loveofsophia wrote:
So yes, you could look at it a different way if you would like, but don't reinterpret my explanation or evaluation, take it head on and look at it. Is not existence being at all inexplicable?

Everything that I experience seems to lay upon a larger and more complete or ultimate explanation that I am not privy to, in the least. Simply because something is humanly inexplicable does not mean it is ultimately inexplicable...simply speaking (or not).

"The big nothing" is the home of an explanation I can never investigate. You can say, well you are talking about nothing you know anything about, but that doesn't mean there isn't a something that consists within that nothing. The contents of that humanly conceived "nothing" are inherently absent from my understanding.

In this way I understand Martin Buber when he poetically speaks of God (to possibly interpret him in an entirely self described way), to be addressing the space between him and the mystery of anything being at all (the space they meet is the present moments of encountering existence). For the explanation is present to us always, for it must be, in that it is must be the support (the ultimate cause) of all this existence lain around me.

We (humans) may personify or imagine into something nothing like what we imagine, but to posit the question is correct, to arrogantly claim knowledge of the answer, to forget our speaking mainly of an awesome absence meeting us through existence being at all, is to have gone where the religious tread. Terribly arrogant, to my mind, and mistaken.

By being aware of this conundrum, the question, its inherent darkness clouding all aspects of even speaking about it clearly (in the light), is to be tolerant of hasty and simplified beliefs that maintain answers to the ultimate question.

I see a problem of sorts. It is only problematic if one claims knowledge inherently absent from themselves (they actually believe they hold any of the knowledge that is inherently absent). For we are only capable of, in reality, realizing through the effect of existence that there must contain a cause (we know the effect, not the cause). If one understands the question, I don't believe one should or could posit anything other than metaphorical and poetic answers.

That's what I got so far...and the work of clarity, simplification, is not my forte (though with much more work than I am liable to put in at present, I could possibly say it in a simpler way).

Let me give a try: the effect, existence, indicates a cause. One could try and pacify or dismiss the question but i believe this is only possible because of the nature of the cause, it is absent (the explanation).

You say, if I didn't know anything about them, I wouldn't even be aware of "its" lacking. This is a confusing line of thought if you honestly intend to address it to my question.

I know existence is, the effect, and so I know there is a cause (an explanation) with which I know nothing about (other than it causes the effect).

One can play word games with the inexplicable and say, what nonsense, but I believe nonsense is being brought to bear to avoid the question. I know there is a cause; I know not the cause. It as simple as, I know the sky is blue; I don't know the cause (but there is one).

Or, I know my room just shook; I don't know the cause (but there is one). And, finally, I know existence is; I don't know the cause. Underlying all our attempts at explanation is this ultimate one addressing all the existents we often attempt to causally explain.

Of course there would be a physiological effect from this cognition, concept, whathaveyou. However, I maintain that the concept was worthy of the physiological effect I felt. I became aware of the lack of necessity (to my knowledge) to existence. It seemed unnecessary in that I had no inclining what necessitated it. Something must...how not?

I believe the trick is being played by you, not me, and so the onus is on you to explain the inadequacy of my conception. I do not understand your criticism of the question.

The simple thing is, the cause of the effect, existence, is worth noting in its absence.

One of its effects upon humanity at large may be this: any answer to this question is inherently ridiculous for one to claim possession of, for our knowledge of the cause is solely through its effect. The cause seems perpetually suspended away from us.

This vain I believe you already somewhat travel in, no? You dislike the claim of knowledge with regards there being a cause, I don't know what other conclusion one can draw from the effect called existence other than there is a cause, but we both would maintain we have no access to the answer. The only choice available for you, if you choose to argue my conclusion, to my mind, is to deny existence as an effect and this seems irrational to me.

Again, this seems to be a criticism best aimed at those proposing answers to the question. I have no problem with the question, just the answers.

