jot]

The property is not specific. It is part of the definition of a god that it has qualities which are not possible within our reality.

By reality, I mean the universe and the physical laws by which it operates. In the context of agnosticism, we can not know something which is supernatural because the effects would be inconsistent and the causes immeasurable.

 

How can a property be non-specific? This looks like a contradiction in terms to me...

 

I think that it has properties that are not possible in any reality. 

 

And why do you equate reality with our universe? Reality is everything that possess the property of existence so restricting it to the observable Universe is  leaving out all of the other possible worlds.

[ValueOfBrevity]

Yet, in order to give weight or credibility to this idea, you would have to give weight or credibility to the possible existence of the supernatural. You have to presume a supernatural is possible, or true. Why would you do that?

It is a syllogism from the definitions. Admitting what we cannot know is important.

 

If something meeting the definition of supernatural did exist, how could you measure its consistency when it is inconsistent with reality? 

[Jot]

It is a syllogism from the definitions. Admitting what we cannot know is important.

 

If something meeting the definition of supernatural did exist, how could you measure its consistency when it is inconsistent with reality?

Define God. Give us that definition you are talking about...

 

Reality is not synonymous with nature, I explained this above, there is a difference between what we mean by nature/natural (that which abides by the laws of our observable Universe) and reality (which consists of all the things that exist). Nature is only a subset of reality.

[Will Torbald]

It is a syllogism from the definitions. Admitting what we cannot know is important.

 

If something meeting the definition of supernatural did exist, how could you measure its consistency when it is inconsistent with reality?

You can't know the taste of the 30th digit of phi, but it doesn't mean anything. Can numbers have taste? Is it possible for numbers to taste like turkey? You can't disprove that phi doesn't taste like turkey. This is the level of your argumentation.

[Mister Mister]

Every cosmology relies on the infinite, in some way or another.  Sometimes they call it singularity, or by other names, but sooner or later your model of the universe is going to involve some kind of infinite, or division by zero, where your ability to conceptualize breaks down.  This doesn't mean there is a sky ghost you can appeal to for favors, but it remains an open question about the nature of reality.

[Will Torbald]

Every cosmology relies on the infinite, in some way or another. Sometimes they call it singularity, or by other names, but sooner or later your model of the universe is going to involve some kind of infinite, or division by zero, where your ability to conceptualize breaks down. This doesn't mean there is a sky ghost you can appeal to for favors, but it remains an open question about the nature of reality.

This is only true with General Relativity. However, other cosmological models like Inflation don't have singularities. There are models where the universe bounces before reaching a singularity as well. Cosmology is very open and varied.

[whirlingmerc]

I think both atheists and agnostics are fundamentally wrong anyway

 

I was watching a nature film by an atheists where south african monkeys were hunting for shark eggs at low tide

and I couldn't help thinking 'and some people say God has no sense of humor' ! 

[Will Torbald]

I think both atheists and agnostics are fundamentally wrong anyway

 

I was watching a nature film by an atheists where south african monkeys were hunting for shark eggs at low tide

and I couldn't help thinking 'and some people say God has no sense of humor' ! 

 

Monkeys eating shark eggs! I can't believe I never thought of that before. I'm a believer now.

[The Huxley Agnostic]

Whenever someone says that they are agnostic it causes a short circuit in my brain - how can you rationally make the statement that God might exist?

 

It's preferable that theories about reality should be true and so validity and accuracy is required. Since the concept God is inherently contradictory it fails validity and since we haven't observed God in reality it fails accuracy (also it's the complete negation of everything we can observe). So based on this, are we justified in saying that one ought not to make the argument "God might exist"?

 

You seem to confusing not ruling someone else's claim impossible, with personally making a claim something is possible. 

 

Huxley was a scientist, who defined agnosticism as faith in the scientific method, and described it as a form of demarcation. No objective testable evidence = a subjective unfalsifiable claim. Results: unscientific and inconclusive. No belief as to the truth, or falsehood, of the claim. 

 

If you think there is falsifiable evidence you can show is false, then you're making a counter-claim, and it's up to you to present your evidence to back up your claim. 

 

An analogy to consider, though: No matter how many sci-fi stories (Dune, Superman, E.T., etc.) you can show are fiction, you'll still not have actually addressed the existence, or non-existence, of "aliens".

 

For the very reason a Bible isn't valid testable evidence for the existence of "gods", it isn't valid testable evidence for the non-existence of "gods". 

 

While I'm on board with telling someone a Superman comic isn't valid evidence "aliens" exist, you'll lose me if you claim it's valid evidence "aliens" don't exist. 

[Tyler H]

You seem to confusing not ruling someone else's claim impossible, with personally making a claim something is possible. 

 

Huxley was a scientist, who defined agnosticism as faith in the scientific method, and described it as a form of demarcation. No objective testable evidence = a subjective unfalsifiable claim. Results: unscientific and inconclusive. No belief as to the truth, or falsehood, of the claim. 

 

If you think there is falsifiable evidence you can show is false, then you're making a counter-claim, and it's up to you to present your evidence to back up your claim. 

 

An analogy to consider, though: No matter how many sci-fi stories (Dune, Superman, E.T., etc.) you can show are fiction, you'll still not have actually addressed the existence, or non-existence, of "aliens".

 

For the very reason a Bible isn't valid testable evidence for the existence of "gods", it isn't valid testable evidence for the non-existence of "gods". 

 

While I'm on board with telling someone a Superman comic isn't valid evidence "aliens" exist, you'll lose me if you claim it's valid evidence "aliens" don't exist.

 

I think "faith in the scientific method" is a contradictory statement - faith is belief without evidence and the scientific method is based on evidence. The point the atheists make against the agnostics is that the God described in the bible is given contradictory properties and therefore we know it does not exist. Often at this point the goal post is moved to describe God in a way that isn't contradictory but then they are talking about some other being not the one described in the bible. I think we can be agnostic about anything non-contradictory, sadly the Judeo-Christian God does not fall into this category.