Religion

Htom Sirveaux

(1,242 posts)

42. The argument only holds if you assume

Sun Jul 27, 2014, 02:46 PM

Jul 2014

that our technology is or will eventually become infallible. God-like, you might even say.
-
I don't understand that last thing you said. The God you propose would explain why the universe exists. Is the universe not a thing in need of an explanation? Besides which, science exists to detect hidden regularities through repeated observation over time. Miracles of the kind you are thinking of ("interferences&quot are not regularities, by definition. As you said, they are interruptions in regularities. Therefore, even if they exist, they are not scientific concepts, and science would be incapable of detecting them as miracles (it could possibly detect the actual effect, but the explanation would be another regularity, not an agent capable of temporarily altering regularities).

So if the only evidence of God you accept is miracles, and the only evidence of miracles you accept is scientific evidence, then you've presupposed the answer to the question "does God exist" before any discussion has started. Claims of "I would believe in God if there was evidence of God" do not fully capture the situation.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

117 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Agnostic atheism: a reasonable position on spiritual matters, or the only reasonable position... [View all] Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 OP

I think there are lots of perspectives that can be reasonably held. Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #1

In my view agnosticism is a subset of atheism intaglio Jul 2014 #2

What if a hypothetical person defines "evidence" Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #3

Your problem there is that if a deity exists it is not supernatural intaglio Jul 2014 #6

That's still based on an assumption... Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #7

Wrong, it is saying that God's Word has an effect intaglio Jul 2014 #9

So for you, are "natural" and "universe" synonymous with Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #10

Let's use the word cosmos instead of universe intaglio Jul 2014 #13

I'm saying, at the very least, the cosmos itself is the effect. Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #16

Now you are claiming that there is nothing supernatural about the creation intaglio Jul 2014 #17

And it is, we can measure the cosmos in all sorts of ways. Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #18

But you have assigned a set of starting conditions to the cosmos intaglio Jul 2014 #20

Only if you have those others available for comparison. Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #22

The point is that usually even our "supernatural" God is said to effect visible material things Brettongarcia Jul 2014 #27

Things only exist when we have the ability to detect them? Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #40

There is a difference between edhopper Jul 2014 #41

The argument only holds if you assume Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #42

Not what I am saying at all edhopper Jul 2014 #43

That's alright, it's gotten kind of unwieldy. Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #44

Well you are right. There could be an itty bitty teeny weeny god. Warren Stupidity Jul 2014 #55

Everything is natural, including belief in the supernatural. Starboard Tack Jul 2014 #45

Nope gcomeau Jul 2014 #46

I did say that it was my view however ... intaglio Jul 2014 #58

Agnostic means... gcomeau Jul 2014 #61

It is always open to the deity to reveal themselves intaglio Jul 2014 #67

Agnosticism is the only reasonable position because no one knows. cbayer Jul 2014 #4

Do you see theism/atheism more as matters of identity Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #5

That is a great question and one I have thought about. cbayer Jul 2014 #8

That would seem to imply that when people shift positions, Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #11

Another good question. In that there may be a possibility of "evolving" cbayer Jul 2014 #12

It may be more a piece of exploring one's identity. Sexual identity and religious preference pinto Jul 2014 #15

I see. So are you saying that its wrong to call Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #19

No. I choose to let people call themselves whatever it is they prefer. And I'll follow their lead. pinto Jul 2014 #21

As a general rule, I agree that people's self-definitions should be respected. Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #23

Aghh, Randall Terry. The Operation Rescue guy. Yeah, he was simply trolling. pinto Jul 2014 #24

Again, I don't mean to equate them, only to point out cbayer Jul 2014 #29

It is possible to show that most ideas of gods must be wrong Brettongarcia Jul 2014 #28

"No one. Anyone who says they do is full of it." AtheistCrusader Jul 2014 #25

My statement was meant for both believers and non-believers. Sorry if that was not clear. cbayer Jul 2014 #26

There are many believers on DU who are certain god exists. trotsky Jul 2014 #35

I have not seen you express it adamantly toward believers here. AtheistCrusader Jul 2014 #38

You missed it, but that is not surprising. cbayer Jul 2014 #39

Agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive. longship Jul 2014 #32

I agree that they are not mutually exclusive, but I do think they cbayer Jul 2014 #33

Early to bed, early to rise... longship Jul 2014 #34

I think agnosticism is the default position. pinto Jul 2014 #14

I think that is an excellent way to put it. cbayer Jul 2014 #30

Sigh... gcomeau Jul 2014 #48

Sigh... cbayer Jul 2014 #57

Uh huh... gcomeau Jul 2014 #60

Uh huh... cbayer Jul 2014 #63

Actually, gcomeau Jul 2014 #66

No, but I can find you lots of definitions of agnosticism that sees it as a stand cbayer Jul 2014 #68

