Against Agnosticism - or - God is Provable

[shaman_]

I hold an entirely neutral opinion on the concept of God. My stance is "unknown". I neither believe in God nor do I not believe in God.

Surely you have a belief in gods or you don't?

Anyway what you are saying is similar to what many atheists here are also saying. They don't believe in any god/gods but they are not claiming that any definitely don't exist.

I accept that I do not know.

As do I. Our position is similar. I call myself an atheist because as I don't believe in any gods, while you call yourself an agnostic. Anyone who lacks a belief in any deities can be called an atheist.

 

[Prince_James]

JDawg:

OK, so now I have it straight. One day, one of your peers is going to have this revolutionary idea that either proves or disproves God. And it's not going to be based on evidence, just reason...that won't be improved upon by new evidence...

Why would it be proved by empirical evidence if it is not an empirical thing? That's in and of itself, silly.

Go look for empirical correlates to logic. You'll find you won't get anywhere with that, either.

 

[Enmos]

This assumes that God has free-will. It has not been established that God, or anything else, does.

If free-will does not exist, then one can be omnipotent without being free to do anything but what one will do. Furthermore, the notion of freedom of the will is not itself inherently apart of omnipotence, only the ability to do anything non-contradictory.

A god without free will is useless.
It suggests God is just a name given to the anthropomorphism of nature.

 

[Prince_James]

Enmos:

A god without free will is useless.
It suggests God is just a name given to the anthropomorphism of nature.

That depends entirely on there being free will in ANYTHING to change things.

 

[Enmos]

Enmos:



That depends entirely on there being free will in ANYTHING to change things.

How is that ?
If God doesn't have free will, how is he omnipotent ?
How can you describe omnipotence without the notion of free will ?

 

[Prince_James]

Enmos:

If God doesn't have free will, how is he omnipotent ?
How can you describe omnipotence without the notion of free will ?

Easily: God has (far more than) sufficient power to do anything which is non-contradictory. That he does things deterministically just as everything else might, does not diminish the power to do such - when/if he is determined to do so.

 

[Enmos]

Enmos:



Easily: God has (far more than) sufficient power to do anything which is non-contradictory. That he does things deterministically just as everything else might, does not diminish the power to do such - when/if he is determined to do so.

God doesn't do anything by choice, apparently.
How come we need to assume there is a God ?
Seems that "it just happened" is sufficient.. as there is no way of distinguishing "it just happened" from your concept of God.

Also, this means that God must obey his own creation. Smart move.. lol He is a prisoner by his own doing. What a moron

Not to mention that God existed before the universe did because he created everything, which is in itself a huge fallacy.

 

[Prince_James]

Enmos:

How come we need to assume there is a God ?

Do we? Some would say we do: Anselm. I have not made this argument personally.

Seems that "it just happened" is sufficient.. as there is no way of distinguishing "it just happened" from your concept of God.

If ever there is an action that requires God, the notion of "just happened" would not sit well with the facts. In fact, "it just happened!" is not an answer to any question. Things have causes. Investigation of the causes would lead to one finding God if God indeed caused such things.

Not to mention that God existed before the universe did because he created everything, which is in itself a huge fallacy.

Only in some views. I would agree that it is fallacious to view God as a creator.

 

[Enmos]

Do we? Some would say we do: Anselm. I have not made this argument personally.

Very well.
But what then is the point of your argument, if you don't believe in it yourself ?

If ever there is an action that requires God, the notion of "just happened" would not sit well with the facts. In fact, "it just happened!" is not an answer to any question. Things have causes. Investigation of the causes would lead to one finding God if God indeed caused such things.

It's as good as "God did it". In fact, I like it better than "God did it".

Only in some views. I would agree that it is fallacious to view God as a creator.

Then what is his role ?

 

[S.A.M.]

OK. Omniscience means he knows the future, and thus cannot be omnipotent. These qualities are mutually exclusive.

How does that compute? If I know all about a gene and I can mutate it, and know the results of that mutation ad nauseum, how is that mutually exclusive?

 

[Prince_James]

Enmos:

Very well.
But what then is the point of your argument, if you don't believe in it yourself ?

This is about showing agnosticism to be absurd, not that God is real or not real.

I actually do believe in "God", but in a non-personal pantheist sense, and also in the validity of Anselm's ontological argument. But that is not at all interesting or pertinent to this debate.

