329 replies to this topic

[Bruce Klein]

I chose "Atheist". I believe life can be fundamentally explained by scientific method free from mystical or religious undercurrents. This philosophy is best exemplified by the words of American Athiest founder, Madalyn Murray O'Hair:

The indestructible foundation of the whole edifice of Atheism is its philosophy, materialism, or naturalism, as it is also known. That philosophy regards the world as it actually is, views it in the light of the data provided by progressive science and social experience. Atheistic materialism is the logical outcome of scientific knowledge gained over the centuries. link

[Sophianic]

I chose "other" where "other" = none. No religious identity. Non-religious also implies a nodding reference to religious, a kind of acknowledgement I do not wish to give. The same goes for the terms agnostic and atheist, terms which merely tell you what you are not (not a gnostic, not a theist), rather than how you choose to identify yourself, e.g., a singularitarian, an immortalist, a transhumanist or an extropian.

[Lazarus Long]

Sophianic raises a good point. Ben Franklin was a self acclaimed "Deist", which could be called "Individualized Heresy" by some. Other includes so many categories from Scientology to Heretic.

One basis of Free Masonry and a tradition of Radical Individualized Spirituality that goes back to the builders of the Pyramids is the idea that all individuals have the Right of Direct Communication with God. Regardless of whether such deity exists or not.

This is to say that one's Right of Appeal (prayer), overrides all sanctioned channels of communication. Institutional Religions have been trying to stomp out this subtle heresy since they first gained power over the tribes. The messanic traditions exist in direct antithesis to this traditional conflict.

Of course science can be seen as a form messianic "skepticism" in contrast to both theocratic politics and charismatic technocracy. So perhaps Nilhilism belongs on the list too. The "I do not believe in belief" option and maybe Rationalism belongs, "I believe in Reason".

This list gets longer and longer all the time. Call it the evolution of belief, and the inherent dialetical problems with belief.

[fruitimmortal]

I selected" other" because my Realition is Immortal physical life.

[lucky1]

[ph34r] I chose "other" because I'm into lots of different spiritual stuff. Eg. Vedas especially Agnihotra, any type of scripture I happen to come across, and I am a Rebirther/breathworker who likes to explore theoretical possiblities like PI.

[PaulH]

I chose "Atheist".   I believe life can be fundamentally explained by scientific method free from mystical or religious undercurrents.

I agree with you that virtually all of our technological and scientific achievments and much more to come can be accomplished without the necessity of mystical undercurrents. Everything from mage-scale engineering to traversible wormholes, physical immortality, matrioska brains and alpha-point computing. But lets not forget that in addition to all of this extreme enhancements that we can look forward to, the subjective experience of life itself is equally important. I'm not saying that mystical points of view are TRUTH, in fact I'm arguing there may not be any truth with a capital T at all. What I am saying however, is that adopting various mystical points of view, depending on the context, can be useful, practical, fun and immensely pleasurable, For example, I experience tremendous amounts of bliss from the simple idea that the universe is already perfect and infinitely blissful and full of love. Is this true? I don't care. What I do care about is how absolutely fantastic I feel when I adopt this point of view while in the process of resolving intensely negative emotions. And yes, you can do this, and still be an athiest, because it doesn't require that you believe dogmatically that its true, only "as-if true" for that moment.

[Cyto]

Atheist, dun dun dunnn!!! [ggg]

I think Im the person my mother warns me about. . .

