assuming that your vision is utterly transparent ....
much like any other claim of knowledge you care to mention, it is failed to be demonstrated to those who don't apply the prerequisites
(atheistic) human expectation is your authority?
Does God Exist?
- Thread starter lixluke
- Start date
So you claim that God does exist? Or you claim C or D?assuming that your vision is utterly transparent ....
much like any other claim of knowledge you care to mention, it is failed to be demonstrated to those who don't apply the prerequisites
(atheistic) human expectation is your authority?
Do Odin, Thor, Zeus, Hera, Jupiter, Juno, Isis, Astara, IPU, Quetzalcoatl & the Great Wolf Spirit exist?
1111
1111
Still waiting ?
I gotta go with B, but I don't like the wording. I also don't like the wording of C. "Man cannot arrive at a conclusion"? Says who? Right now we might be able to scientifically demonstrate the truth one way or the other, but who says we won't be able to in fifty years' time? Or a hundred?
Jdawg,
I don't like the wording either, although I chose B because it is the closest. Lix worded it that way on purpose because he wants to try and pidgeon hole people into his view that if you come to the conclusion of something (ie that you believe there is a god or is not a god, you consider it knowledge) as opposed to a belief. He has been thwarted in every attempt to do this from the very beginning and each time he starts a new thread to try it another way, to see if he can make it work.
You can BELIEVE in or not BELIEVE in god knowing full well that you can't KNOW if god exists or not. Because no one can prove it either way. At least yet. IOW Atheist/Agnostic or Theist/Agnostic, remember him arguing on those as well.
My real answer is more complicated than he allows for which by the very nature of a more complex answer goes against his theory that knowledge does not require justification.
It's funny because I brought this up when he first started the belief/knowledge thread and he claimed it was not what he was after, and now this thread. There will be of course another after this, and so on.
I am still waiting for his answer to whether he chooses A,B or C.
I don't like the wording either, although I chose B because it is the closest. Lix worded it that way on purpose because he wants to try and pidgeon hole people into his view that if you come to the conclusion of something (ie that you believe there is a god or is not a god, you consider it knowledge) as opposed to a belief. He has been thwarted in every attempt to do this from the very beginning and each time he starts a new thread to try it another way, to see if he can make it work.
You can BELIEVE in or not BELIEVE in god knowing full well that you can't KNOW if god exists or not. Because no one can prove it either way. At least yet. IOW Atheist/Agnostic or Theist/Agnostic, remember him arguing on those as well.
My real answer is more complicated than he allows for which by the very nature of a more complex answer goes against his theory that knowledge does not require justification.
It's funny because I brought this up when he first started the belief/knowledge thread and he claimed it was not what he was after, and now this thread. There will be of course another after this, and so on.
I am still waiting for his answer to whether he chooses A,B or C.
What is the significance?
Your points about why you disagree with C do not demonstrate any flaws in the wording. You read C for exactly what it says how it is worded, and you disagree. You clearly disagree with people who abide by C, but that has nothing to do with the wording.
You forgot an option...
To my knowledge there is a possiility that God exists and I choose to believe that this is true and act accordingly. (Hamtasticism)
To my knowledge there is a possiility that God exists and I choose to believe that this is true and act accordingly. (Hamtasticism)
This is not a functionally relevant statement. Here are functional statements:
-God exists.
-God does not exist.
-I have not arrived at a conclusion about whether or not God exists.
Whatever the intent of your statement, you can only fall under one of these 3 possible categories that apply to everybody.
1. Ether you have arrived at a conclusion or you have not.
2. If you have, then you either concluded that God exists or you concluded that God does not exist.
These 2 rules apply to everybody.
You might as well ask me to insert the statement: "I believe that Posidon exists, but no other God".
Are you thick? I just told you why I disagree with the wording. You assume with that option that man cannot arrive at a conclusion. There's simply no way to know if that's true or not.
He's stalling on purpose. He obviously likes the attention.
Actually, it's poseidon. Isn't it painful to be so rigidly limited in your outlook?
So far, all you have done was disagree with C. You claim to disagree with the wording, and then proceed to write about how you disagree with what the words are saying. You cannot claim to disagree with wording by showing how you disagree with exactly with what the words said.
For example=>
CHOICE C: "The Statue of Liberty is a beautiful work of art."
YOU: "I disagree with the wording of #C because the Statue of Liberty is not a beautiful work of art."
This is exactly what you are doing.
There is no functional relevance to this. God may or may not exist has no relevance in any form. Either you arrive at a conclusion about whether or not God does exist. Or you have not arrived at a conclusion.
Assuming that you are claiming that God may or may not exist, I would go as far as to say you have not arrived at a conclusion about whether or not God exists. It's as simple as that.
1. "I believe God exists" - Conclusion that God exists.
2. "I believe God does not exist" - Conclusion that God does not exist.
3. "I don't know" - Inconclusive on matter.
I never said that. I stated very clearly that a belief is a conclusion that something is true. A belief that God exists = A conclusion that God exists = A claim of knowledge that God exists.
maybe we should start again... So, what is functional relevance, and what is it relative to?
I'm disagreeing with the premise of C, because it's not a fair option. Agnostics are not saying "There's no way to know" they are simply saying "I do not know". You have grouped them together with this absurd notion that there is in fact no way of knowing. It's a misrepresentation of Agnosticism.
I think lixluke just doesn't quite get the nuances of English... He's overcompensating by using big words and being snide. Maybe he's one of Norsefire's friends or something...
Maybe he's Norsefire himself?
I see. Your interpretation of agnosticism is a misconception. I provded the option D for "I don't know".
Agnosticism is in no way simply those who have not arrived at a conclusion on the matter. Anybody who has not arrived at a conclusion on any matter do not aide by an "ism".
For those who simply say, "I do not know", there is option D. This is not agnosticism.
Agnosticism is the belief that man cannot know whether or not God exists. While it is true that Agnosticism does claim "I don't know whether or not God exists." What makes Agnosticism an "ism" is the fact that they claim man cannot know whether or not God exists.
Theism: Belief that God exists.
Atheism: Belief that God does not exist.
Agnosticism: Belief that man can never know whether or not God exists.
No "ism" applied: Those who don't have a cliam on the matter.
NOTICE:
C: Man cannot arrive at a conclusion about whether or not God exists. Therefore, I have not arrived at a conclusion about whether or not God exists. Agnosticism.
D: I have not arrived at a conclusion about whether or not God exists. Nothing else.
#D is simply "I don't know". This is not agnosticism. What makes agnosticism an "ism" is the claim that ma will never know whether or not there is a God.
Last edited:
Whether you believe isn't important because God's not here. It's the only way God makes sense. We can't find evidence of His existence, we have to rely on unreliable ancient texts, the world is a fucking mess, and God wouldn't make anything imperfect would he? You'd have to believe God actually talked to ancient scribes, even though He hasn't talk to any modern day writers lately. You also have to believe things like God designed chimp DNA so it appears like man and ape shared a common ancestor. There is a lot of other shit one has to believe or accept if you take a liking to a god. It isn't all going to church and praying.