Philosophy Now Forum

Does God exist? Maybe yes maybe no, is the only substantive correct answer. I dont know. You don't know. Only problem, some people are stubborn and/or irrational, or i am wrong.

I'd like to make a vague attempt ending the God-discussion through simple philosophy. Whether it seems possible or not is irrelevant, but lets try it here. You either agree with me, on all, or not of course, but if you do so please point out where (the first disagreement is), and more importantly why. i hope you don't disagree on this (agree to disagree for the stubborn nihilists and such) so i can start the hypotheses here;


To end all religious discussions, we must have one coherent and rational opinion, upon we all agree.


I'm going to put stuff in boxes and categories, but to prevent misunderstanding from happening, first let me give you an example; For discussions' matter, white is of course a color in this perspective.


Joe his favorite color is blue.

Sarah her favorite color is white.


They both have a different opinion, so the couldn't be part of one coherent opinion, yet agree with me too that they both would agree, in a rationally state of mind of course, white is brighter than blue.

One might say god is good, while another one says he/she/it/whatever doesn't care, yet they both have in common they definitely do not deny the fact there might be a deity. The one contradicting the both would say god definitively can not, or has or ever will, exist.

So to rephrase my words;

"Theism, in the field of comparative religion, is the belief that at least one deity exists. Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists." [1]

Both the theist and atheist have in common their well formed opinion about the existence of god, either to be sure of the existence of or the be sure or the absence of. So if we apply the math again, contradict by finding their common factor, we get to the next category, agnosticism.

"Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of God, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable" [1]

So to rephrase again, some one who does not completely agree nor completely disagree with a theist or atheist, by claiming to understand both possibilities.

In the end religion simply falls into two categories, you either care, or not. Maybe these things never occurred to one, or some one simply just doesn't care. Both the theist and atheist as well as the the agnostic all have given it thought, but alike theism can be divided into loads of sub categories, agnostic only has few in the broad sense;


Plain agnostic; The view that the truth values of certain claims, especially ones about the existence or non-existence of God, are unknown or unknowable.

Agnostic atheism; The view of those who do not believe in the existence of any deity, but do not claim to know if a deity does or does not exist.

Agnostic theism; The view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence.


I know my personal opinion, some form of agnosticism, shines bright thru out my post, but i hope you understand this is the only reasonable and rational claim to make. I understand there are those who have 'seen the light' but dont forget what a mind can be capable of, and clearly we must distinct between rationally and irrational states.



"Once upon a time, Zhuang Zhou dreamed he was a butterfly, a butterfly flitting about happily enjoying himself. He did not know that he was Zhou. Suddenly he awoke, and was palpably Zhou. He did not know whether he was Zhou, who had dreamed of being a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming that he was Zhou.." Zhuangzi, chapter 2



So finally let me end with the beginning again;



To end all religious discussions we must have one rational opinion upon we all agree, thus being a form of agnosticism. Do you agree, or not?



[1; wiki]

The problem I see is the disagreement over the nature of "rational".

Rational would be, in this situation, to endure that claims about the existence or non-existence of God, are unknown or unknowable.

Questionmark wrote:Rational would be, in this situation, to endure that claims about the existence or non-existence of God, are unknown or unknowable at this point.

Thanks, I fixed it up.

As Hume said, "It is not contrary to reason to what the destruction of the whole world upon the scratching of my little finger..."

I guess the point is that when it comes to theology it is impossible to separate reason from emotion. In fact, do we even want to?

Ginkgo wrote:As Hume said, "It is not contrary to reason to what the destruction of the whole world upon the scratching of my little finger..."

I guess the point is that when it comes to theology it is impossible to separate reason from emotion. In fact, do we even want to?

Having thought of this already i quickly say, no, i dont want to separate reason from emotion, rather the opposite. That's why the three basic forms of not knowing. All it really is getting people to use some different terms for what they think

Questionmark wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:As Hume said, "It is not contrary to reason to what the destruction of the whole world upon the scratching of my little finger..."

I guess the point is that when it comes to theology it is impossible to separate reason from emotion. In fact, do we even want to?

Having thought of this already i quickly say, no, i dont want to separate reason from emotion, rather the opposite. That's why the three basic forms of not knowing. All it really is getting society to use some different terms for what they think

That's a pretty ambitious project.

If i would end up being Einsteins teacher, or his teacher again and so on, I'd be satisfied. Snowballs, falling leaves on a lake and so on. If you agree with me, and hold and share my opinion as it yours too, we might just get there.

Questionmark wrote:So finally let me end with the beginning again;



To end all religious discussions we must have one rational opinion upon we all agree, thus being a form of agnosticism. Do you agree, or not?