[DJS]

I am agnostic. There are many misconception as to just what agnosticism is--as illustrated by the comments by Sophianic (no offense). If you study the God riddle from an unbias perspective the conclusion you will reach is agnosticism. BJ, you have said that fear of death is the reason people have invented God, and that is true. However, another reason people feel a need for God is because it answers the question of why. Why am I here? Why do I have consciousness? Why is there matter? Why is there time? Why was there a big bang? Why was there matter present for the big bang to take place? These are not easy questions to answer. And if all of the questions of this nature could be answered than the question of God would also be answer one way or the other. However, mankind has yet to answer these questions scientifically. The fact of the matter is that God offers a really simple answer to very very complex problems and this appeals to people (the reason this appeals to people is another debate). Even if one thinks that they can answer these questions effectively not everyone will be convinced by your arguments. Further, the answers that one has for such questions are hard to back up with facts. This inability by the scientific community to solve these fundamental problems is why religion persists. I think many who are repulsed by the dogmatic nature of religion have the natural reaction of going atheist. I have no problem with this. Most atheists that I know are very intelligent and have given much thought to their belief in atheism. It is just that personally I do not feel that I have conclusive proof that God does or does not exist. I pulled the following text from a web site. I think it fairly represents agnosticism.

Agnostic – Agnostos
The English word Agnostic comes from the Greek "Agnostos". "Gnostos" means to know, from which we derive the term "Gnostic." Gnostos means to know. Agnostos means to not know.

An Agnostic is one who believes that the existence of God is unknown and most likely beyond human ability to discover. By definition, an Agnostic is not committed to believing in or disbelieving in God. However, today's typical Agnostic is not "sitting on the fence." Actually, the majority of Agnostics believe that while there is not conclusive evidence to prove or disprove the existence of God, the existence of God is highly improbable. An Agnostic does not make an effort to disprove the existence of God; however, neither does he live his life as if he will be accountable to God. Consequently, Agnostics do not believe in Divine Law. Agnostics follow a relativistic philosophy where one should do as one feels is right. In some cultures, they feel it is right to eat human flesh. Therefore, there is nothing inherently wrong with eating somebody. An Agnostic would restrain from murder, only for fear of retribution from man. If one were able to get away with murder, then murder might be an acceptable option under certain circumstances. Generally, Agnostics believe truth is relative, and nothing is absolute.

Edited by Kissinger, 23 January 2003 - 09:10 AM.

[Sophianic]

I am agnostic.  There are many misconception as to just what agnosticism is--as illustrated by the comments by Sophianic (no offense).

No offense taken. I stated that agnostic is "not a gnostic," which I think would be consistent with your definition of agnostic. You may want to claim that your definition represents something more than my simple assertion, but ...

If you study the God riddle from an unbias perspective the conclusion you will reach is agnosticism.

Not if you go by the principle where "the onus of proof rests with those who assert the positive." Truth is neither instrinsic (dogma) nor subjective (preference) nor relative (to dogma or preference). Truth is objective ~ not instrinsic ~ reflecting a precise and contextual relationship between subject and object.

More important than truth, however, is honesty; deceptive people can (and often do) manipulate the truth for their own ends. Some would even argue that people generally cannot be trusted (due to their evolutionary baggage) to be wholly honest with themselves or others ~ making "truth as objective" a virtual impossibility (but that is another issue).

My understanding, partly based on what I've said here, is that any claim to an agnostic position has no value, i.e., it doesn't stand for anything of value. Moreover, I think that it can be a dangerous position to take when it grants legitimacy to falsehood and delusion.

[Lazarus Long]

I finally decided to vote in this poll. I weighed my response for some time and decided with "other" not as a copout but because of a fundamental problem with affiliation. Almost all the other categories involve joining a "group persuasion". Even atheist and agnostic have a component that resembles the loyal opposition and official third party.

Often I have argued and I still maintain that all religion is politics. The reverse is also true. Politics is religion. What is a component of religious doctrine is indoctrination and allegience to a "group identificaton".

I have often called myself heretic, pagan, and deist but not as a means of finding common souls in this matter. I have done so in order to protect my right to converse directly with my understanding of spirit. "Other" reflects the rebels of religious thought and experience.

"Other" are those that do not want to be defined.

We question gods to their faces and reap what reward and retribution that brings. We do not ask for sanction, we do not do what you or anyone else thinks is right but what we determine for ourselves in communication with our conscience and what cosmic spirit is perceived.

Yes Sophianic, Truth is Objective, What is Relative almost Universally is our individual perspective of it.

