I've heard agnosticism defined as: the belief that it is impossible to know if there is a god.

Assuming this definition, I pose the following question:

Why do we have to be completely sure? I'm pretty confident there is no god, I haven't heard a convincing case for one, and it makes more sense to me that this "god" idea was something humans created themselves.

The argument I've heard against this is that god is outside the realm of contemplation; we can't understand it so we can't know. I don't know exactly what to say, it seems like a cop out. Help anyone?

There is no reason to believe that if God exists that it is impossible to prove that he exists. I've said in the past that if God exists then God fits somehow in the system. We may not have current capacities to understand it.

I also think it is unlikely that God does exist based on the evidence I've been exposed to, but I can't leave out the possibility that there would be evidence out there that would change my mind. Just saying it's impossible to know is a cop-out unless you can show a logical impossibility in proving God's existence.

yeah there is certainly a long list of things that would cause me to immediately go back on my beliefs. as of this moment, however, not a single one has occurred.

Why do you have to be sure...hmmmm...maybe because otherwise you're in a type of inoperative existential limbo.

We do a lot of things in this world without being certain of outcomes.

For example imagine you are poor and starving in the Great Depression Era. You're going to go stand in a bread line or soup kitchen line. There's no guarantee you will receive food....they might run out of food (that happens frequently)....you might have a seizure from malnourishment and die in the line...maybe a construction worker will drop a brick on your head...still the alternative to standing in line is limbo or a state of indecision/inaction even death and that state is harder on some people than being decisive. Of course you do have certain people that agonize down to the most minisicule details...you can usually identify them by their harassed/constantly worried demeanor...(no fun that ).

You realise you were agreeing with him right?

I was just commenting on this part of his OP: Why do we have to be completely sure?

The standard position is that there can be no proof either way (or at least that we do not have proof either way right now). There are grey areas in the interpretation (such as there will never be any proof vs. we do not have any right now). The 'how can we be sure' question can be applied to anything (with the possible exception of 'I exist'). How can we be completely sure that we are not brains in a jar in some mad scientist's laboratory and that reality as we know it is simply an illusion? The real assertion of agnosticism is that nobody currently has (and maybe never will have) sufficient evidence in order to hold the position that there is a god to the degree of certainty at which we hold many other beliefs (such as the earth orbiting the sun, water is made of hydrogen and oxygen atoms, gravity, evolution, etc).

The argument you suggested is probably that which states that god, by definition, is supernatural. The only means that we have of evaluating and explaining the existence of something is through the laws of reality of which we are aware. If something exists that does not conform to any laws of reality, then we will never be able to explain it. If we were able to explain it, then it would no longer be supernatural; it would be natural. In other words, how can we explain something that does not conform to the laws of the universe on which our entire system of explanation is based? Furthermore, if we were to find something that did not conform to these laws, how could we prove that it did not conform to our laws, as opposed to admitting that we simply do not fully understand all of the laws of reality?

Personally I don't like this definition of agnosticism. I prefer: agnosticism is the belief that there is not enough evidence one way or the other to say that God exists or does not exist.

The way you (and many others) define agnosticism puts the agnostic in the position of claiming to know something he cannot possibly know. I feel that is antagonistic to the spirit of agnosticism.

As for saying that God is outside "the realm of contemplation" or outside of time and space, I don't consider that a cop out; it just defines God as an entity about which little to nothing can be said; and I find that agreeable since the presumption to know something about God, or worse yet, to speak for God, is arrogant to the point of annoyance.

I think this is very problematic. There is not enough evidence one way or the other to say that the ToE is true or not. And yet it would be obscene for me to claim that I am agnostic about the ToE.

The thing you arent considering is that "to say" and "exists or does not exist" are incredibly loaded terms that you cant just toss lightly into the conversation. Most people dont even consider what it would mean to say that something DOES exist, rather than just "might exist" or "acts as if it exists."

IOW, any sane Christian should, if he is honest, be agnostic according to your definition, since he should freely admit its impossible to definitely say that God DOES exist, absolutely.

pascal's wager ITT

This.

The difference being that the ToE has in it's name the word "Theory" is HUGELY important. It's merely our best explanation for our observations, and doesn't claim otherwise.

But to bible bashers, KJV is The Truth.

You'll like this better:

"why do we have to be completely sure"

Think of it more as not being able to be the least bit remotely sure whatsoever, and then agnosticism makes
more sense.

Agnosticism isn't about questioning the existence of walls.

ive never heard agnosticism be described like that at all. its simply saying that right now we dont know.

there are many things that make me think there is a god of some description.

there are many things that make me think there may be some other explanation for existence.

why would you try to answer a question when you clearly have incomplete information? to identify yourself or make yourself feel good?

ill bring up the animal box again:

i give you a box and tell you there is an animal inside it. do you form the belief that the animal is a cat? do you believe the animal is a dog? do you believe there is no animal? is not taking a firm stand a 'cop out'?


see believing in god makes sense to me. because it changes how you live your life and gives you courage. so whilst potentially wrong, it can have a hugely positive effect on you as a person. so w/e.

saying god is irrelevant also makes sense to me. if you can form meaning in your own life and completely disregard religion then w/e.

but to say there is no god, unless you get off on being an angry militant atheist, is just irrational.

I think this is very problematic. There is not enough evidence one way or the other to say that the ToE is true or not. And yet it would be obscene for me to claim that I am agnostic about the ToE.

