Is Jesus Christ a man or a god?

[Ginkgo]

The real point is this: while you can say with confidence you don't know where the particle is, and while you can also say with confidence that you know of no mechanism by which such a thing could be known, neither is really surprising.

This needs a bit of explanation because it does result in confusion. I am referring to something that cannot be satisfactorily explained using a mechanism. You are probably thinking of the observer effect. The uncertainty is actually a mathematical proof.

But note that some things you cannot say. You cannot say with confidence "No one ever will/could know the particle's position," as there is a possibility it might become feasible in the future, as our understanding of particle motions grows.

Yes, I know that's why I didn't say it.

Another thing you could not say...and this is the key point...is "The particle HAS no position." It may well have a position that you are unable to detect.

Yes, I know that's way I didn't say it. I wasn't making an empirical claim. As I explained at the top, it is a mathematical claim that one one can know for certain.

So an Agnostic can say, "I don't know the 'position' (i.e. with respect to the property of existing) of God." He can say, "I know of no instruments or rationales that would give us such a 'position.' But he would be irrational to jump to the conclusions, "Therefore no one knows," "No one can know," "No one else does know," or "There is no God."

He has no rational means to make any such judgments. They are simply exemplary of the bad variety of faith claim on his part.

You are conflating he terms, "rational" and "instruments" They need to be dealt with separately.

The agnostic could say he knows of no logical/mathematical argument that proves the existence of God.

The agnostic could say there is no empirical evidence that demonstrates the existence of God.

The agnostic could withhold judgement pending someone coming up with a third option.

No jumping to conclusions required.

[Ginkgo]

Yes. And such a thing would be possible if your "dream" were connected in some way to real events, just as, say a prophecy might be. Then when the prophecy came true, you'd have rational grounds for thinking there was something behind the dream. Otherwise you'd probably be ill-advised to believe it.

Roughly speaking I think this is correct. You would need to satisfy empiricism that this prophecy came true.

[Immanuel Can]

The agnostic could say he knows of no logical/mathematical argument that proves the existence of God.

Yes. The words "he knows" are key there. He can't claim more than he knows.

The agnostic could say there is no empirical evidence that demonstrates the existence of God.

No. Again, he could only say, "I know of none." He could not say what evidence exists that he might not personally know about. But even that I would suggest is too strong for him to claim IF (as I would say) creation itself is a piece of evidence. He would have to argue that he saw no evidence of design in any of the natural world as well. And he would have to declare he had no personal knowledge about God either. That's a lot to do, but not impossible.

If he COULD know and SHOULD know, then there would no longer be any rationality in holding to Agnosticism, even if the facts were such that at the precise moment he did not happen to know. If I *should* know not to back my car up without checking my mirror, then I'm responsible if I run someone down. It will do me no good to say, "I didn't look."

The agnostic could withhold judgement pending someone coming up with a third option.

Of course; and he should. But when evidence *does* appear, he should change his mind accordingly.

No jumping to conclusions required.

True. In fact, he must not jump to conclusions. He must conclude when he knows, based on that missing evidence.

[Ginkgo]

The agnostic could say he knows of no logical/mathematical argument that proves the existence of God.

Yes. The words "he knows" are key there. He can't claim more than he knows.

The agnostic could say there is no empirical evidence that demonstrates the existence of God.

No. Again, he could only say, "I know of none." He could not say what evidence exists that he might not personally know about. But even that I would suggest is too strong for him to claim IF (as I would say) creation itself is a piece of evidence. He would have to argue that he saw no evidence of design in any of the natural world as well. And he would have to declare he had no personal knowledge about God either. That's a lot to do, but not impossible.

If he COULD know and SHOULD know, then there would no longer be any rationality in holding to Agnosticism, even if the facts were such that at the precise moment he did not happen to know. If I *should* know not to back my car up without checking my mirror, then I'm responsible if I run someone down. It will do me no good to say, "I didn't look."

The agnostic could withhold judgement pending someone coming up with a third option.

Of course; and he should. But when evidence *does* appear, he should change his mind accordingly.

No jumping to conclusions required.

True. In fact, he must not jump to conclusions. He must conclude when he knows, based on that missing evidence.

Probably why he is an agnostic and not an atheist.

[SpheresOfBalance]

The agnostic could say he knows of no logical/mathematical argument that proves the existence of God.

Yes. The words "he knows" are key there. He can't claim more than he knows.

The agnostic could say there is no empirical evidence that demonstrates the existence of God.

No. Again, he could only say, "I know of none."
I disagree, because we are all just clones of previously accumulated data, that is never actually checked by us, yet we claim to know it. Sure at university they have lab that one can attend along side chemistry, sometimes mandatory, but how many experiments have "you, yourself" actually done? (Remember there is a lot of knowing in your head.) Because we trust in schools, trust people that write books, and in those that relate the latest news. Otherwise we're just that infant crying for some milk. If something as grand, in terms of actually knowing/proving there was a creator, was finally found, the religious would not only be shouting it on the news, and from multitudes of books, but I'm sure I could hear it being shouted in my neighborhood through the walls of my home.