I talk with gods, animals, and small children, I listen to the trees and the wind and the soft voices of water sprites. I accept my madness as one that can hear more clearly then many would allow, though I try to converse with them too.

[Sophianic]

Oops. The above post is mine.

[DJS]

The main contention of those who would subscribe to a position that tries to give legitimate cognitive status to arbitrary claims?  How is this possible?

Let me answer for you: it's not.

Yeah, those guest quotes were mine also--I was at a library. Let me try to better present myself now that I have more time.

When you lump atheist and agnostic together you are making a mistake in your classification. That is why I am saying your statement was flawed. Atheism is the diametric opposite of theism. There is no diametric opposite to agnosticism. In other words, agnosticism does not pit itself against another belief system.

As far as the atheist comment--just busting on you. lol The statement is one that an atheist would give. After reading all of your posts I am still not sure exactly what you subscribe to.

[I]Truth is objective.
The main contention of those who would subscribe to a position that tries to give legitimate cognitive status to arbitrary claims? How is it possible?
Let me answer for you: it's not.[I]


This is what I have a real problem with. Agnosticism gives legitimacy to nothing! Where are you getting that from?

Let's be frank. Can you scientifically prove that God does not exist? No. Is it possible that God does not exists? Yes.

Can you scientifically prove that God does exist? No. Is it possible that God does exist? Yes.

This is agnosticism.

Let me really get you raging, heck probably everyone at imminst [ggg]

Can you scientifically prove that Jesus is not the son of God?

No you can't. There is strong empirical evidence to suggest otherwise, but just as it is impossible to prove religion it is also impossible to disprove it. That is the nature of religion.

And yes, I know that Christians are unconcerned with scientific evidence to prove their religious beliefs, however I do not view the Christian faith from the perspective of a Christian.

If you can't absolutely disprove the existence of God, then logically you can not disprove different theories as to God's nature since God's nature is also something which would not be provable scientifically.

Edited by Kissinger, 24 January 2003 - 08:49 AM.

[Sophianic]

Yes Sophianic, Truth is Objective, What is Relative almost Universally is our individual perspective of it.

I would put it this way: the truth (small "t") is objective (small "o"). Putting caps on 'truth' and 'objective' suggest an intrinsic interpretation of same.

I would also be careful in the use of the term "relative" where the truth is concerned. The statement "what is true for me may not be true for you" implies that truth is "subjective." A perspective on truth, if objective, cannot admit relative interpretations.

Truth is also not to be confused with breadth and depth of knowledge. The latter is relative to the individual knower (obviously), and that goes also for knowledge of truth. Individual perspectives on truth are informed by breadth and depth of knowledge about truth, and therefore are relative (small "r") in the way you suggest.

[Sophianic]

When you lump atheist and agnostic together you are making a mistake in your classification.  That is why I am saying your statement was flawed.

I was merely demonstrating a similarity. No classification was intended. Therefore, my statement stands.

Atheism is the diametric opposite of theism.  There is no diametric opposite to agnosticism.  In other words, agnosticism does not pit itself against another belief system.

Agnosticism comes from gnosticism. The latter lays claim to special knowledge. The former denies any such claim. They seem diametrically opposed to me.

As far as the atheist comment--just busting on you. lol   The statement is one that an atheist would give.  After reading all of your posts I am still not sure exactly what you subscribe to.

The labels we wear impose limitations on us; they define us and confine us. Agnosticism is one such label.

This is what I have a real problem with.  Agnosticism gives legitimacy to nothing!  Where are you getting that from?

Ah, but it does. At least it tries to do so. Read on ....

Let's be frank.  Can you scientifically prove that God does not exist?  No.  Is it possible that God does not exists?  Yes.

Here's your first mistake. Can I prove a negative where an arbitary claim is concerned? No. Can you? No. Can anyone? No. What does that prove? Nothing.

Here's your second mistake: you say that it's possible that God exists. But until you offer me evidence, your assertion (and it is an assertion) is baseless.

