Agnosticism: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » Agnosticism » Agnosticism

Agnosticism

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Agnosticism

ragus
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 23, 2006

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 2187

Posted 09/25/09 - 03:29 AM:	#21
wuliheron wrote I use the term paradox here in the colloquial of "does not make sense", but for all I know existence is indeed paradoxical in the more formal sense of the word so I choose to call it "The Paradox of Existence". Your claim that it "doesn't make sense" rests on you existing. If you're also claiming that your claim doesn't make sense then what?
"A word in your ear is like an untethered goat in a field" Wittigenstein

rigelrover
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 05, 2009

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 559

Posted 09/25/09 - 04:17 AM:	#22
wuliheron wrote: The claim that a creator exists has support not so much from the fact that we evidently exist, but from the apparent paradoxical nature of existence itself. I use the term paradox here in the colloquial of "does not make sense", but for all I know existence is indeed paradoxical in the more formal sense of the word so I choose to call it "The Paradox of Existence". It is also a "miracle" if not in the supernatural sense of the word, then at least in the sense that it inspires awe and wonder. It's mystery is so profound that it is difficult if not impossible to even find the words to describe what existence is and is not. If there is a deeper, more profound, and seemingly less likely to ever be answered mystery I am unaware of it. Where did we come from it is not necessarily an unexplainable mystery. We can/should be able to describe this empirically as far as we like if causal/probability-laws hold (as long as the necessary information still exists and hasn't disappeared into black holes, etc.). From where we sit, as existent things, the only way to 'know' about these sort of things is empirically via logical deduction, etc. But that does not explicitly rule out an explanation for how we came to be. In fact, as I was trying to suggest to 180 above, it appears as a metaphysically necessary condition of existing that ones 'knowledge' of world/self/other be a closed discourse about antecedent existent things, even the set of all antecedent existent things together (i.e. we cannot speak about things non-causally linked to universe). In other words: *of course there is/should be a natural* explanation for things** from inside. We should/may, I would think, someday discover a mode of discourse which explains how the universe self-creates. But as wuli-bully is getting at (I think), *the* existential mystery appears not to belong to the realm of empirical/logical discourse. Empiricists should say that we should consider these mysteries mute and meaningless, etc. because we cannot have discourse about them. I say, along with wuli, that the absurdity of the something rather than nothing, the fact that causality appears to tie the universe together rather than the equally metaphysically absurd notion that causality might not be necessary, etc.; these are the blips in our current sensical discourse that allow for mystery (i.e. indeterminacy, 'knowability').
I am more interested in questions than answers; dialog than dictation. If we can reasonably believe that there is not just a breach, but a fundamentally unclosable gap between the individual mind and the ultimate nature of the reality; the primordial thing in itself, then 'true' mystery does exist.

180 Proof
kynic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: NOTHINGlifeNOTHING

Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 5126

Posted 09/25/09 - 08:58 AM:	#23
wuliheron wrote: My position is that extraordinary claims require extra(ord)inary proof. Given all that is rigorously known about the universe, the claim that there is a "creator god" is extraordinary and that there is no "creator god" is not, or considerably less so. These claims are not equipollent. To quote Richard Dawkins, "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference." The claim that a creator exists has support ... from the apparent paradoxical nature of existence itself This 'paradox' is only apparent. The claim " that a creator exists" in light of an universe so thoroughly devoid of evidence of 'design' or 'purpose' is, to say the least, actually paradoxical. It's mystery is so profound that it is difficult if not impossible to even find the words to describe what existence is and is not. If there is a deeper, more profound, and seemingly less likely to ever be answered mystery I am unaware of it. The only thing 'profound' here is semantic muddle (e.g. "what existence is and is not"). Where you find 'mystery', wuli, I find the limits of contemporary language-use (e.g. theoretical constructs). ... By comparison being able to answer if there is a Santa or not is child's play. If Santa Claus exists then there must be evidence of his presence (e.g. actions) in the world. Likewise, if there is a "creator god" then there must be evidence of its presence (e.g. acts of creation) in the world. *The only difference between these a posteriori* inquiries is a difference in scale.** A "creator god's" fingerprints must be observable in galaxies, throughout geological strata & on mitochondrial DNA making it much easier to falsify than claims about Santa Claus. The universe is a fossil (re: cosmic microwave background radiation) that is gradually being excavated and more precisely interpreted; so far there are no (recognized) signs of top-down causal relations that indicate the presence, or provenance, of "a creator god". Thus, there are presently no sound reasons to believe that the universe was "created". Edited by 180 Proof on 09/25/09 - 09:09 AM. Reason: Fidelity sans faith ...
The question isn't "Which explanations do I believe?" but rather "Which explanations do I least disbelieve?" Absence of evidence THAT MUST BE THERE (i.e. implied by any claim, concept, or (its) predicates, that affects changes in/to the world) entails evidence of absence. [What cannot be done?[What cannot be hoped?[What cannot be known?]]]