I would agree, if it weren't for the first of two facts:-

That a man CAN KNOW God exists from personal experience.
That a man CANNOT KNOW a God does not exist as it would require knowing EVERYTHING about the universe, and indeed perhaps the multiverse.

attofishpi wrote:

Questionmark wrote:So finally let me end with the beginning again;



To end all religious discussions we must have one rational opinion upon we all agree, thus being a form of agnosticism. Do you agree, or not?

I would agree, if it weren't for the first of two facts:-

That a man CAN KNOW God exists from personal experience.
That a man CANNOT KNOW a God does not exist as it would require knowing EVERYTHING about the universe, and indeed perhaps the multiverse.

Yes, well I thought that might happen. I almost said to Questionmark in my last post that some people in certain areas are not prepared to accept the skeptic position.

Hey attofishpi,

I dont completely understand, let me try

attofishpi wrote:That a man CAN KNOW God exists from personal experience.

Religion isn't all bad, if someone going thru some harder times and religion can show them a way to deal with, thats not a bad thing. The bad thing here is if people dont accept and deny the other possibilities.

attofishpi wrote:That a man CANNOT KNOW a God does not exist as it would require knowing EVERYTHING about the universe, and indeed perhaps the multiverse.

This is a bit the Hypotheses zero problem, same like proving an one and only complete universe, it only seems possible to prove the existence of God, or keep trying to prove it doesn't exist. But that does not change the fact the existence of a Deity is currently unknown, till proven otherwise thus agnosticism backs this up, whilst at the same time making a distinction between knowing and believing, thus leaving hopefully enough leeway for people to understand the difference between science and faith, facts and belief.

Knowing you dont know doesn't take away the possibility to believe in something or not. But please agree with me, those KNOWING their God(s) exists, might very well be wrong.

"Two men say they're Jesus one of them must be wrong" - Dire straits.

Actually, at least one of 'em is wrong.



and thx Ginkgo for sharing your opinion too, i read up on Descartes and reason, and i understand two people with each their own rational opinion might contradict each other, as it happens so often, but getting people to support agnosticism is a different and specific statement, where thus two people believing in something else, still rationally agree, they dont actually know.

Not only this goes for God, but also free will, ET life, other dimension etc. Just leave it all in the middle, it is either one, and go on from there.

Questionmark wrote:Hey attofishpi, I dont completely understand, let me try

attofishpi wrote:That a man CAN KNOW God exists from personal experience.

Religion isn't all bad, if someone going thru some harder times and religion can show them a way to deal with, thats not a bad thing. The bad thing here is if people dont accept and deny the other possibilities.

I'm not talking about religion, i'm talking about God.
You might need to consider this:- viewtopic.php?f=23&t=7619&start=30

Questionmark wrote:

attofishpi wrote:That a man CANNOT KNOW a God does not exist as it would require knowing EVERYTHING about the universe, and indeed perhaps the multiverse.

This is a bit the Hypotheses zero problem, same like proving an one and only complete universe, it only seems possible to prove the existence of God, or keep trying to prove it doesn't exist. But that does not change the fact the existence of a Deity is currently unknown, till proven otherwise thus agnosticism backs this up, whilst at the same time making a distinction between knowing and believing, thus leaving hopefully enough leeway for people to understand the difference between science and faith, facts and belief.

Sure.

Questionmark wrote:Knowing you dont know doesn't take away the possibility to believe in something or not. But please agree with me, those KNOWING their God(s) exists, might very well be wrong.

Might very well be wrong about the true nature of God perhaps...and the always grey area as to the definition of 'God'...what is God?
To what degree can you truly be certain of anything to enable yourself to state you know?
If you saw a person you know stab to death a friend and were later questioned as to whether you 'know' who did it, would you answer yes?
Can you truly be certain that if God exists it would not make itself KNOWN to someone?

Questionmark wrote:"Two men say they're Jesus one of them must be wrong" - Dire straits.

Try telling that to the many Spanish speaking folk that are named Jesus.

We might as well speak in Spanish or Chinese since your arguments (not jut the Jesus part, but in general) are either avoiding the point and/or based on fiction.

Are you implying God spoke to you there? Most likely I'd help my friend before I was asked anything, to answer your question, but how can I be sure I'm not delusional..?

OP has good intend, but falls short of understanding the deeper motivational forces behind religion.

OP show clear lack of understanding basic psychology such as groupthink, compulsions, etc.

All my life I've been an atheist, but in the last 4 years, I've seen things that shakes my disbelief, all my enemies has been punished severly.

Yes, God punished your enemies and I don't understand psychology, now you finally know

<facepalm>

I'm just glad no more geniuses shared their opinions, for the love of God..

Thx for the contribution though, don't mean to come across rude

Questionmark wrote:Does God exist? Maybe yes maybe no, is the only substantive correct answer.

No, it isn't 'the only substantive correct answer'.