Can you scientifically prove that God does exist?  No.  Is it possible that God does exist?  Yes.

See above.

This is agnosticism.

And so it is. And what a flawed position it is.

Let me really get you raging, heck probably everyone at imminst [ggg]

Calm and cool under pressure ...

Can you scientifically prove that Jesus is not the son of God?

You're asking me to prove a negative again. Remember, kids, the onus of proof is on him or her who asserts a positive, and that one must not attempt to prove a negative.

No you can't.  There is strong empirical evidence to suggest otherwise, but just as it is impossible to prove religion it is also impossible to disprove it.  That is the nature of religion.

More mistakes. Religion per se is a subject, not a claim to knowledge, and so of course it is impossible to prove or disprove it. To suggest that Jesus is the Son of God without first bringing forth valid evidence for the existence of God is dishonest.

And yes, I know that Christians are unconcerned with scientific evidence to prove their religious beliefs, however I do not view the Christian faith from the perspective of a Christian.

Yes, I can see that.

If you can't absolutely disprove the existence of God, then logically you can not disprove different theories as to God's nature since God's nature is also something which would not be provable scientifically.

An arbitrary claim has no evidence to back it up. Proof can only be applied to claims made with evidence. There is no need for me or anyone else to disprove a claim that has no evidence based in reality and the use of reason. Theories as to the nature of something that has an existence only in the minds of those who believe are empty without evidence to back them up. With no evidence, there is no legitimate claim. With no legitimate claim, there is no need to prove or disprove said claim.

[Lazarus Long]

I like playing with capital, Capitols too.

I try not to merely stretch their application to the limits of the English proper noun but to make them shed light upon nothing so substantial as an idea.

Truth is not relative.

Is that a Truth?

Truth is absolute.

Is that a lie?

A false idea?

A fabrication made True?

Absolute Truth is false yet truth is absolute.

Why?

So perhaps some get to smile at irony
Play with their minds
Illuminating ideas in time
Relative uniformity is cosmic
Mundane made sublime
Math become poetry
To rhyme just slipping in time.
When we find that Relativity is true
Where Quantum Mechanics is too
Roses are red do you want to know
Why is the sky so blue?
I do
If I knew, would I tell you?
If I have the Truth and share it,
Is it still mine too?

Truth's Relative In Finite Perspective
But Absolute Objectivity Divine
Absolutely subjective to define

[Sophianic]

I like playing with capital, Capitols too.

First, a distinction.

An instrinsic approach to knowledge leads to the view that knowledge is a grasp of an object through the passive absorption of revelations, divine or otherwise. Those who subscribe to this viewpoint describe a faculty of "just knowing" in terms of intuition, a sixth sense, ESP, reminiscence, or divine revelation. This is how religious people believe they can be privy to special knowledge, such knowledge being designated with caps ~ as in the Truth or the Absolute or the Divine (as you have done in your post to make your points).

A subjective approach to knowledge leads to the view that knowledge is the creation of an object through the active inner processes of the subject. Those who subscribe to this view reject revelation as a means of knowing, opting instead to rely on the internal content and structure of their conscious minds to create facts from their own internal resources alone, without caring to establish their relevance or significance to the external world.

An objective approach to knowledge leads to the view that knowledge is the grasp of an object through an active process based on reality and chosen by the subject. Those who subscribe to this view reject both revelation and emotion as means of cognition, relying instead on establishing a correspondence of truth between the objects of reality and the products of consciousness (e.g., propositions or claims).

In talking about the absolute nature of truth and knowledge, one can approach it from both a metaphysical and an epistemological perspective. Metaphysically, there are certain facts of reality that are necessary regardless of what anyone may think, and therefore are true in an absolute sense, e.g., the fact of gravitation. This is in contrast to man-made facts that are not necessary, that depend on human choices and actions, e.g., the fact that this forum is here depended on the values, choices and actions of BJK to start it and keep it running.

