From Nothing to Nothing

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: chr0naut

Strange. I addressed all of that in my last post, but it was ignored and then the same argument was repeated by you. You don't seem to comprehend what atheism is.

Atheism is not useful, is not based upon evidence and is full of self-contradiction when rationally analyzed. How could I, in honesty, reasonably accept it?

Useful is irrelevant, but the same exact reasoning is used to justify not believing in god. It's not based on evidence and is full of self-contradiction when rationally analyzed. How could anybody reasonably accept it? You simply don't get that atheism exists because there is no proof for theism. You keep painting it as some belief system when all it is, is simply non belief in one thing. Atheists don't buy your claims, it's as simple as that. You don't need reasons, rationalization or evidence to reject something that has none of that to support it.

But I also have subjective evidence of the existence of God (which, it is true, may be my personal delusion) but it weighs strongly in my beliefs and choices.

I have subjective evidence of the existence of magical fairies. The difference is, I'm not buying it, and without objective evidence it is rational to not buy it. Disbelief in fairies doesn't predict anything or have application in science. It just is, since nobody has ever proven fairies or magic to be real. If you still don't get what I'm saying here you really need to do some reading on the subject along with burden of proof. Claims don't hold true until proven wrong. The existence of anything requires evidence or it can be logically rejected, you don't have to prove something does not exist. It is impossible. Do I really have to keep repeating this?

Your last post did NOT address the question of the existence, or otherwise, of God. It merely side-stepped the issue without application of reasoning. It was essentially saying, as you repeated above, "It just is".

If you have no evidence or knowledge of God, and choose to reject the hypothesis of Theism, then that is Agnosticism (Ignosticism?). Atheism is the flat statement that 'there is no God'. You cannot arbitrarily swap meanings around and think that you have argued for Atheism, using the Agnostic position.

You also keep repeating that I have a burden of proof, yet deny the same criteria for Atheism. Surely reason would dictate that the burden of proof is at least equal?

And the hypothesis that there is a God has consequence and is highly predictive. It implies a conscious purpose to all things. A discoverable order to the universe. A reason 'why' for science's exploration of 'how'. It also implies personal moral consequences under a strong system of ethics.

You are almost correct that it is impossible to prove that something does not exist. The caveat is that; if you had perfect and complete knowledge within a closed system, you could prove the non-existence of something within that system.

In the case of a closed set including everything (all existence), having perfect and complete knowledge would mean you are omniscient, an attribute of God, and so, having perfect and complete knowledge disproves Atheism because you would be that which Atheism denies.

Proving the non-existence of something is the case of Atheism, it says God does not exist. As you (nearly correctly) point out, that is impossible.

One can, however, prove that something does exist. That is the case of Theism, which suggests that a God exists. (this is not saying that it is proven by your definitions of proof, simply that IS provable).

No amount of repetition of your case without the application of reasoning, or burden of proof, will convince me that you have applied reason in consideration of the case of Atheism.

originally posted by: coomba98

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: chr0naut

I apologise i did not explain a point right.

The correct saying is...

Atheism is 'part' of the default position.

Sorry.

Coomba98

Can you then elucidate the entire default position because I could concieve of it being quite ambiguous and subjective.

Sure i said above but here for ease.

Blank Slate... then:
Here is reality that i experience it and what we have learnt in science. To explain said experiences.

Bring somthing alien into that and you really do need to prove it. Just like the Ancient Alien crowd. Or vampire crowd etc etc.

That is the default position.

K slight edit on it. Could delve deeper but im sure you get the picture.

Coomba98

But you are capable of reasoning. Why should reasoning be excluded from the process?

One of the things I spoke of previously was the unsuitability of science to probe such questions. It would appear that hammering away at the square peg is fairly pointless if the hole is round (metaphorically).

As for experience, one might also point out the similar unsuitability to the task of determination of the existence of God, or not.