I understand. Again, i will reiterate, the potential for argument to alienate instead of engage is one of my sole concerns in dialogue. Perhaps I aim overmuch toward avoiding pushing, but it is due to my being aware that you can't think for others and whatever line of reasoning I express is either a line of reasoning they, in a significant way, claim as their own or reject.

We are voices in the wind (all arguments); another actually enjoying the meat of our arguments (the aroma, to stay with the wind metaphor), is entirely up to them. This sense of each person's dominion over their kingdom (one mind meeting another mind with its own self, process, background, wisdoms) informs me of the potential for mutual benefit. By allowing our interdependence to shine, for each can develop the conceptions of the other and the self in tandem, I find far greater reward than by a more simple form of argument that is less sensitive to the potential for interdependent growth of ones conceptions.

Maybe a push is necessary on occasion to rock loose presumptive or uncritically examined conceptions, but the moments of interdependence are far superior to when one is left attempting to lead. I guess I am speaking about how the reward for both parties is significant. There are more impersonal methods of arguing that may have their appropriate time and place, I just have a preference for attempting to inspire emotionally/cognitively healthy arguments that are beneficial for both parties.

I understand the subtlety to what I am saying; I understand the influences on my life that have shaped this preference for the mode of argument I affirm above others; I am rather certain personality plays a part as well as learning style. I don't know how clear this is, question away if necessary.

The problem is this is an inherently complicated and sophisticated distinction I am not sure the religious conceive as readily as you do. The figurative melts into the literal in their reasoning, by my reckoning. The problem is the background that leads you to even propose that evaluation of their conceptions (the simple interwoven process of your experiences and conclusions that afford you the opportunity of your particular conceptions of the world).

It is complex, for those that have not conceived things in such an analytic and complicated way, the distinction between figurative and literal may simply be fuzzed in their line of reasoning on their religious conceptions and the inclination to visit the conceptions critically may simply have become instinctually, compulsively, avoided due to experiences in their own life.

I know someone that hates to talk about religion and politics because their experiences inform them that such a line of dialogue is disastrous and hurtful. Such unfortunate experiences, inherently disenfranchising them (by way of their own evaluation) from gaining experiences of argument that could persuade them that healthy arguments on those subjects can exist, are a reality in the formation of peoples mental maps (conceptions, evaluations, modes of interacting with others).


I grow warry, with such an evaluation, of accidentally pushing when a more gentle touch may allow them to push themselves down different paths of mind. This is all rather theoretical and real world examples may prove (as I would suspect) that some balance between pushing and mutaully engaging a question is valuable in dialogue with others.

My questions and criticisms of tone are inspired by a fear that ones tone of voice may simply push another out of healthy argument and into an instinctively defensive position; get one set to fight (leading to a misconception of how argument is best engaged) instead of engaging in a way that affords the experience of the mutually beneficial mode of argument that hatches out together their conceptions and so imparts a critical understanding of the problems/questions/answers they are addressing together.

An example of what I mean: my room shakes and my brother says, it was a bomb down the block and another friend says it was an earthquake, well, I would need to go and investigate the matter; but the nature of the question over existence precludes me investigating the truth of their claims (answers).

It may be more divisive than pointing out body odour.

I believe this is an apt observation of the completely natural cognitive dissidence we can experience when observing the nature of the way the world behaves. But this doesn't answer the question of how the effect, existence, is caused.

Are you caliming that this way of seeing existence, the one I am exponding, this conception of it is simply the wrong way to view it and that it occurs simply because the way our brain behaves makes it unlikely for one to view the matter the way it is really?

This is all fine and good on the surface, but how am I looking at the matter improperly. This has not been explained; how I am wrong, rationally? You seem to be some sort of imaginary argument with regards my argument, an indirect criticism and only potential criticism, as of the moment.

I am saying I can point in all directions at once and say, "something" is somewhere that I am not able to go, think, understand. I can do this because I am on a path that stretches out of my sight behind me, ahead of me, and in all directions; "something" lies beyond my sight (something I don't know about).