It's as good as "God did it". In fact, I like it better than "God did it".

Save the phrase "God did it" can be correct. "It just happened" is never.

Then what is his role ?

Irrelevant to the topic at hand. But if you must ask my personal position on the matter: God is a conveinent name for discussing existence on the infinite and necessary scale.

 

[Enmos]

Save the phrase "God did it" can be correct. "It just happened" is never.

"It just happened" indicates that it did happened but for unknown reasons.
"God did it" leaves no room for uncertainty. God did it and that is that, no further question needed.

 

[Balerion]

Prince James,

Why would it be proved by empirical evidence if it is not an empirical thing? That's in and of itself, silly.

How is it truth without evidence? Without evidence, you must assume. That's the point I'm driving at. I'm not saying that there's no place for philosophy in the world, I'm just saying that you don't get the answers from it.

 

[Carcano]

There are plenty reasons to suggest he exists (and just as many that he does not). Philosophers have been arguing both ways for as long as I just referenced. Furthermore, as noted, God is a being which can be proven or disproven by reason alone, thus we can talk about whether there is or is not a God based on reasoning.

The best attempt Ive ever read is a book by Dr. Francis Collins (director of the human genome project) called 'The Languauge of God'.

Heres a video summary:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=DjJAWuzno9Y

 

[Michael]

Prince_James

Can I do something this God can not do?
Can this God learn?

Michael


I suppose it just seems that this God is an eternal hard drive in the sky - the Universe itself. It is not rational because it can not think, it can not think because it is all knowing. There is nothing to think about. It's an irrational nonfeeling nothing. is this a God? If a God has all information then I'd say it is all information. As it doesn't think, then it's the Universe. If it's the universe then why the need for the word God?

 

[spidergoat]

How does that compute? If I know all about a gene and I can mutate it, and know the results of that mutation ad nauseum, how is that mutually exclusive?

That's knowing a principle, not the future. You aren't omniscient.

 

[codanblad]

So, thought experiment. God writes down the price that oil will sell for next week, on a specific date, per barrel. Then, can he make it actually be 5 dollars higher? If he can, he was wrong about knowing the future. If he cannot, he can't do everything.

even if he does make it 5 dollars higher, he knew he was going to change it sometime in the future. all omniscience proves is that he is incapable of making mistakes, 'mistakes' is just the easy way to describe choices which sucked for us, or seem stupid.

 

[codanblad]

I suppose it just seems that this God is an eternal hard drive in the sky - the Universe itself. It is not rational because it can not think, it can not think because it is all knowing. There is nothing to think about. It's an irrational nonfeeling nothing. is this a God? If a God has all information then I'd say it is all information. As it doesn't think, then it's the Universe. If it's the universe then why the need for the word God?

i agree, the only god which fits the description by christianity would be a god who is imperfect, he's just a powerful entity. As such, we're just as entitled to worship satan, or ourselves, as the value of opinions or influence is debatable.

 

[Sarkus]

Prince_James, you state in the OP that God is either necessarily existent or necessarily non-existent, but you don't say why.
Why do you dismiss the "not-necessarily existent or not-necessarily non-existent" options?

Further, you say that IF God's necessity (one way or the other) is provable by reason alone then agnosticism is a flawed position - yet noone has ever managed to prove God's necessity by reason - and you have not given any argument that suggests otherwise.

The Ontological argument is all well and good, if that is what you are basing this discussion on - until you realise that all they are describing is existence itself, not God. And that existence is necessarily existent. (NB: I think one could go further and equate existence to the Universe.)
Nothing that can be said about God through the Ontological argument can not be attributed to existence.
But since we already have a word for existence... which is... er... "existence", we have no use for the word "God".

If you think differently, please explain what the Ontological Argument says about God, and we'll compare it to "Existence".

Or if you are not basing this on the OA, what exactly are you arguing? That IF God is provable by reason THEN the agnostic position would be flawed? Well, duh, yeah. IF.
But if you're saying that God IS provable by reason alone - please demonstrate, and prove.

 

[Balerion]

But if you're saying that God IS provable by reason alone - please demonstrate, and prove.

He can't. Nobody can. Despite the claims that philosophy can prove or disprove God, not one philosopher has been able to do so. So I guess in that case, they are philosophizing on the ability or non-ability of...philosophy!