I'm certain you can. The error is amazingly popular. gcomeau Jul 2014 #69

Ok, keep up the good fight. cbayer Jul 2014 #70

Ok, and you keep refusing to make an argument... gcomeau Jul 2014 #71

Agreed - however you want to paint it works for me. cbayer Jul 2014 #72

How about not? gcomeau Jul 2014 #76

That works for me as well. It won't keep me from responding to your posts, but cbayer Jul 2014 #77

Or... gcomeau Jul 2014 #79

But I do that all the time. You just refuse to acknowledge it because it doesn't fit into your cbayer Jul 2014 #82

I have yet to ever see you do anything of the kind. gcomeau Jul 2014 #85

I understand that. You, like most people, only see what you want to see. cbayer Jul 2014 #87

Sigh. gcomeau Jul 2014 #88

Step over this line!! I dare you. cbayer Jul 2014 #91

Prediction verified. gcomeau Jul 2014 #92

You made the best possible argument Alittleliberal Jul 2014 #78

That's right. I'm a lost cause. cbayer Jul 2014 #83

Agnosticism is a good default position. Until evidence begins to pile up against religion Brettongarcia Jul 2014 #31

Unfortunately Theism is the default in our world Lordquinton Jul 2014 #36

Default or just majority? cbayer Jul 2014 #37

assumed default Lordquinton Jul 2014 #100

I agree with that. cbayer Jul 2014 #109

It can't possibly be the default position. gcomeau Jul 2014 #47

I meant it in the sense of "I don't know". Which I think is a common default position. pinto Jul 2014 #49

Agnosticism does not mean "I dunno" in any legitimate philosophical context. gcomeau Jul 2014 #50

? Doesn't it mean "not knowing"? Or acknowledging doubt, uncertainty, or perhaps disinterest? pinto Jul 2014 #51

It means... gcomeau Jul 2014 #52

OK. pinto Jul 2014 #53

It's not at all pointless. gcomeau Jul 2014 #54

OK. I'm an agnostic, not out of ignorance or irrationality, but out of a reasoned point of view. pinto Jul 2014 #56

Again... gcomeau Jul 2014 #59

If you keep having the same outcome from this conversation, what do you cbayer Jul 2014 #64

I already stated what I conclude from that. gcomeau Jul 2014 #65

Some people are really invested in evading the question of whether or not god exists. AtheistCrusader Jul 2014 #73

And some people just don't know whether god exists or not. cbayer Jul 2014 #74

If they dont know, then they don't believe. AtheistCrusader Jul 2014 #75

This shit is hard and it is simply lazy to think otherwise. cbayer Jul 2014 #81

It's a boolean proposition. It is not 'lazy' to call it what it is. AtheistCrusader Jul 2014 #94

Exactly, and a boolean proposition has no place when discussing religion. cbayer Jul 2014 #95

There you go, mixing knowing and believing again. AtheistCrusader Jul 2014 #96

No, I'm not mixing them. They are entirely different things. cbayer Jul 2014 #97

Yes they are different things. AtheistCrusader Jul 2014 #99

Having faith is nothing like picking a weight up off the ground. cbayer Jul 2014 #108

My point about picking up a weight is that belief isn't automatic. AtheistCrusader Jul 2014 #110

While you can make the argument that atheism is just a passive non-position, the cbayer Jul 2014 #111

That's simply untrue. AtheistCrusader Jul 2014 #113

Well good. I knew we had something in common. cbayer Jul 2014 #114

If I were Person 2 I would've walked away from Person 1 long before the end. Demit Jul 2014 #80

And this kind of badgering rarely if ever wins the battle. cbayer Jul 2014 #84

And it's possible to believe sometimes, and sometimes not. Demit Jul 2014 #90

You and I are on the same page with this. cbayer Jul 2014 #93

To me, the knowing would trump believing. Believing would be unnecessary if you knew. Demit Jul 2014 #98

That's why I think agnostic is the most reasonable position one can take. cbayer Jul 2014 #107

And when you believe you believe.. and when you don't you don't. gcomeau Jul 2014 #105

Oh really? gcomeau Jul 2014 #86

Pretty much everything Person 1 says after Person 2 said they don't know if they believe. Demit Jul 2014 #89

Perhaps you should stop making assumptions about tone in written text. gcomeau Jul 2014 #102

Utter bullshit. Demit Jul 2014 #103

Wow, substantive response. gcomeau Jul 2014 #104

Thank you! I believe in being substantive with as few words as possible. Demit Jul 2014 #112

Since you appear to share another posters insistence... gcomeau Jul 2014 #115

I don't agree with your premise, so there's nothing to address. Demit Jul 2014 #116

There's always something to address. gcomeau Jul 2014 #117

Fantastic post. n/t trotsky Jul 2014 #62

All I know is I get on a plane and say to myself "hope the plane dont crash" randys1 Jul 2014 #101

Context is important Act_of_Reparation Jul 2014 #106