Is this a heirarchy statement, one type of experience is superior to another?

I had an experience that changed my perception of all past experiences. This is a profound moment in time (for me) and I would prefer to call it an experience because it highlights all past experiences, from that moment, in a different light and even the present and future moments. The way I see a blade of grace is different, so the present and the future have perceptably changed. It was an experience that changed the way I relate to the world around me.

I am saying that what we experience, using the word experience as something obtaining a perceptual affect on our body, is altered in the way it is perceived; if one keeps in mind the shocking realization that what I experience, what exists, is the effect of a cause I do not know, then this seems like an experience worth noting as such; not as only a thought, but something changing the way your mind conceives moments of sensory experience.

I have thought about this one quite a bit. The fact is, I don't like confrontation, sustained and unresolved confrontation. Too much of us is the same and capable of interdependence, why risk alienating the a segment of people relate to you. They would feel like I decieved them this whole time; it would be a genuine betrayal of their expectations.

How do I say this properly? When another is incapable of being comfortable with knowing how you really think, view the world, what use is it to harm their ability to relate to you when you know the difference is not so profound as all that (as they seem inclined to believe). They fail to seem interested in really thinking things through and understanding how lacking in simplicity is my explanation for not thinking as they do. So, publicly pronouncing myself as an atheist seems like a quote.

A quote is something completely inadequate in accurately relaying a holistic explanation of what someone is really thinking; for understanding a quote tends to depend upon a familiarity with the paragraphs and paragraphs necessary to explain the quote. The dividing of myself away from those I feel interdependent and socially connected with seems unnecessary because, to my imagination, it seems like a harm more than a benefit to me and to them. Calling myself an atheist, publicly, would alienate me, make me dissimilar to those around me that have always considered me a theist.

My sole concern is not in the logic of not believing in a literal God that I consider an inadequate understanding of the cause of existence. My sole concern is considering what people are willing to consider and relate to and what they are not. How does one affect their thinking if they are unwilling to reconsider their thinking?

I am being far more local than global/national in my thinking. What I can do is run my life, out of those other peoples sight, in a way honest to myself. Maybe I need to have a little more hope for them to reconsider their perspectives, but from my experience people seem fairly capable of a completely unreasonable demenor toward certain lines of inquiry. I have a problem with inflicting the altering of their perceptions of me upon them without a sense that it may better myself and them. Maybe I am too tolerant and I should risk the alienation in hope that they may grow a little. I don't know. Given I have parents that are still raising young ones, and the parents expect the young ones to develop conceptually in a particular way, I don't feel inclined to impose a different role model than they would prefer upon the younger kids.

If I can't be honest with my own family, feel it is an inappropriate time, than how could I be honest with a community of people I feel far less close to?

180 Proof wrote:

Topher wrote:

You can be an agnostic theist or and agnostic atheist. The former concedes that they do not know whether a god exists but nevertheless believes one does, while the latter states they do not know whether a god exists, and for that reason does not believe in one.

Topher wrote:
Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. They're not even in the same category!

Theism/Atheism pertains to 'belief in god" and "no belief in god" respectively. The degree to which you don't believe in god is irrelevant. If you merely lack belief, or deny the existence of god, you're still an atheist.

Agnosticism is not a third alternative between atheism and theism. Agnosticism isn't even a belief position, it is an epistemological position: we can't have knowledge of god.

the position of knowledge and belief in the existence of a god are distinct.

You can be an agnostic theist or and agnostic atheist. The former concedes that they do not know whether a god exists but nevertheless believes one does, while the latter states they do not know whether a god exists, and for that reason does not believe in one.

mirriam-webster wrote:

Main Entry: 1ag•nos•tic
Pronunciation: ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agn�stos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gn�stos known, from gign�skein to know — more at know
Date: 1869
1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2: a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>
— ag•nos•ti•cism -tə-ˌsi-zəm noun