Because of our modern technology, in this information age, I believe I can "faithfully" say that I know, no man knows of the "certain" proof of a god. Because I would have certainly heard of it in this wonderful information age, having an internet. Think of it, it would turn the tide that's been rushing in, atheists would be running into dark corners so as to hide.



He could not say what evidence exists that he might not personally know about. But even that I would suggest is too strong for him to claim IF (as I would say) creation itself is a piece of evidence. He would have to argue that he saw no evidence of design in any of the natural world as well. And he would have to declare he had no personal knowledge about God either. That's a lot to do, but not impossible.

If he COULD know and SHOULD know, then there would no longer be any rationality in holding to Agnosticism, even if the facts were such that at the precise moment he did not happen to know. If I *should* know not to back my car up without checking my mirror, then I'm responsible if I run someone down. It will do me no good to say, "I didn't look."

The agnostic could withhold judgement pending someone coming up with a third option.

Of course; and he should. But when evidence *does* appear, he should change his mind accordingly.

No jumping to conclusions required.

True. In fact, he must not jump to conclusions. He must conclude when he knows, based on that missing evidence.

Probably why he is an agnostic and not an atheist.

[Immanuel Can]

how many experiments have "you, yourself" actually done?

Actually, this serves my point, not the one you seem at pains to make. The Agnostic has done no experiments at all, but has taken for granted whatever he heard, read or surfed up. Now, in what way is he ahead of me, one who believes what God says?

I believe I can "faithfully" say that I know, no man knows of the "certain" proof of a god.

Yes, in faith you can say that, but in fact, you cannot. You simply do not know. You do not know what others know. You may disbelieve that I know, but I am not the only person in the world, am I? Somebody could know. And if there were a God, one desiring to reveal Himself, then someone would surely have to know. But the state of your belief concerning me isn't determinative of your view. Either way, the simple truth is that you do not know.

Here's an interesting thing, though. IF there were a God, and IF he wanted human beings to have free will and be able to actualize it, then there's a couple of things he would have to do. He would have to put in this world enough evidence to warrant belief in God, and enough uncertainty to make it possible for those who wanted to choose otherwise to sustain their unbelief. He wouldn't have to make it a 50-50 distribution, of course; he could make it 80-20 for, or 90-10 for, or even 95-5 for. But he short of taking away that free will, he couldn't make it impossible to disbelieve if one so chose -- not if He wanted free will to have any meaning.

I think that is precisely the kind of world we are in. There is enough here -- more than enough, I would argue -- to warrant a rational belief in God, and enough uncertainty for at least obdurate refusal of that realization, if not for an entirely rational refusal. And people have free will, and they do make different choices; just as perhaps you and I do at the present moment.

[uwot]

The agnostic could say he knows of no logical/mathematical argument that proves the existence of God.

Yes. The words "he knows" are key there. He can't claim more than he knows.

The agnostic could say there is no empirical evidence that demonstrates the existence of God.

No. Again, he could only say, "I know of none." He could not say what evidence exists that he might not personally know about. But even that I would suggest is too strong for him to claim IF (as I would say) creation itself is a piece of evidence.

It's a point I've made several times: the 'evidence', in this case creation, can support absolutely any hypothesis. The fact that there are phenomena* is support for the idea that we are being deluded by an evil demon, that we are brains in vats, that we are all on drugs, that we live in the Matrix, that the universe was created by an alien super race, that it is a hologram or any other idea, regardless of how bonkers, for which there is no falsifying evidence. Karl Popper- a bit old hat, but still valid in my book.

He would have to argue that he saw no evidence of design in any of the natural world as well.

Precisely for the reason above, no they wouldn't. Do you have any evidence that we are not characters in some computer simulation? If someone said you have to provide evidence that we are not, would you feel compelled to provide it? It is for the people making a claim about reality to provide the evidence, and your claim is no different. The things that some people claim show intelligent design and irreducible complexity are only evidence of god if you believe in god.

And he would have to declare he had no personal knowledge about God either. That's a lot to do, but not impossible.

The last bit is simple: I have no personal knowledge about God.

By the way; did I mention that I know the difference between absolute, contingent and analytic knowledge?

*I personally understand phenomenon to mean that a sentient being has apprehended some physical conditions, as in: does a falling tree make a sound? Not unless somebody hears it.

[Ginkgo]

Here's an interesting thing, though. IF there were a God, and IF he wanted human beings to have free will and be able to actualize it, then there's a couple of things he would have to do. He would have to put in this world enough evidence to warrant belief in God, and enough uncertainty to make it possible for those who wanted to choose otherwise to sustain their unbelief. He wouldn't have to make it a 50-50 distribution, of course; he could make it 80-20 for, or 90-10 for, or even 95-5 for. But he short of taking away that free will, he couldn't make it impossible to disbelieve if one so chose -- not if He wanted free will to have any meaning.