Surely either a systematic and strongly typed process of reasoning, or acceptance of ignorance, is all that is left to us.

a reply to: chr0naut

If you have no evidence or knowledge of God, and choose to reject the hypothesis of Theism, then that is Agnosticism (Ignosticism?). Atheism is the flat statement that 'there is no God'. You cannot arbitrarily swap meanings around and think that you have argued for Atheism, using the Agnostic position.

Ignosticism/igtheism is the position asserting that it is impossible to confirm or refute any theological being until the properties of said being are properly defined or quantified via experimentation and observation.

You are almost correct that it is impossible to prove that something does not exist. The caveat is that; if you had perfect and complete knowledge within a closed system, you could prove the non-existence of something within that system.

In the case of a closed set including everything (all existence), having perfect and complete knowledge would mean you are omniscient, an attribute of God, and so, having perfect and complete knowledge disproves Atheism because you would be that which Atheism denies.

Proving the non-existence of something is the case of Atheism, it says God does not exist. As you (nearly correctly) point out, that is impossible.

This is the premise of god of the gaps, aka argument from ignorance.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: SLAYER69

Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

We are, for lack of a better term, "energy". To extrapolate beyond that is way above my pay grade.

^^^^^^ This is "God" to me.

I feel it within and abroad.

God is within us all.... tap into it or not.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut

If you have no evidence or knowledge of God, and choose to reject the hypothesis of Theism, then that is Agnosticism (Ignosticism?). Atheism is the flat statement that 'there is no God'. You cannot arbitrarily swap meanings around and think that you have argued for Atheism, using the Agnostic position.

Ignosticism/igtheism is the position asserting that it is impossible to confirm or refute any theological being until the properties of said being are properly defined or quantified via experimentation and observation.

If Agnosticism is framed around around the word "gnossos", meaning knowledge, then Ignosticism would be similarly nuanced to Agnosticism.

I would suggest that if Igtheism is defined as 'the position asserting that it is impossible to confirm or refute any theological being until the properties of said being are properly defined or quantified via experimentation and observation', then;

Ignosticism is 'the position that we do not know if it is impossible to confirm or refute any theological being until the properties of said being are properly defined or quantified via experimentation and observation'.

Both Agnosticism and Ignosticism are based upon an acceptance of ignorance.

You are almost correct that it is impossible to prove that something does not exist. The caveat is that; if you had perfect and complete knowledge within a closed system, you could prove the non-existence of something within that system.

In the case of a closed set including everything (all existence), having perfect and complete knowledge would mean you are omniscient, an attribute of God, and so, having perfect and complete knowledge disproves Atheism because you would be that which Atheism denies. Proving the non-existence of something is the case of Atheism, it says God does not exist. As you (nearly correctly) point out, that is impossible.

This is the premise of god of the gaps, aka argument from ignorance.

It is not a requirement of the hypothesis of the existence of God, that there must be gaps in our knowledge. That gaps in our knowledge exist, are entirely immaterial to the hypothesis. God may exist if we know everything or God may exist if we know little.

The "god of the gaps" is entirely an artifact of Agnosticism (and Ignosticism, as I would define the term) - the argument from ignorance.

reply to post by: chr0naut

Again, atheism isn't a belief system, no need to capitalize the word, and it does not assert existence, it denies the claim of god. Theism does assert existence of god, therefor burden of proof is on them. This is a major obstacle blocking your argument and you can't just keep dancing around that. Why would the rejection of a baseless claim require evidence? You surely reject Zeus, right? Or do you feel that disbelieving in Zeus is just as logical as believing?

And the hypothesis that there is a God has consequence and is highly predictive. It implies a conscious purpose to all things. A discoverable order to the universe. A reason 'why' for science's exploration of 'how'. It also implies personal moral consequences under a strong system of ethics.

I know what it implies (although personal morals are a grey area, god could exist without caring about how humans behave, humans just work better together in unison, so a moral system makes sense, with or without god). The problem is that you cannot test any of the predictions and every prediction you guys make is in hindsight.

