Agnosticism Discussion

[Denarius]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

I, and most people, would define "god" as supernatural.

The only time I've seen that restriction in definitions, from dictionaries mind, is when it is used in the context of the abrahamic God.

I was specifically arguing that it CAN'T be disproven.

Which is all well and good, but doesn't mean that it can't be proven.

Finding a specimen would suffice for that.

[ThorsSon]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

It seems that you are arguing that "god" cannot be defined, AND that "knowledge" and/or "proof" cannot be defined.

SO, you argument against agnosticism (god's existence/nonexistence cannot be known) is, "[undefined] CAN be [undefined]."

I am starting to see that I am swinging against mist.

You offer no argument, only an attempt to move the goal post.

Your argument against "I don't know," is "but what if you REALLY don't know?"

[edit]Perhaps if you offer a concrete definition of the terms that you are arguing that I am defining incorrectly, we can have a discussion... every debate requires that the terms of discussion be defined. I have given the definition of what I am speaking of, you have not. You will need to do the same, or we can no longer continue.[/edit]

[Denarius]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

I am arguing that this discussion requires agreeing on specific definitions of god and knowledge, I even gave potential definitions. I also argued against the notion of gods as being necessarily supernatural. Never said either cannot be defined, the problem is that they have too many definitions.

My argument against Agnosticism is that it makes an absolute statement without an evidential basis.

[ThorsSon]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

I am arguing that this discussion requires agreeing on specific definitions of god and knowledge, I even gave potential definitions. I also argued against the notion of gods as being necessarily supernatural. Never said either cannot be defined, the problem is that they have too many definitions.

My argument against Agnosticism is that it makes an absolute statement without an evidential basis.

You have not offered definitions. You have only stated that you do not agree with the general definitions of the terms used.

I, and damn near everyone else, define "god" as being supernatural.

You have stated that you don't agree with that definition, and offered examples of things that YOU would call "god" that don't fit that definition... but haven't offered an alternate definition.

And, I'm sorry, a dude that can hurl lightning falls into the supernatural... no matter how kickass his beard is.

[Denarius]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

Apparently I didn't define god, but I did offer a definition of knowledge we could use.

The O.E.D. defines god as "A superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes," supernatural and otherwordly or other such things are not used.

[ThorsSon]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

The O.E.D. defines god as "A superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes," supernatural and otherwordly or other such things are not used.

"power over nature" IS supernatural... hell, the word is Latin for "above nature": "supra" meaning 'above' + "naturalis" meaning 'nature'

seriously, dude.

[Denarius]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

"power over nature" IS supernatural... hell, the word is Latin for "above nature": "supra" meaning 'above' + "naturalis" meaning 'nature'

Now who's moving the goalposts? You know that I mean supernatural as exiting outside the natural world.

[ThorsSon]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

Now who's moving the goalposts?

Not I, for a certainty!

You know that I mean supernatural as exiting outside the natural world.

As do I.

A being that has "power over nature" (which means "power over the natural world"), certainly must exist outside of the natural world... or at least possess power that exists outside of the natural world (but, then, if he/she/it "possesses" power that is outside the natural world, then either the power is actually inside the natural world, or the possessor is not... and thus, supernatural).

[Denarius]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

certainly must exist outside of the natural world

One word: Baselessassertion.

or at least possess power that exists outside of the natural world.

Irrelevant, they would still be natural beings. If they exist, which I'm sure they don't... Which is also irrelevant.

[ThorsSon]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

I give up.

Yes, it is possible that there are natural beings that someone might call "(G/g)od((s)/(ess(es))"

Thus it is impossible that one can't know if a "(G/g)od((s)/(ess(es))" exists.

QED

[Denarius]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

edit: Well never mind then.

[Rick]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

I can't decide if I do or don't like eggnog... therefore, I'm eggnostic...

[Rae'ya]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

Well this thread took off overnight! This is gonna be a bit piecemeal but I'll get there...

^fixed

Hah! You'd think I've have learned by now... how many times have you fixed that for me? lol. I need to stick a sign to my computer... "Do not use the word 'theories' where Thalassa might see it"

It stops being agnosticism when you think you know what is going on and stop the process of reason to "pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable."

I mean, there is only one thing anyone can know about divinity, and that's this--There is no such thing as an objective event, fact or state(ment) that one can make about a completely abstract idea that is entirely subjective. Period. The ultimate nature of god is unknowable. Anyone that acknowleges that (there's your "true fact" about god, Medusa ) is agnostic, whether or not they prefer to believe in X or Y, to practice A or B, etc.

Anything beyond that is hubris. Anything beyond the idea that "god is" (including the idea that "god is not

By this definition, I'm actually agnostic... and I agree with every single thing in the above quote. The only thing that I am willing to say that 'I absolutely know for sure' is that I can't absolutely know anything for sure. All I can do is go by my experience and the hypotheses that resonate with that experience. Hence I pedantically start every statement I make with 'I believe' and accept that everyone else's subjective experience is just as valid as my own, even when it's in direct opposition to mine. I'm willing to base my practice on my own subjective beliefs, knowing full well that it's entirely possible I'm deluded. But I'm gonna run with that until proven otherwise.

[Bjorn]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

Which is all well and good, but doesn't mean that it can't be proven.

Finding a specimen would suffice for that.

Does that mean you view gods as tangible?

And, upon further review of your Apatheistic beliefs, I realize what the heart of your argument is (as I understand it): I am taking a militant stance on something that you are disinterested in providing evidence for. This sentence from wikipedia helped lead me to that conclusion: an apatheist is also someone who is not interested in accepting or denying any claims that gods exist or do not exist. Therefore, would it be true to say that you take my militant stance on the impossibility of ever knowing to be as concerning as someone who claims that they have answers?

I am arguing that this discussion requires agreeing on specific definitions of god and knowledge, I even gave potential definitions. I also argued against the notion of gods as being necessarily supernatural. Never said either cannot be defined, the problem is that they have too many definitions.

My argument against Agnosticism is that it makes an absolute statement without an evidential basis.

Yeah, but there is no evidence of anything aside from unverifiable personal gnosis. So your argument against agnosticism is that it claims that knowledge of god/gods/divinity cannot be known, even by YOU? It does not claim to have any answers, I do not claim to have any answers -- I simply extend that sentiment to everyone, including myself. Therefore, humans are fallible and have no affect on the nature of god, if there even is one.

You are not really contributing on here with your pedantry, despite my appreciation of your activity on here. I do not mean to attack or offend, only to point out that you do not offer anything but contrary beliefs without any evidence (again, proving agnosticism's point), and since this is an agnostic thread... you're simply wrong. Just like I am. And that guy, and that guy, and that guy over there. Welcome to the club.

If you had said: I disagree with Bjorn's militant stance that we cannot ever know/we do not know, we would understand that you are simply concrete in your beliefs and disregard your opinions on here since they are out of context on a thread that assumes that the knowledge of god is unknowable. Instead, you postulate and distract. Eh.

[Dumuzi]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

I can't decide if I do or don't like eggnog... therefore, I'm eggnostic...

Haha, that was brilliant!