Epistemologically, the truth of a proposition can be contextually absolute based on sensory observations and conceptual and logical integrations. There may be more to learn about the object of this proposition, but the additional knowledge can be integrated without logical contradiction into an existing knowledge base. This process is not measured against some standard of omniscience, but against a reasonable, human standard of truth in accordance with the objective view of knowledge.

Now, I will address your post.

I try not to merely stretch their application to the limits of the English proper noun but to make them shed light upon nothing so substantial as an idea.

Again, I would urge you to take care not to use caps as per my reference above re: the intrinsic view of knowledge.

Truth is not relative.

Is that a Truth?

Sidestepping the instrinsic view, it's better to simply say: "The truth is not relative," and then ask: is that true? (I've answered this question already).

Truth is absolute.

Is that a lie?

A false idea?

A fabrication made True?

When people rely on revelation as their means of knowledge, these questions naturally arise, do they not? Let us once again substitute "Truth" (through relevation) with "the truth" (through metaphysics, epistemology and logic), so that we get the proposition "The truth is absolute." Is that a lie? No. A false idea? No. A fabrication made *true*? No. I touched on this already (see above).

Absolute Truth is false yet truth is absolute.

Why?

Again, Abolute Truth is a fabrication of the instrinsic view of knowledge.

So perhaps some get to smile at irony
Play with their minds
Illuminating ideas in time
Relative uniformity is cosmic
Mundane made sublime
Math become poetry
To rhyme just slipping in time.
When we find that Relativity is true
Where Quantum Mechanics is too
Roses are red do you want to know
Why is the sky so blue?
I do
If I knew, would I tell you?
If I have the Truth and share it,
Is it still mine too?

The intrinsic view of knowledge leads to dogma. The subjective view of knowledge leads to fabrication. The objective view of knowledge leads to products that accord with the nature of reality and reason.

Truth's Relative In Finite Perspective
But Absolute Objectivity Divine
Absolutely subjective to define

No. Truth from an intrinsic perspective is never relative. Objectivity requires a specifically *human* relationship between existence and consciousness ~ and it's not subjective.

[DJS]

An arbitrary claim has no evidence to back it up.  Proof can only be applied to claims made with evidence.  There is no need for me or anyone else to disprove a claim that has no evidence based in reality and the use of reason.  Theories as to the nature of something that has an existence only in the minds of those who believe are empty without evidence to back them up.  With no evidence, there is no legitimate claim.  With no legitimate claim, there is no need to prove or disprove said claim.

I FEEL LIKE I'M TAKING CRAZY PILLS!

Sophianic, you are saying exactly what I am saying. Indeed, there is no need to disprove a claim that has no evidence. My contention is that there has been , as of yet, no legitimate claims made. Therefore, all we really have is speculation. If you read my opening statement you would see that it said that most modern agnostics are extremely skeptical about the existence of God. Agnostics are the ultimate skeptics.

Let me tell you a little bit about my personal beliefs. So far, I have been expounding agnosticism in general. The traditional religions of the world are an insult to my intelligence. I can't be more blunt than that.

Does God exist? Couldn't tell you. A living, thinking God. Unlikely, as my opening statement said--Agnostics do not believe in Divine Law. However, could a God exist beyond our comprehension; a nonliving, nonthinking God that operates strictly within the laws of physics? Possibly. Can I prove it, no. The nature of said God may be beyond our comprehension. (You could interpret this as a cop out, since something that is beyond our comprehension can never be proven or disproven.) I think this a matter of semantics between you and I. You are saying that you must prove a positive.

If I am to believe in God, than prove it to me. But if I am not going to believe in God, than prove to me that God does not exist. You can not. You can make a case, but no proof. That is why most modern agnostics are closer to atheism than theism. Because the odds are in atheism's favor.

Edited by Kissinger, 25 January 2003 - 12:02 AM.

[DJS]

My understanding, partly based on what I've said here, is that any claim to an agnostic position has no value, i.e., it doesn't stand for anything of value.

This is another statement I had a problem with. No value? Does the scientific method have no value? Just because something does not offer a belief system does not make it valueless. On the contrary, it offers one a way to evaluate the world in an unbias way.