You are almost correct that it is impossible to prove that something does not exist. The caveat is that; if you had perfect and complete knowledge within a closed system, you could prove the non-existence of something within that system.

Yes, precisely, but the point is that we do not have such knowledge, and therefor cannot prove the nonexistence of anything at this moment. Maybe humans will accomplish this in the future.

In the case of a closed set including everything (all existence), having perfect and complete knowledge would mean you are omniscient, an attribute of God, and so, having perfect and complete knowledge disproves Atheism because you would be that which Atheism denies.

You mean an ALLEGED attribute of god. Atheism does not claim to have absolute knowledge. They claim there is no evidence for god, hence no reason to believe much like anything else with no evidence. It's not a group of shady people wearing robes and hoods in a dark candle lit room plotting the demise of religion. They are just saying that the theist claim cannot be proved, so there is no reason to take it seriously. They don't base their lives on it, they just don't buy theism.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut

If you have no evidence or knowledge of God, and choose to reject the hypothesis of Theism, then that is Agnosticism (Ignosticism?). Atheism is the flat statement that 'there is no God'. You cannot arbitrarily swap meanings around and think that you have argued for Atheism, using the Agnostic position.

Ignosticism/igtheism is the position asserting that it is impossible to confirm or refute any theological being until the properties of said being are properly defined or quantified via experimentation and observation.

If Agnosticism is framed around around the word "gnossos", meaning knowledge, then Ignosticism would be similarly nuanced to Agnosticism.

I would suggest that if Igtheism is defined as 'the position asserting that it is impossible to confirm or refute any theological being until the properties of said being are properly defined or quantified via experimentation and observation', then;

Ignosticism is 'the position that we do not know if it is impossible to confirm or refute any theological being until the properties of said being are properly defined or quantified via experimentation and observation'.

Both Agnosticism and Ignosticism are based upon an acceptance of ignorance.

You are almost correct that it is impossible to prove that something does not exist. The caveat is that; if you had perfect and complete knowledge within a closed system, you could prove the non-existence of something within that system.

In the case of a closed set including everything (all existence), having perfect and complete knowledge would mean you are omniscient, an attribute of God, and so, having perfect and complete knowledge disproves Atheism because you would be that which Atheism denies. Proving the non-existence of something is the case of Atheism, it says God does not exist. As you (nearly correctly) point out, that is impossible.

This is the premise of god of the gaps, aka argument from ignorance.

It is not a requirement of the hypothesis of the existence of God, that there must be gaps in our knowledge. That gaps in our knowledge exist, are entirely immaterial to the hypothesis. God may exist if we know everything or God may exist if we know little.

The "god of the gaps" is entirely an artifact of Agnosticism (and Ignosticism, as I would define the term) - the argument from ignorance.

You can't just redefine a term to suit your needs. Ignosticism is an already defined term on Wikipedia, look it up. And while you are at it, look up god of the gaps as well, you seem to be in need of a refresher. Not that its of any concern to me. We are all going to die and then this collective crisis of the ego will be over.

Im out shopping at the moment but when i get back home im making a thread called:

'Names for things i reject the existence of pending good enough proof.'

Maybe that may help with explaining things.

Coomba98

Edit.

Here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut

If you have no evidence or knowledge of God, and choose to reject the hypothesis of Theism, then that is Agnosticism (Ignosticism?). Atheism is the flat statement that 'there is no God'. You cannot arbitrarily swap meanings around and think that you have argued for Atheism, using the Agnostic position.

Ignosticism/igtheism is the position asserting that it is impossible to confirm or refute any theological being until the properties of said being are properly defined or quantified via experimentation and observation.

If Agnosticism is framed around around the word "gnossos", meaning knowledge, then Ignosticism would be similarly nuanced to Agnosticism.

I would suggest that if Igtheism is defined as 'the position asserting that it is impossible to confirm or refute any theological being until the properties of said being are properly defined or quantified via experimentation and observation', then;

Ignosticism is 'the position that we do not know if it is impossible to confirm or refute any theological being until the properties of said being are properly defined or quantified via experimentation and observation'.