The thing you arent considering is that "to say" and "exists or does not exist" are incredibly loaded terms that you cant just toss lightly into the conversation. Most people dont even consider what it would mean to say that something DOES exist, rather than just "might exist" or "acts as if it exists."

IOW, any sane Christian should, if he is honest, be agnostic according to your definition, since he should freely admit its impossible to definitely say that God DOES exist, absolutely.

These two definitions are pretty much what I paraphrased in my original post:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnosticism

I'd obviously be open to hearing them.

More than evolution, primordial soup, etc.? Would be open to hearing that as well.

I guess I don't understand exactly how it would work if god exists, and it seems to make so much more sense that we just created this idea because we exist and there are phenomena such as lightning/diseases/life that we didn't understand and someone/something must've caused them, and that something must be a logical thinking thing like us?

What exactly would be required of me to claim that there is no god? The problem I have is that it just seems unnecessary to say "we don't know" when there seems to be no evidence of what might be god and the only reason we can't "know" is that by definition it's impossible to disprove.

I mean I'm open minded about it, it's not about "making myself feel good"- I just want some intellectual honesty from people who seem to me to say "I don't know" because they would rather it be up in the air than the depressing thought of there being absolutely no god. And trust me, I'd love to believe in this stuff, so I'm certainly willing to hear arguments for theism and agnosticism.

On a tangent, what exactly would be evidence of god, and not just of more stuff that happens in the universe?

Well, obviously if you tell me there is an animal inside it, I can't believe that there is none. We've got a box with an animal, that's all the information I know. We have a universe with stuff in it, but I don't see any reason to assert that there's a "thinking thing" behind it all.

My own idea of making sense is mutually exclusive from improving my life. Truth in something and the addition to my life a possible solution might make don't really have anything to do with each other.
I would imagine this depends on whether you believe that the way you live your life affects what god thinks or does to you when you die.
I hate how often people come to this conclusion about non-theists. I can't ****ing tell you how much I'd love for any of this to be true, because it's depressing to think that this is all we've got. But I've been careful to not believe anything I'd like to be true, because I see people do it all the time and I would prefer to have as accurate a worldview as possible.

How about this: I am as sure that there is no god as I am sure that I'm not a brain in a vat. (i.e. I have hands, feet, etc)

Slight threadjack I guess but....WHY!?!?!?

before i respond, whats ToE?

terms of endearment?

Theory of Evolution. Do you have beef with me saying, "there probably is no god"?

ah ty.

and no, none whatsoever. in fact depending on how you define god, i think i would usually agree with you.

i dont quite understand your point here. i have only ever heard the word agnosticism used in the context of religion so yeah it would be weird to use it about the ToE.

i think many christians can say it absolutely, or at least perceive it as such.

just ask pletho how sure he is that god exists =/

i think the key difference i would suggest is that you seem to be saying that it is impossible to know whether god exists.

i am saying that most atheists would say that right now for them it is impossible to know. this doesnt mean that they write off ever being able to know.

watchmaker for one is pretty massive for me. (no i dont believe it has ever been countered disproved. yes ive read the arguments against and they dont address the crux of the argument imo)

also simple logical thought:

look around you at what is there. how did it get there? someone with intelligence made it and put it there? thus it is possible that this world was made by someone with intelligence.

what is the purpose of existence? no scientific theory has thus far even touched on why the world exists. not even people. why did the first molecule or w/e come in to existence? again, look around you at processes. why are they happening? often because someone with intelligence is doing something with purpose, even if not everything in that process is conscious of that. thus it is possible that this world exists for a purpose we dont truly understand (unless a religion has luckboxed it lol).

obv i could go on.

i dont think any of this is even relevant to explaining existence. it just explains what was happening at some arbitrary time, similar to the big bang.

there are other possible explanations for existence, often using different definitions of the word god.

for example, everything in my world is stuff that i see and do, and my perception of everything is defined by my conscious state and awareness, so isnt a logical possibility that i am god?

i find 'loop' theories pretty interesting.... for example i really loved the post on technology in which we as a society continuously reach a state of technological advancement in which we form a virtual world as it was 1000 years ago and then repeat the process. is it possible that reality actually occurs once a possibility of reality is realised and thus spontaneously all such realities come in to existence?

there are other examples, many of which are beyond my understanding.

i think a clear distinction needs to be made between 'the christian god', and 'a god of some description'.

and im completely honest about not knowing, and i dont find the idea of there being no god depressing at all.

evidence of god would i guess be a deep understanding of gods existence. i couldnt even conceptualise how that would occur.

im not asserting it at all. just saying that i think its somewhat likely based on my own observations and knowledge i have received in this world.

to clarify, the dog and cat dont represent different dogs, the dog represents a thinking god, and the cat represents no god. sorry if that was unclear.

this isnt true for everyone, thats all im saying.

i agree.

there is a difference between people that dont believe in god, and people that believe there is no god. in my irrelevant bit before i was addressing the former, and in my final bit i was addressing the latter.

and i have no idea why you would think that this world is depressing. maybe travel more if possible just imo....

Sure, that works. You don't know that either, so relying on the observable and falsifiable is much better than relying on the non-observable and non-falsifiable, regardless if the latter might be correct and the former wrong.

I disagree with this. 95% of the universe is dark matter, and most other things cannot be observed. The unobservable and non- falsifiable part of reality is much more important than the observable part.