[Sophianic]

I FEEL LIKE I'M TAKING CRAZY PILLS!

There's a reason why you feel that way. Read on ...

Sophianic, you are saying exactly what I am saying.  Indeed, there is no need to disprove a claim that has no evidence.  My contention is that there has been , as of yet, no legitimate claims made.

But you did say that it is possible that God exists. This implies, whether you intend it or not, that you know or at least assume there is some evidence that God exists (although not yet enough to say for certain that God exists). I think that we both can agree that one cannot prove or disprove an arbitrary claim. But the agnostic goes further by feeling compelled to add: "but it is possible."

Therefore, all we really have is speculation.

What if God exists? That is speculation. It is possible that God exists. That is a claim.

If you read my opening statement you would see that it said that most modern agnostics are extremely skeptical about the existence of God.  Agnostics are the ultimate skeptics.

There is are two kinds of skepticism. The healthy kind that questions arbitrary claims and claims that require more evidence. And there is the kind that denies reason the ability to know anything of value. I put the Agnostics in the latter camp on at least some issues, although they may also claim to inhabit the former camp.

Let me tell you a little bit about my personal beliefs.  So far, I have been expounding agnosticism in general.  The traditional religions of the world are an insult to my intelligence.  I can't be more blunt than that.

If traditional religions are an insult to your intelligence, why do you persist in granting legitimacy to their position by conceding that it is possible that God exists?

Does God exist?  Couldn't tell you.

If you examined the evidence for the existence of God, you would be able to tell me. Until you can point to even a small amount of evidence, you cannot say that it is possible that God exists.

However, could a God exist beyond our comprehension; a nonliving, nonthinking God that operates strictly within the laws of physics?  Possibly.  Can I prove it, no.  The nature of said God may be beyond our comprehension.

If such a God lies beyond our comprehension, then on what basis can we say it's possible that it exists?

(You could interpret this as a cop out, since something that is beyond our comprehension can never be proven or disproven.)  I think this a matter of semantics between you and I.  You are saying that you must prove a positive.

Not a cop out. Just a mistaken idea about what speculation implies. If you assert a positive statement (e.g., it's possible, it's probable), the implication is that you have some evidence to back it up. If you state a positive and it's challenged, you must bring forth your evidence.

If I am to believe in God, than prove it to me.  But if I am not going to believe in God, than prove to me that God does not exist.  You can not.  You can make a case, but no proof.

You're still stuck on the notion that I can prove a negative. I cannot. No one can. I cannot prove something that doesn't exist and I cannot disprove something that has no evidence to begin with, and that lies outside the realm of human cognition.

That is why most modern agnostics are closer to atheism than theism.  Because the odds are in atheism's favor.

But there are no odds. Odds implies possibility and probability, both of which are terms that imply the existence of evidence. If one treats "God exists" as an arbitrary claim, then you have no cognitive responsibility to respond to it as if it were true. It's really that simple.

[Sophianic]

This is another statement I had a problem with.  No value?  Does the scientific method have no value?  Just because something does not offer a belief system does not make it valueless.  On the contrary, it offers one a way to evaluate the world in an unbias way.

Straw man. I never said or implied that the scientific method has no value. The reason the agnostic position has no value is because it asserts nothing of value. It also fails to distinguish between speculation ("What if ...?") and possibility ("Based on this small amount of evidence, it is possible that ..."). In so failing, it makes a poor method for testing claims to knowledge. To perceive and to identify and to evaluate the world in an unbiased way requires a sound approach (objectivity) and a sound method (logic) for acquiring knowledge.

[bobdrake12]

The reason the agnostic position has no value is because it asserts nothing of value.

Sophianic,

The agnostic position is that the existence of God is unknowable.

Are you stating that the existence of God is knowable?

If so, how?

bob

[Sophianic]

The agnostic position is that the existence of God is unknowable.

Are you stating that the existence of God is knowable?

If so, how?