Both Agnosticism and Ignosticism are based upon an acceptance of ignorance.

You are almost correct that it is impossible to prove that something does not exist. The caveat is that; if you had perfect and complete knowledge within a closed system, you could prove the non-existence of something within that system.

In the case of a closed set including everything (all existence), having perfect and complete knowledge would mean you are omniscient, an attribute of God, and so, having perfect and complete knowledge disproves Atheism because you would be that which Atheism denies. Proving the non-existence of something is the case of Atheism, it says God does not exist. As you (nearly correctly) point out, that is impossible.

This is the premise of god of the gaps, aka argument from ignorance.

It is not a requirement of the hypothesis of the existence of God, that there must be gaps in our knowledge. That gaps in our knowledge exist, are entirely immaterial to the hypothesis. God may exist if we know everything or God may exist if we know little.

The "god of the gaps" is entirely an artifact of Agnosticism (and Ignosticism, as I would define the term) - the argument from ignorance.

You can't just redefine a term to suit your needs. Ignosticism is an already defined term on Wikipedia, look it up. And while you are at it, look up god of the gaps as well, you seem to be in need of a refresher. Not that its of any concern to me. We are all going to die and then this collective crisis of the ego will be over.

Or possibly not.

a reply to: coomba98

Hmm... someone mentioned aliens there. Would you assert aliens don't exist? Or, are you saying they most likely don't exist? If someone said there are probably aliens, but their only evidence is all those stars out there; would you say that's illogical? Is it more logical to say aliens don't exist, just because we don't have sufficient evidence?

Do you have a logical reason to reject these things, or do you reject them out of pure instinct?

originally posted by: VP740
a reply to: coomba98

VP740,

Hmm... someone mentioned aliens there. Would you assert aliens don't exist? Or, are you saying they most likely don't exist? If someone said there are probably aliens, but their only evidence is all those stars out there; would you say that's illogical? Is it more logical to say aliens don't exist, just because we don't have sufficient evidence?

Do you have a logical reason to reject these things, or do you reject them out of pure instinct?

My answer would be i believe in the high probability of aliens existing, but until theres definitive evidence their no different than vampires or pixies etc etc.

In fact aliens are more probable than vampires.
Coomba98

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut

If you have no evidence or knowledge of God, and choose to reject the hypothesis of Theism, then that is Agnosticism (Ignosticism?). Atheism is the flat statement that 'there is no God'. You cannot arbitrarily swap meanings around and think that you have argued for Atheism, using the Agnostic position.

Ignosticism/igtheism is the position asserting that it is impossible to confirm or refute any theological being until the properties of said being are properly defined or quantified via experimentation and observation.

If Agnosticism is framed around around the word "gnossos", meaning knowledge, then Ignosticism would be similarly nuanced to Agnosticism.

I would suggest that if Igtheism is defined as 'the position asserting that it is impossible to confirm or refute any theological being until the properties of said being are properly defined or quantified via experimentation and observation', then;

Ignosticism is 'the position that we do not know if it is impossible to confirm or refute any theological being until the properties of said being are properly defined or quantified via experimentation and observation'.

Both Agnosticism and Ignosticism are based upon an acceptance of ignorance.

You are almost correct that it is impossible to prove that something does not exist. The caveat is that; if you had perfect and complete knowledge within a closed system, you could prove the non-existence of something within that system.

In the case of a closed set including everything (all existence), having perfect and complete knowledge would mean you are omniscient, an attribute of God, and so, having perfect and complete knowledge disproves Atheism because you would be that which Atheism denies. Proving the non-existence of something is the case of Atheism, it says God does not exist. As you (nearly correctly) point out, that is impossible.

This is the premise of god of the gaps, aka argument from ignorance.

It is not a requirement of the hypothesis of the existence of God, that there must be gaps in our knowledge. That gaps in our knowledge exist, are entirely immaterial to the hypothesis. God may exist if we know everything or God may exist if we know little.