Relief
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 23, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 50

Posted 09/25/09 - 09:20 AM:	#24
180 Proof wrote: It's not impossible to believe this. As a concept it is incoherent though. Many people believe this sort of nonsense, but not rationally. Fair enough. One last question. Do you believe that something that humans cannot percieve can exist?
"As being is to becoming, so is truth to belief. If then, Socrates, amid the many opinions about the gods and the generation of the universe, we are not able to give notions which are altogether and in every respect exact and consistent with one another, do not be surprised. Enough, if we adduce probabilities as likely as any others; for we must remember that I who am the speaker, and you who are the judges, are only mortal men" Plato

180 Proof
kynic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: NOTHINGlifeNOTHING

Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 5126

Posted 09/25/09 - 09:44 AM:	#25
Relief wrote: Do you believe that something that humans cannot percieve can exist? Of course. Electrons & non-visible frequencies of light are two conspicuous (excuse the pun) examples of extant imperceptibles.
The question isn't "Which explanations do I believe?" but rather "Which explanations do I least disbelieve?" Absence of evidence THAT MUST BE THERE (i.e. implied by any claim, concept, or (its) predicates, that affects changes in/to the world) entails evidence of absence. [What cannot be done?[What cannot be hoped?[What cannot be known?]]]

Relief
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 23, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 50

Posted 09/25/09 - 09:52 AM:	#26
180 Proof wrote: Of course. Electrons & non-visible frequencies of light are two conspicuous (excuse the pun) examples of extant imperceptibles. Alright. Sorry I lied, another question. Could an imperceptable force that is "intelligent" exist then. (I know I'm not refering to a god)
"As being is to becoming, so is truth to belief. If then, Socrates, amid the many opinions about the gods and the generation of the universe, we are not able to give notions which are altogether and in every respect exact and consistent with one another, do not be surprised. Enough, if we adduce probabilities as likely as any others; for we must remember that I who am the speaker, and you who are the judges, are only mortal men" Plato

180 Proof
kynic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: NOTHINGlifeNOTHING

Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 5126

Posted 09/25/09 - 10:00 AM:	#27
Relief wrote: Could an imperceptable force that is "intelligent" exist then. (I know I'm not refering to a god) Sure, why not?
The question isn't "Which explanations do I believe?" but rather "Which explanations do I least disbelieve?" Absence of evidence THAT MUST BE THERE (i.e. implied by any claim, concept, or (its) predicates, that affects changes in/to the world) entails evidence of absence. [What cannot be done?[What cannot be hoped?[What cannot be known?]]]

ragus
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 23, 2006

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 2187

Posted 09/25/09 - 10:34 AM:	#28
180 Proof wrote The universe is a fossil Because the evidence we use to excavate with is fossilised doesn't entail that the universe is a fossil. Thus, there are presently no sound reasons to believe that the universe was "created". Then you're a temporary (but possibly permanent) atheist.
"A word in your ear is like an untethered goat in a field" Wittigenstein

Relief
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 23, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 50

Posted 09/25/09 - 10:51 AM:	#29
180 Proof wrote: Sure, why not? I'm assuming your an atheist, even though I don't know lol. So your an atheist due to your lack of beleif that a any force could be "all powerful" and "perfect". Correct me if I'm wrong. Or what are the main reasons you are an atheist?
"As being is to becoming, so is truth to belief. If then, Socrates, amid the many opinions about the gods and the generation of the universe, we are not able to give notions which are altogether and in every respect exact and consistent with one another, do not be surprised. Enough, if we adduce probabilities as likely as any others; for we must remember that I who am the speaker, and you who are the judges, are only mortal men" Plato

ms anthropist
successful failure

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 11, 2006
Location: on the highest horse

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 378

Posted 09/25/09 - 10:58 AM:	#30
180 Proof wrote: It looks to me like BeHereNow, Kamerynn and wuliheron are still scratching this itch which makes me wonder whether any of you are "agnostic" about Santa Claus. If not, can someone explain why (any) god warrants agnosticism and Santa Claus does not? Perhaps they were agnostic about santa Claus when they were, say, five years old. But then, with knowledge, came to an understanding that there is no Santa. I am an atheist and although, I deeply believe that agnostics are just sitting on the fence. I respect the notion that some people may consider the arguments in both sides compelling enough not to be able to decide. If I were to wake up on Xmass day to find world peace, the erradication of world hunger and all television networks disabled, then I might myself become a Santa Claus agnostic. Knowing that he was created by coca-cola, though, and with no evidence suggesting his existence, at present I continue to be an aclausist.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.