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

Sorry to interrupt, but when do I get an answer as to whether you are an agnostic towards Zeus, Thor or Tané the Maori God of the forest? Or is the Christian god a special case because people have thought really, really hard about it?

As far as I as see your whole argument falls apart as soon as you move out of Western European Christian and post Christian philosophy. The biggest problem in your argument is that it means that every little thing that someone comes up with should be treated with agnostism. Until you can give a good reason why the Christian god is not subject to scrutiny as Apollo and Poseidon then you have no argument.

The Christian God is slightly more plausible than gods of yore. There are no myths involving him riding chariots across the sky or anything of the like. I do not believe in God, but if I did I would probably lean towards an omnipotent and invisible God who does not make his presence known by hurling mountains.

Andrea Doria wrote:The Christian God is slightly more plausible than gods of yore. There are no myths involving him riding chariots across the sky or anything of the like. I do not believe in God, but if I did I would probably lean towards an omnipotent and invisible God who does not make his presence known by hurling mountains.

This is not true. Elijah of the Old Testament was said in the Bible to have seen a chariot of fire ride across the sky. Granted, God himself wasn't in it, but stories like that do exist in Judeo-Christian Bible tales.

But, in fairness, i do see your point, as i don't think there's anything in the Bible quite as silly as, like, Zeus having sex with a bull and creating the Minotaur. That was Zeus, right?

steve wrote:Please define "miracle."

Here's a definition for starters.

matthew wrote:

steve wrote:Please define "miracle."

Here's a definition for starters.

So, if a "miracle" is something done by God, then nobody can argue that those aren't the sole dominion of the divine. This is tautological and meaningless.

Besides, I don't believe such things exist.

I believe there are things which have been attributed to God, but which are probably natural occurrances mis-identified.

steve wrote:

matthew wrote:

steve wrote:Please define "miracle."

Here's a definition for starters.

So, if a "miracle" is something done by God, then nobody can argue that those aren't the sole dominion of the divine. This is tautological and meaningless.

Besides, I don't believe such things exist.

I believe there are things which have been attributed to God, but which are probably natural occurrances mis-identified.

You're right. You can't then say that miracles are not a result of divine interaction. To define it otherwise is incorrect.

I can't convince you to believe that miraculous events are as such.....but I can say that such events do happen.

I think many so-called miracles are in fact simply unidentified natural phenomena.....sure. But some are really, truly miraculous.

Jimmy: Hey, I have a magic elf on my shoulder.
Dennis: I see no magic elf.
Jimmy: He's invisible.
Dennis: I don't believe your magic elf exists.
Jimmy: Can you PROVE he doesn't exist?
Dennis: I see no evidence of this elf. There is no ruffling on your shirtsleeve where this elf would sit, or any shift in your shoulders, or any changes in temperature, barometric pressure, etc...
Jimmy: But you cannot PROVE my elf doesn't exist.
Dennis: He's non-existent enough for me. There is nothing to verify; there is nothing there. That's what I believe.
Jimmy: But my elf is magic, remember. He may or may not make his presence be known with our rational facilities.
Dennis: Well, if you're asking me if I believe in a magic elf, the answer is: through my rational facilities - my sensory evidence, verification with the rational method, and ability to make future predictions based on said evidence+rational conclusions - certainly not. There is no reason to believe in the sense that believe means.
Jimmy: BUT YOU DON'T KNOW!
Dennis: You're messing with the actual meaning of belief. You're changing the whole damned toolbox.
Jimmy: Don't forget, my elf is magic.
Dennis: You can make any preposterous claim you feel is necessary, and I am not going to stop you from your own conclusions concerning the magic and irrational. However, just because you submit an irrational proposition, it's irrational nature does not make it 'feasible'. Everything within my range of knowledge tells me your magic elf does not exist; you tell me he is magic and therefore outside my senses - then he is unknowable to me in the very sense that know means 'know', and there is zero reason to believe in him save faith.
Jimmy: Your own non-belief is faith!
Dennis: Again, look at how I 'know' the magic elf does not exist. I know that because of what 'know' means - that which is rationally concluded. There is no faith involved in not accepting an irrational proposition. This is all by definition of irrational, rational, knowledge.
Jimmy: That was a good drum break.

Andrea Doria wrote:The Christian God is slightly more plausible than gods of yore. There are no myths involving him riding chariots across the sky or anything of the like. I do not believe in God, but if I did I would probably lean towards an omnipotent and invisible God who does not make his presence known by hurling mountains.

What about a God that sends 2 bears to maul children?
From II Kings:
starting at 2:23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tear forty and two children of them.

FWIW the kind of God that I think demands an agnostic stance is one which is not a peer object among other objects. Not Thor, not an elf, etc.

Such a God is generally understood as not being a part of being, but rather as being the very ground of being itself.

So what does this mean?

You know how modern science speculates that there may be other universes, perhaps an infinity of universes, and how each universe may have its own laws of science...i.e. an infinity of different laws of physics and physical constants etc?

Take that infinity of universes and draw a circle around it. God is what allows all of that to exist.

Such a definition of God ("definition" here is itself is a troublesome concept) might be acceptable by almost everyone.

The question is then reduced to "what is God's nature?". God is usually thought of as being concious and exercising will, and that, and not the notion that you can just sum up the universe(s) and call it "God", is where theists and atheists part.

But I hope it's clear that thus defined it's not unreasonable or unfair to say that science, or less formal methods of "looking for unicorns", is not up to this task. Not even in principle.

M_a_x,

your little fable doesn't contradict what I've said. I've always said propositions are relative to and restricted by the discipline used.

For example, I have no problem with people saying "There is no scientific evidence to show that God exists."

But that's different than saying "Without qualification I can say that I know that God doesn't exist".

Phil