The "god of the gaps" is entirely an artifact of Agnosticism (and Ignosticism, as I would define the term) - the argument from ignorance.

You can't just redefine a term to suit your needs. Ignosticism is an already defined term on Wikipedia, look it up. And while you are at it, look up god of the gaps as well, you seem to be in need of a refresher. Not that its of any concern to me. We are all going to die and then this collective crisis of the ego will be over.

Well, someone invents these terms and their definitions. I mean, if, for instance, you invent an emoji that becomes popular, will you be arrested for semantic crime? What would disqualify me from inventing terms? Surely only a hitlorean ignotard would squipe that anthronorms be disallowed from the perfectly cromulent possibleness of inventing language.



Perhaps you should read a little further than Wikipedia?

The term “ignosticism” was coined in the 1960s by the humanist Rabbi Sherwin Wine, while “igtheism” was coined by Paul Kurtz, a secular humanist, in a 1992. Kurtz was aware of Wine's definition at the time he coined his definition (which IS different). They clearly have separate meanings to each other, despite the confused Wikipedia article (which is not,by any means, the standard for semantic definition).

Knowing that the etymology of the words 'ignostic' and 'igtheist' are different, (as the words 'agnostic' and 'atheist' are different) and being dissatisfied by Wikipedia's ignorance of the etymology, I compiled a definition from both etymology and the Wikipedia definition. The definition, which I clearly stated was my own and different from the Wikipedia one, are not actually incompliant with the Wikipedia one, but just defines the differences with greater clarity.

If you had looked a little further, you would see that Wikipedia's definition is also not the only one that exists for these words. Here's a few alternates:
Rational Wiki on Ignosticism
Definition of Ignosticism on CARM
Atheism Wikia on Ignosticism
Definition of the week on The Economist website

... and an 'on topic' joke for you:

Q: "How many Igtheists does it take to change to change a light bulb?"

A: "Because there are so many different types of 'light bulbs' out there, an Igtheist is incapable of changing one until a single unanimous and universally agreed definition of 'a lightbulb' can be reached".

a reply to: coomba98

Do you base this on logic or instinct?

originally posted by: coomba98

originally posted by: VP740
a reply to: coomba98

VP740,

Hmm... someone mentioned aliens there. Would you assert aliens don't exist? Or, are you saying they most likely don't exist? If someone said there are probably aliens, but their only evidence is all those stars out there; would you say that's illogical? Is it more logical to say aliens don't exist, just because we don't have sufficient evidence?

Do you have a logical reason to reject these things, or do you reject them out of pure instinct?

My answer would be i believe in the high probability of aliens existing, but until theres definitive evidence their no different than vampires or pixies etc etc.

In fact aliens are more probable than vampires.
Coomba98

The philosophic 'strength' of empirical observational evidence is also not the only thing we use in real life to form our beliefs about the world. We actually rationally ignore the distinction all the time.

For example; I believe in the existence of Gamma radiation, which I have never seen. I do not believe that Spongebob Squarepants, Superman or Batman are persons, despite the visual evidence of movies & etc.

Reductionism, as a primary intellectual guideline and applied as a way of making sense of real life (usually highly complex situations), fails in too many circumstances.

Those who opine that ONLY empirical objective evidence can stand as proof are doing a disservice to human intellect.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut

If you have no evidence or knowledge of God, and choose to reject the hypothesis of Theism, then that is Agnosticism (Ignosticism?). Atheism is the flat statement that 'there is no God'. You cannot arbitrarily swap meanings around and think that you have argued for Atheism, using the Agnostic position.

Ignosticism/igtheism is the position asserting that it is impossible to confirm or refute any theological being until the properties of said being are properly defined or quantified via experimentation and observation.

If Agnosticism is framed around around the word "gnossos", meaning knowledge, then Ignosticism would be similarly nuanced to Agnosticism.

