Page 18 of 109
DEBATE: Evolution VS Intelligent Design
Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 1:52 pm
by Sock OR Muffin?_Archive
connor wrote:
This is so fucking retarded.
DEBATE: Evolution VS Intelligent Design
Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 2:13 pm
by galanter_Archive
I can see where my last post might rub the wrong way.
Let me restate...
Someone might say "I don't believe in God".
Perhaps that might mean....
"I don't know whether God exists or not, but I certainly don't hold a belief he does"
or that might mean
"I assert that God doesn't exist."
(And maybe other meanings as well).
I would tend to assume it means the latter, but that might be my mistake.
But surely there is a difference between not having an opinion about God's existence, and having an opinion about it.
And dividing the second group, a subset will be those who have the opinion "no, God doesn't exist".
DEBATE: Evolution VS Intelligent Design
Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 2:33 pm
by Gramsci_Archive
It is perfectly reasonable to hold both those views. Atheism means without God, there is no positive assertion here that there is no God, merely that an absence in the idea of a God, as Steve says, this is not a belief that there is no God.
The greatest flaw in your argument, a one you have written reams on to ignore and divert, is why this God of monotheism is more warranted to agnosticism than any other God. You have yet to offer an even vaguely reasonable answer to this. And as I have said, until you answer this you have a deal-breaker for debate.
The core of your argument isn't how can we know God exists, it is how can we know anything exists. That has been crystal clear from the beginning. But you are failing to understand the weakness of your theory, as with the idea of the Christian God at the core of your philosophy you are saying that anything that anyone believes is worthy of agnosticism. This is relativism at the extreme and really just word games, not serious philosophy.
DEBATE: Evolution VS Intelligent Design
Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 2:47 pm
by Gramsci_Archive
galanter wrote:So you are saying there is no difference between agnosticism and atheism?
What do you suppose "they" had in mind when they came up with 2 different words for the same thing?
"They" is Thomas Huxley, he stated that if the supernatural did exist, it was beyond the realm of human understanding, so therefore judgment must be suspended.
Agnosticism only become a third option when the agnostic defines atheism as a denial of theism, however atheism is not a assertion that a God does not exist but an absence in belief of a god. Your failure to understand this is what seems to be driving your misunderstanding. So therefore if the agnostic is without a belief in a God, which must be, because he is without theism, then agnosticism is just a Huxley twisting a few words around of give himself a bit of kudos this his contemporaries.
DEBATE: Evolution VS Intelligent Design
Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 2:57 pm
by galanter_Archive
I've not made any claims about a God of monotheism, Christianity or otherwise. I've simply noted that God (in my use in this discussion) is meant as the ground of being and as being self-aware. Nothing more is required.
It is God's essence as the ground of being, and as not being a contingent entity within being, that requires special consideration when it comes to the issue of existence.
I've not asked "how can we know anything" although it would be convenient for you if that were the case.
I've consistently said that statements about existence are relative to the discipline or conceptual framework from within they are made. For example, science has one notion of proving existence and mathematics another and philosophy another (or actually many others). I accept all of these forms of knowledge for what they are, and take care to note what they are not.
The fact that God (as ground of being) precedes any contingent forms in the physical world (i.e. our universe) means that while you can validly say "there is no scientific evidence for God's existence", that isn't particularly useful because (roughly) science can't really speak about things outside the physical world pro or con anyway.
My objection to those who think they can know with certainty that God doesn't exist has nothing to do with any particular flavor of God, nor does it have anything to do with a general skepticism about knowledge of all kinds.
It has to do with the special case knowledge about God presents, and (since there are so many empiricists out there) the specific limits to empiricism there are in this special case (and perhaps no other).
I don't know how to be more clear on this point.
DEBATE: Evolution VS Intelligent Design
Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:08 pm
by galanter_Archive
Gramsci wrote:galanter wrote:So you are saying there is no difference between agnosticism and atheism?
What do you suppose "they" had in mind when they came up with 2 different words for the same thing?
"They" is Thomas Huxley, he stated that if the supernatural did exist, it was beyond the realm of human understanding, so therefore judgment must be suspended.
Agnosticism only become a third option when the agnostic defines atheism as a denial of theism, however atheism is not a assertion that a God does not exist but an absence in belief of a god. Your failure to understand this is what seems to be driving your misunderstanding. So therefore if the agnostic is without a belief in a God, which must be, because he is without theism, then agnosticism is just a Huxley twisting a few words around of give himself a bit of kudos this his contemporaries.
Why not just use the simple standard meanings of the terms?
Does God exist?
Theism = Yes
Atheism = No
Agnosticism = Don't Know
If someone wants to say "I don't believe in God, but I have no opinion as to whether or not he exists" that's fine with me. It's such a non-statement that I'm not sure there is anything there to discuss.
When I say atheists are exhibiting a degree of faith I am talking about people who claim "God doesn't exist". These are the folks I, and most others, would call atheists.
DEBATE: Evolution VS Intelligent Design
Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:12 pm
by Gramsci_Archive
What I find really fun here is how you define "God", you just set the rules of your own argument.
It seems to me you've spent a little too much time reading Catholic Thomism. You are trying to offer a kind of rational framework for the possibilty of a God, but this is an unknowable.
To offer up a God is to give this God some form of attributes -which you did-, which implies in itself a kind of empiricism.
It isn't the clarity of your points that is the problem, it is their weakness as arguments.
DEBATE: Evolution VS Intelligent Design
Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:27 pm
by galanter_Archive
Gramsci wrote:What I find really fun here is how you define "God", you just set the rules of your own argument.
It seems to me you've spent a little too much time reading Catholic Thomism. You are trying to offer a kind of rational framework for the possibilty of a God, but this is an unknowable.
To offer up a God is to give this God some form of attributes -which you did-, which implies in itself a kind of empiricism.
It isn't the clarity of your points that is the problem, it is their weakness as arguments.
How I've defined God is a common minimal definition, not a set-up. It's not my problem that a common understanding of God is difficult to prove or disprove in terms of existence. I'm the agnostic remember? That's exactly my point.
And if my points have been clear and understood then your objections that I'm not addressing Thor, or that my arguments are simply that nothing is knowable, must have been offered in bad faith.
DEBATE: Evolution VS Intelligent Design
Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:34 pm
by galanter_Archive
Gramsci wrote:...
You are trying to offer a kind of rational framework for the possibilty of a God, but this is an unknowable.
...
SO the possibility of a God is unknowable, and yet you've been an atheist for 30 years without a moment of doubt.
How is this not a leap of faith?
DEBATE: Evolution VS Intelligent Design
Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:37 pm
by Gramsci_Archive
galanter wrote:Gramsci wrote:...
You are trying to offer a kind of rational framework for the possibilty of a God, but this is an unknowable.
...
SO the possibility of a God is unknowable, and yet you've been an atheist for 30 years without a moment of doubt.
How is this not a leap of faith?
You might have noticed I was paraphrasing you.