h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Yawn... yes in the sense that we don't know anything (and I think some people are arguing with Descartes these days)...

Even with that standard of knowledge, I would not say "I do not know whether god exists". I would say "Clarify what you mean by 'god exists'", because I suspect the statement is meaningless.

We can be certain that the god of the bible taken literally does not exist because the bible contains logical contradictions. (Can we be certain that the bible exists - no, but this does not affect the logic of the previous statement)

Can we be certain that a god who does not interact with the universe at all exists or doesn't exist? I think the question is meaningless.

What do we mean by exist? Does the number 3 exist?

As I said, atheism is a belief like any other article of knowledge. I think if you want to defend agnosticism against atheism, you should suggest actual reasons for doubt, rather than applying arguments that are equally valid against every possible belief, theory or memory.

So for example, why does the possibility of there being a god follow from our ignorance of some phenomena?

because we dont know that they are simply phenomena. i am a weak agnostic; i dont care. this is why my argument works: i dont need to defend my doubt, becuase it always exists. i suggest you read skepticism inc. the author i forget, btu ill find out for you

OK, but this is still essentially saying "I don't know if there is a God because there is stuff I don't know."

Well OK, I don't know if there is a Googleflooptwiddle because there is stuff I don't know. But unless I have some information that suggests what a Googleflooptwiddle might be, the statement is pretty meaningless.

OK so most people have some idea of what they think God is like, if there is such a thing. But does the God idea say any more about the stuff we don't know than the Googleflooptwiddle idea does? Perhaps it does. I could elaborate on the latter idea, but I would probably be accused of making it up.

indeed. however, you arent seriously positing it, so we can discount it.

My friend puts the agnostic view like a mathematical equation and points out two possible answers:

1. God does exist
2. God doesn't exist
------------------------------------------

But there's no way to know that a god exists, since 'god' is made up.
I find 'god',and everything that comes with it, to be wishful thinking.

We are further evolved than most animals, and that's about it. Nothing before one's birth, leads to nothing after one's death, I would think.
Enjoy..

AND IF there's a 'GOD' and an after life etc., then I'll have a big laugh and give 'god' five.

Mathematical statements such as "x exists" or "x does not exist" don't really say anything by themselves.

A statement that actually says something might be
"x exists, such that x is a real number and x squared = -1"
(This statement is false)

But, mathematically "x exists" says nothing, so what would it mean to say that is true or false.

Hmmm... i'm not taking the atheists' side (although i count myself as one), nor the agnostics', nor the theists'. I am taking my own.

lesee if you get this: perception IS creation, the model IS reality, AND one has no way of verifying this. Physically, we can't perceive exactly: at a quantum level the act of observation meddles with what is observed. Mentally, logic is not omnipotent: there are questions any formal computable process/system cannot answer, not because no answers exist, or because the question is meaningless, but the formal process is simply not powerful enough.

Look at our luck: we can't perceive yonder world exactly, and even if we could, we can't use any process whatsoever to understand it completely: some questions are not answerable because we lack the requisite information to answer them, and our design does not permit us to generate it. This does not mean that if tomorrow we were to observe some new facets of our world, we are closer to reality: acquiring a little more (or a lot, or indeed, all the information we can possibly have) doesn't change the nature of our incompleteness: it is built into us. Each of us is alone.

What this implies is, is that basically there is no method of describing one's view of the universe that is complete and exact: either for purposes of communication, or for one's own understanding.

This is not an argument for God: quite the contrary. I am merely saying that a question like "Does God exist?" is pointless because
a. nobody has defined the 'god' concept
b. and when they do, its usually something like "God is the explanation of things that have no explanation"

so the god argument goes somewhat like this: there will always be something that can't be explained, and god is the explanation of all that, ergo god exists. 1=1. Duh. Nice. Since by *definition* god exists, so why argue?

Tautologies are the most uselessly powerful things known to man.

On the other hand, if people then admit of a definition that is open to debate - 'Is the chap all about us? Can he/she/whatever actively influence my life?" et al - then what's the point of arguing, unless everybody agrees to call a common idea god? One might as well consider any entities one pleases, for any use whatsoever, and *KEEP* said ideas to oneself, because there's no point either communicating or arguing the idea. The question is: CAN we arrive at a common explanation? Not unless we arrive at a common view of perceiving the world... which we have no guarantees of, and no way of knowing if and when we DO manage to have a common view.

In other words: "Believe what you will, don't think *I* must believe it too. Or go ahead and think it, how do I care?"

See what i mean?

So here's my answer: Mu

cheers,
dancingbuddha

oh please dont get this one started again...

as far as i am concerned:

there is no proof that god does exist.
there is no proof that god does not exist
therefore i am an agnostic.

i lean towards the atheist, because idont see a need for god in the world, or really, thye opportunity for him. however, i have not fully discounted his existence, because we have not prooved without a doubt that there is not a god. so there.

Sigh...

Mu.

'Mu' can be roughly translated from the Chinese as No. But the real point behind answering Mu is to unask the question.

Frankly there would be any point arguing about god only if we had a use for him.

dancingbuddha

Researcher 235202 believes that atheism is arrogant. But atheism is simply the belief that God does not exist. It's no more arrogant than the belief that there isn't a dragon in the garage, or that I'm actually a rabbit typing all this to you. All three are examples of blind faith in the completely, if amusingly, irrational. The least arrogant thing to do is to accept what the burden of evidence suggests, rather than believe something regardless. As there is no more evidence for God than the dragon, or my being a rabbit, atheism seems to be the best option.

see the rest of the backlog for why you are wrong. i cant be bothered to type it again.

"To say "there is no God" supposes that we have all the answers to the universe and beyond, which we quite evidently don't, and most of what science does claim to know are merely theories to fill gaps in knowledge."

I dont believe in god, but i wouldn't dream of saying that we have all the answers to the universe etc. I just dont happen to believe that there is some person in the sky that is controlling it all.

Hmmm. There is stuff we don't know. Yes. There is a god? No.

It seems perfectly consistent to me, to hold that there are things we don't know (a great many things) but that there is no God.

There evidently isn't a Christian God as revealed in the bible. Too many contradictions. (Well 1 contradiction would be too many, and there are piles of them.) Likewise other religions, presumably.

There isn't an amorphous something-out-there type god that doesn't interact with us in any detectable way. Failing to have any detectable manifestation is a good standard of non-existence.

Is there something in between those two? Like Father Christmas perhaps?

you know, i dont even care what you believe really. lets leave it at that.