I would suggest that if Igtheism is defined as 'the position asserting that it is impossible to confirm or refute any theological being until the properties of said being are properly defined or quantified via experimentation and observation', then;

Ignosticism is 'the position that we do not know if it is impossible to confirm or refute any theological being until the properties of said being are properly defined or quantified via experimentation and observation'.

Both Agnosticism and Ignosticism are based upon an acceptance of ignorance.

You are almost correct that it is impossible to prove that something does not exist. The caveat is that; if you had perfect and complete knowledge within a closed system, you could prove the non-existence of something within that system.

In the case of a closed set including everything (all existence), having perfect and complete knowledge would mean you are omniscient, an attribute of God, and so, having perfect and complete knowledge disproves Atheism because you would be that which Atheism denies. Proving the non-existence of something is the case of Atheism, it says God does not exist. As you (nearly correctly) point out, that is impossible.

This is the premise of god of the gaps, aka argument from ignorance.

It is not a requirement of the hypothesis of the existence of God, that there must be gaps in our knowledge. That gaps in our knowledge exist, are entirely immaterial to the hypothesis. God may exist if we know everything or God may exist if we know little.

The "god of the gaps" is entirely an artifact of Agnosticism (and Ignosticism, as I would define the term) - the argument from ignorance.

You can't just redefine a term to suit your needs. Ignosticism is an already defined term on Wikipedia, look it up. And while you are at it, look up god of the gaps as well, you seem to be in need of a refresher. Not that its of any concern to me. We are all going to die and then this collective crisis of the ego will be over.

Well, someone invents these terms and their definitions. I mean, if, for instance, you invent an emoji that becomes popular, will you be arrested for semantic crime? What would disqualify me from inventing terms? Surely only a hitlorean ignotard would squipe that anthronorms be disallowed from the perfectly cromulent possibleness of inventing language.

Perhaps you should read a little further than Wikipedia?

The term “ignosticism” was coined in the 1960s by the humanist Rabbi Sherwin Wine, while “igtheism” was coined by Paul Kurtz, a secular humanist, in a 1992. Kurtz was aware of Wine's definition at the time he coined his definition (which IS different). They clearly have separate meanings to each other, despite the confused Wikipedia article (which is not,by any means, the standard for semantic definition).

Knowing that the etymology of the words 'ignostic' and 'igtheist' are different, (as the words 'agnostic' and 'atheist' are different) and being dissatisfied by Wikipedia's ignorance of the etymology, I compiled a definition from both etymology and the Wikipedia definition. The definition, which I clearly stated was my own and different from the Wikipedia one, are not actually incompliant with the Wikipedia one, but just defines the differences with greater clarity.

If you had looked a little further, you would see that Wikipedia's definition is also not the only one that exists for these words. Here's a few alternates:
Rational Wiki on Ignosticism
Definition of Ignosticism on CARM
Atheism Wikia on Ignosticism
Definition of the week on The Economist website

... and an 'on topic' joke for you:

Q: "How many Igtheists does it take to change to change a light bulb?"

A: "Because there are so many different types of 'light bulbs' out there, an Igtheist is incapable of changing one until a single unanimous and universally agreed definition of 'a lightbulb' can be reached".

You arent clarifying, you are confusing the matter by adding another "i dont know" to a long list of "i dont knows" because that indirectly lends credence to theism by making ignosticism look uncertain...? And somehow, in your articulate breakdown of the minutiae of igtheism and ignosticism, you overlooked the actual point: god lacks a proper definition. Every property you care to assert raises more questions than it resolves. This is what I said before and is also what every link in your list says, except for the Christian one. No surprise there. 3/4 is a majority so there you have it. No reliable definition, no falisifiable data, no productive discussion.

Your little joke would work better if you didn't try so hard. You really wanted to make fun of ignosticism, I get it. But maybe don't compare it to something as demonstrably successful and globally applicable as a lightbulb? You might start to make it look useful, even clever. That's no good, is it?

originally posted by: VP740
a reply to: coomba98

Do you base this on logic or instinct?

I base it on the same reasoning i base my disbelief in vampires, werewolves and pixies.