It is not that interesting because you are not talking about free will, you are talking about probabilistic determinism.

[Immanuel Can]

It is not that interesting because you are not talking about free will, you are talking about probabilistic determinism.

That's like saying "certain uncertainty." It's an oxymoron. And unless an oxymoron can be explained, then it's just a logical contradiction. So maybe you can explain how something can be both "probable" and "determined" at the same time...

[uwot]

Here's an interesting thing, though. IF there were a God...

Why is your god hypothesis more interesting than anything that might be true IF there were a flying spaghetti monster?

[Immanuel Can]

Why is your god hypothesis more interesting than anything that might be true IF there were a flying spaghetti monster?

Well, if it's not interesting to you, of course, it's not interesting. I could hardly complain about that.
But it's interesting to me. If it's a live philosophical question whether or not God exists, then the very thing we need to do in order to make progress is to hypothesize -- first, if God exists then X, and then, if no God exists Y, and so forth, until we start to see what makes sense. But if that's a process that gives you no joy, don't worry.

As for the FSM, it's just Dawkins again. It's a cute figment, but it has no relevance. He's positing a contingent, imaginary creature instead of a rational First Cause, and then ridiculing by means of a simplistic reduction ad absurdum fallacy. He's trying to avoid the hard work of explaining causality by ridiculing God. It's kind of transparent, and also a paltry way for a scientist to behave with a serious scientific question.

For if you know about First Cause arguments, then you'll know that First Cause is both a scientific and a Theistic postulate, the matter to be settled afterwards being only the nature of that Cause -- not its or His necessity.

What it's got to do with flying spaghetti...well, you be the judge.

[Ginkgo]

It is not that interesting because you are not talking about free will, you are talking about probabilistic determinism.

That's like saying "certain uncertainty." It's an oxymoron. And unless an oxymoron can be explained, then it's just a logical contradiction. So maybe you can explain how something can be both "probable" and "determined" at the same time...

Given a choice between two options, a person with free-will is the sole agent for making that choice. This is a reasonable and unremarkable assumption give the fact that the person is not being influenced by some outside agency.

You have provided that outside agency. God as set the ratios. That being the case then probability determines the choice. That probability being the ratio God has already set. For example, 50/50, 75/25, 90/10 or whatever you think it is.

[Ginkgo]

For if you know about First Cause arguments, then you'll know that First Cause is both a scientific and a Theistic postulate, the matter to be settled afterwards being only the nature of that Cause -- not its or His necessity.

What it's got to do with flying spaghetti...well, you be the judge.

First cause arguments are not scientific postulates. Science doesn't deal in first causes. You are conflating scientific ontology with metaphysical ontology. Science made a split with Aristotelian causality a long time ago.

[Immanuel Can]

Science doesn't deal in first causes.

You are simply incorrect.

Causes are the whole raison d'être of science, the thing science invariably seeks to describe. And the most important cause in any chain of causality is naturally the first. Science always presses to find the ultimate cause of any observed phenomenon. And there's nothing metaphysical at all about that fact. It's just an ordinary description of the scientific enterprise itself.

To give up causal explanation is to give up science, and to fall back on saying something like "That phenomenon? Oh, I don't know...it just happens, that's all..." Hardly a scientific way to treat any question, I think you'll agree. But if science does this with every other kind of question it treats, it certainly cannot exempt itself from dealing with the question of the biggest and most comprehensive explanatory cause of them all.

You may fear that move. But science always wants to say why things happen, never to take them for granted. Yet you are correct in intuiting that science itself collapses when it reaches First Cause, because whatever that First Cause is, it has to account for the very laws which create causality in the first place. But that's a failure of science, not of the concept of First Cause.

[Ginkgo]

Science doesn't deal in first causes.

You are simply incorrect.

Causes are the whole raison d'être of science, the thing science invariably seeks to describe. And the most important cause in any chain of causality is naturally the first. Science always presses to find the ultimate cause of any observed phenomenon. And there's nothing metaphysical at all about that fact. It's just an ordinary description of the scientific enterprise itself.

To give up causal explanation is to give up science, and to fall back on saying something like "That phenomenon? Oh, I don't know...it just happens, that's all..." Hardly a scientific way to treat any question, I think you'll agree. But if science does this with every other kind of question it treats, it certainly cannot exempt itself from dealing with the question of the biggest and most comprehensive explanatory cause of them all.

You may fear that move. But science always wants to say why things happen, never to take them for granted. Yet you are correct in intuiting that science itself collapses when it reaches First Cause, because whatever that First Cause is, it has to account for the very laws which create causality in the first place. But that's a failure of science, not of the concept of First Cause.

What first cause has science reached, can you give me an example?


You are still conflating two types of causation.