matthew wrote:Then again, I take it from what you have said that you are coming from a viewpoint that denies the very existence of God, Mr. Steve. Correct me if I'm wrong.

It is impossible to rule-out a God. I do not believe in one, and I see no reason to.

You define certain matters as being purely the realm of the divine, and "miracles" is one of these classes. Please define "miracle."

M_a_x, thanks for your thoughtful response.

I'll keep this short because at this point I'm not sure how to respond without, in effect, simply quoting myself.

In almost all of these posts I've used the term "agnosticism" to mean the position that the appropriate answer to the question "does God exist?" is "I don't know" or "one can't possibly know". (soft boiled vrs hard boiled).

There is a more general sense of agnosticism, a sort of generally doubtful position, but I've mostly talked about the narrow meaning.

So, in my book, saying "I don't know if God exists" or "People can't possibly know if God exists" is chock full of religious content in that it is certainly a religiously significant position. And, for example, as a religious position, it will color one's moral philosophy.

The bit about believing in three headed snakes or the like...I mentioned before that such statements are relative to the discipline used to make them.

You describe a mostly empirical approach...let's call that science even though science is more formal than that...the more I look for something and not find it, the more justified I am in saying "it doesn't exist". The problem is that God, unlike other examples, reserves the right to be undetectable in terms of mass and energy. Or not. It's "his" choice not ours.

Looking for God, then, is critically different than looking for unicorns or some such. A unicorn is a contingent physical being. God is (by some thought to be) the actual ground of all being...the ultimate meta-level required for all other being.

This isn't what some might call "special pleading". Like an infinite number, God really is an appropriately special case. If trying to empirically verify, say, that other parallel universes do or don't exist is beyond the grasp of science, trying to do so for God is (potentially) all the more impossible. And it's not unfair to say so.

(Problem left for the reader. How then would it be possible to know God at all?)

p.s. as to the notion that these kinds of discussions never change anyone's mind. Well, I know that's not true because once I was an atheist, but after being pressed a number of times to defend the position, I abandoned it for agnosticism.

Yes...I am now an evangelical agnostic!

This isn't what some might call "special pleading". Like an infinite number, God really is an appropriately special case. If trying to empirically verify, say, that other parallel universes do or don't exist is beyond the grasp of science, trying to do so for God is (potentially) all the more impossible. And it's not unfair to say so.

Infinite numbers/different cardinalities aren't REALLY 'special cases' you know...those things are proven with complex analysis and since the days of Cantor we've been able to manipulate them into power sets, etc....
Anyway, I see what you're saying. You're saying God is a special case, outside the realm of verifiable knowledge. That's what I've been saying as well. And therefore, being non-verifiable by sensory experience, you cannot know God exists, and must take it on (irrational) faith. Hey, we agree!

M_a_x wrote:

This isn't what some might call "special pleading". Like an infinite number, God really is an appropriately special case. If trying to empirically verify, say, that other parallel universes do or don't exist is beyond the grasp of science, trying to do so for God is (potentially) all the more impossible. And it's not unfair to say so.

Infinite numbers/different cardinalities aren't REALLY 'special cases' you know...those things are proven with complex analysis and since the days of Cantor we've been able to manipulate them into power sets, etc....
Anyway, I see what you're saying. You're saying God is a special case, outside the realm of verifiable knowledge. That's what I've been saying as well. And therefore, being non-verifiable by sensory experience, you cannot know God exists, and must take it on (irrational) faith. Hey, we agree!

Leaving aside the observation that there are other rational methods besides science (e.g. math, philosophy...)...

Do you also agree then that atheism (as the positive assertion that God doesn't exist) is also an "(irrational) faith"?

galanter wrote: If trying to empirically verify, say, that other parallel universes do or don't exist is beyond the grasp of science, trying to do so for God is (potentially) all the more impossible. And it's not unfair to say so.

Nothing would please me more, btw, than for you to stop bringing 'fuzzy' scientific concepts and equating them with the supernatural nature of a God.

Let's look at parallel universes. That is a theory, a balloon, put up by astrophysicists to explain some empirical evidence they have trouble understanding. It is very, very tenuous, with little evidence. It is a hypothesis at best, and recognized as such. If more evidence is found, for or against that hypothesis, it will be either shaped and concentrated to fit the evidence, or discarded. Such is the way of science. (string theory, this very week, is in big danger of being discarded, for instance)

There is no empirical evidence for God - in fact, you are tying this to GOD'S VERY NATURE. So I can't see why you're offended when someone says they don't believe in God - that they cannot know there is a God, and there is no evidence of God's existence. By His/Her very nature, remember! You cannot have it both ways.

galanter wrote:

M_a_x wrote:

This isn't what some might call "special pleading". Like an infinite number, God really is an appropriately special case. If trying to empirically verify, say, that other parallel universes do or don't exist is beyond the grasp of science, trying to do so for God is (potentially) all the more impossible. And it's not unfair to say so.

Infinite numbers/different cardinalities aren't REALLY 'special cases' you know...those things are proven with complex analysis and since the days of Cantor we've been able to manipulate them into power sets, etc....
Anyway, I see what you're saying. You're saying God is a special case, outside the realm of verifiable knowledge. That's what I've been saying as well. And therefore, being non-verifiable by sensory experience, you cannot know God exists, and must take it on (irrational) faith. Hey, we agree!

Leaving aside the observation that there are other rational methods besides science (e.g. math, philosophy...)...

Whoa. All rational methods are based on the capacity to reason...the Law of Identity, the Law of the Excluded Middle, the Law of Contradiction. All rational method, including propositional calculus (philosophy), mathematical proof, and the scientific method stem from this.

Do you also agree then that atheism (as the positive assertion that God doesn't exist) is also an "(irrational) faith"?

No, because the non-existence of a God is a fact drawn up from the sensory evidence/verification means of obtaining knowledge.

I was very careful to say that God may or may not leave empirical evidence. (God's nature is such that he gets to choose...or so goes the standard western reading).

More to the point, I am not offended if someone says they do or don't "believe" in God, or if they say they find no evidence of his existence.

What I find intellectually indefensible is when they hold that God's existence is within the realm of science, let alone informal empiricism, to verify or falsify.

What I also find intellectually indefensible is holding that ones personal belief that God doesn't exist is legitimately beyond any doubt.

M_a_x wrote: Whoa. All rational methods are based on the capacity to reason...the Law of Identity, the Law of the Excluded Middle, the Law of Contradiction. All rational method, including propositional calculus (philosophy), mathematical proof, and the scientific method stem from this.

Like I said, science is a subset of rationality. People often mistakenly say "let's be rational about this" when they mean "let's be scientific about this".

M_a_x wrote:

galanter wrote:Do you also agree then that atheism (as the positive assertion that God doesn't exist) is also an "(irrational) faith"?

No, because the non-existence of a God is a fact drawn up from the sensory evidence/verification means of obtaining knowledge.

But it's already "agreed" that such a search could come up negative even when God indeed exists. Is it rational to try to marshall as support evidence that is in fact neutral to the issue in question? Or is it, like theism (possibly), a (closeted) leap of faith?

connor wrote:People who believe in such ridiculous crap as "intelligent design" should not try to seek out any kind of "science" behind it, nor should they try and negate evolution. They should simply just say "well, I just believe in God, thank you very much. I know it sounds silly, and I have no 'proof' to back it up. I have my faith. And that's all I have: my personal faith." They should say this, shut the fuck up and not try to take on the scientific community by substituting faith and tradition for human reason.

Jesus, yes. Thank you.

Hell, *I* believe in God, but ya don't see me trying to back it up with something as inane as "intelligent design."