Coomba98

a reply to: coomba98

So, you said aliens have a high probability of existing? If your assessment on the possibility of alien life is based on the same reasoning, does that mean you disbelieve in vampires, werewolves and pixies, while maintaining that they also have a high probability of existing? Can you expand on your reasoning? Reasoning requires reasons, does it not?

originally posted by: TzarChasm

You arent clarifying, you are confusing the matter by adding another "i dont know" to a long list of "i dont knows" because that indirectly lends credence to theism by making ignosticism look uncertain...? And somehow, in your articulate breakdown of the minutiae of igtheism and ignosticism, you overlooked the actual point: god lacks a proper definition. Every property you care to assert raises more questions than it resolves. This is what I said before and is also what every link in your list says, except for the Christian one. No surprise there. 3/4 is a majority so there you have it. No reliable definition, no falisifiable data, no productive discussion.

Your little joke would work better if you didn't try so hard. You really wanted to make fun of ignosticism, I get it. But maybe don't compare it to something as demonstrably successful and globally applicable as a lightbulb? You might start to make it look useful, even clever. That's no good, is it?

That my definition includes multiple "I don't know's" is because it reflects a complex sequence of such statements. It seems perfectly simple and straightforward to me. That the definition confuses you is hardly a valid argument againt it.

The book "The Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy" has the following amusing section regarding "the Babel fish":

Now, it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some have chosen to see it as the final proof of the NON-existence of God. The argument goes something like this:

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that You exist, and so therefore, by Your own arguments, You don't. QED"

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

This, while quite amusing, is obviously NOT rational.

Firstly, by objectively proving the existence of God, it cannot also prove that God doesn't exist. It is a contradiction.

Secondly, an existent God has no reason to cease to exist because of circular logic (or any other type of logic).

Thirdly, as God would pre-exist the creation of any other 'faithful' being, it would be irrational for God to claim to exist only by faith. That is why there is no such claim made anywhere (as far as I know).

As another example, highlighting this type of faulty reasoning often used to justify Atheism: If a Kalahari Bushman, who has never seen as much as a hill, cannot properly concieve of Mount Fuji, it is no less real.

This is the problem that Atheists don't seem to grasp. Their lack of knowledge does not un-exist God, nor is it a disproof of God. Rationalization simply doesn'twork like that.

So again I'll repeat, if you have no knowledge of the existence of God, you should in honesty take a default position that acknowledges that - Agnosticism.

If you call yourself Atheist and then say it because you have no knowledge of the existence of God, you are misclassifying yourself (probably because you don't wish to appear ignorant). The word "Agnostic" is a mixture of Latin and Greek meaning "no knowledge".

Interestingly, in Roman times they didn't mix Latin and Greek terms when they described someone who did not believe in a god (and they had many gods). They described someone who didn't believe in any god with the wholly Latin term; "ignoramous".

The other thing is that if really believed that God does not exist, there's no reason to be interested in argument about God's existence or attributes at all. On the other hand, if you believe God does exist, then this is of paramount interest, and the Theist's ultimate concern ought to be how to be properly related to this being upon whom we depend moment by moment for our very existence.

As a Theist, therefore, I actually have every reason to explore such questions with great studiousness. An Atheist, on the other hand, has no reason to expend energy and time on such questions.

Yet here you are.

originally posted by: VP740
a reply to: coomba98

So, you said aliens have a high probability of existing? If your assessment on the possibility of alien life is based on the same reasoning, does that mean you disbelieve in vampires, werewolves and pixies, while maintaining that they also have a high probability of existing? Can you expand on your reasoning? Reasoning requires reasons, does it not?

VP740,

You misunderstand, i dont know if aliens exist and if you back me into a corner id say 'no' they dont exist. Same with vampires
I
Do you believe in Pixes?

Coomba98

a reply to: chr0naut

Hay buddy.

What do have against athletes?

Alls it is is 'the rejection of god/s'

What do you have against that?

Coomba98