Bob,

It is not the case that God or the existence of God is either unknowable or knowable, for in the very statements "X is knowable" or "X is unknowable" is an assumption about the very existence of some entity X. If there is no valid evidence from the senses to suggest that X even exists, then there's also no reason to assume that any statement about X is anything but arbitrary. The key issue here revolves around what constitutes valid evidence ...

[DJS]

You're still stuck on the notion that I can prove a negative.  I cannot.  No one can.  I cannot prove something that doesn't exist and I cannot disprove something that has no evidence to begin with, and that lies outside the realm of human cognition.

Proving that God does not exist is not proving a negative, it is proving a belief system. If you say otherwise you are favoring atheism over theism. I see where you are coming from. You are saying that there is no proof as to God's existence. I am saying that there is no proof one way or the other. One person's negative is another person's positive, just ask an atheist. I don't care what you contend, there is no proof one way or the other. Other than that I have said my peace. Debating belief is like hitting your head with a hammer, you never accomplish much but it hurts a lot.

Also, you are a 100% atheist. And don't give me any crap about not labeling yourself, that is simply noncommittal. You are an atheist.

Edited by Kissinger, 25 January 2003 - 11:28 PM.

[DJS]

More mistakes. Religion per se is a subject, not a claim to knowledge, and so of course it is impossible to prove or disprove it. To suggest that Jesus is the Son of God without first bringing forth valid evidence for the existence of God is dishonest.

One more I just had to go back to, you are the one who is mistake here. Religion is a claim to specific knowledge.

[bobdrake12]

If there is no valid evidence from the senses to suggest that X even exists, then there's also no reason to assume that any statement about X is anything but arbitrary. The key issue here revolves around what constitutes valid evidence ...

Sophianic,

I am attempting to understand your point so I will provide an illustration.

In science, there is string theory which essentially presumes that there are 10 dimensions (Actually at least one more dimension is required, but the initial theory was based upon 10 dimensions.) On the other hand, the senses only detect four dimensions (including time).

Currently, there is no physical evidence to prove that string theory is a fact, yet string theory is believed by many (like myself) as a strong possibility.

String theory could possibly be indirectly proven to an extent through a repeatable experiment, but currently there is not a sufficient energy source to conduct such an experiment.

How might such an illustration fit into what you are stating?

If you are not comfortable with this illustration, please feel free to provide another, but my concern with your statement is in regards to evidence from the senses since new physics theory needs to go beyond the senses to a degree.

bob

Edited by bobdrake12, 26 January 2003 - 06:24 AM.

[Sophianic]

Proving that God does not exist is not proving a negative, it is proving a belief system.  If you say otherwise you are favoring atheism over theism.

In trying to prove that God does not exist, one is trying to prove a negative because the statement "God does not exist" is a negative. But one cannot prove a negative in the absence of a context of established knowledge. With respect to the God Question, such a context would be an entire philosophical base established through objective and logical means. Such a base does exist, but one must establish the false by reference to what is true, not by reference to nothing.

I see where you are coming from.  You are saying that there is no proof as to God's existence.  I am saying that there is no proof one way or the other.  One person's negative is another person's positive, just ask an atheist.

There is no proof one way or the other for claims that have no evidence. But when you say that the existence of God is possible, you have entered the realm of evidence.

I don't care what you contend, there is no proof one way or the other.  Other than that I have said my peace.  Debating belief is like hitting your head with a hammer, you never accomplish much but it hurts a lot.

But we are not "debating belief."

Also, you are a 100% atheist.  And don't give me any crap about not labeling yourself, that is simply noncommittal.  You are an atheist.

I choose not to define myself in terms of a negative. If I say, "I am not a theist," what does that say about me? Nothing. It only says what I am not. I don't need a label to make a commitment to truth. And neither do you.

In considering any issue, one must establish first that the issue is related to the realm of evidence and therefore deserves consideration. Then, one studies the evidence, weighs the possibilities in accordance with the principles of logic, and then makes up one's mind and takes a stand.