The only two reasonable positions on the existence of God?

[ThePainefulTruth]

Atheism and Deism? From our standpoint, those two philosophies are indistinguishable. All others can be dismissed on the basis of reason/science since other theologies inevitably have to resort to faith (blind faith) to justify ignoring reason and logic.

[Goat]

To say something is unknowable means to say that it can never be known.--which would be a hard agnostic position and thus a contradiction of terms. I suppose you could qualify it and say it's unknowable at this time, but....

"Strong agnostic" is an oxymoron because "strong" in this context means certain.

I disagree. As evidenced by Gödel's incompleteness theorems, a person can be certain that something about a particular field of interest cannot be known.

How? Isn't this the same thing as the atheists hypocritically turning their own "can't prove a negative" argument on its head?

A strong agnostic is sure that we cannot know about God's existence.

If an agnostic was strong (i.e sure), he wouldn't be an agnostic.

This is not an oxymoron nor is it a contradiction in terms.

Re: the definition of agnostic which I posted above.

No, it isn't the same thing at all. Being a strong agnostic, in a case where we have no ability to get data is a metaphysical position. It's a totally different concept.

[wiploc]

[Replying to post 21 by wiploc]

"Strong agnostic" is an oxymoron because "strong" in this context means certain.

No, it doesn't.

Even "strong atheist" isn't related to certainty.

In any case, by the accidents of history, "strong agnostics" is the name of this group of people.

[ThePainefulTruth]

No, it isn't the same thing at all. Being a strong agnostic, in a case where we have no ability to get data is a metaphysical position. It's a totally different concept.

No, it doesn't.

Even "strong atheist" isn't related to certainty.

In any case, by the accidents of history, "strong agnostics" is the name of this group of people.

Here's the the Wiki article's lead on the subject, with which I agree:

Positive atheism (also called strong atheism and hard atheism) is the form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist. Negative atheism (also called weak atheism and soft atheism) is any other type of atheism, wherein a person does not believe in the existence of any deities, but does not explicitly assert there to be none.

The terms negative atheism and positive atheism were used by Antony Flew in 1976, and appeared again in Michael Martin's writings in 1990.

We've got to at least agree on the definitions or communication will be impossible.

And I found this on strong agnosticism:

Strong agnosticism (also called "hard", "closed", "strict", or "permanent agnosticism")

The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities, and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."

As I said earlier, that must be qualified. If one claims we can't know now, I would absolutely agree. If however one claims we can't know ever, I would say that's an impossible claim to make. If nothing else, and there is a God, we'd know when we died, presumably. Also, the above statement appeals to the subjective, but if all is not subjective, it would negate the statement as well for being one of a "strong" agnostic. I think we'd need to settle the "does the objective exist" issue first (yeah right) before we begin to talk about "never".

Without one of those qualifiers, one would have to assume that "never" is implied, and that appears to be what most people mean when they say it. But I don't think they've thought it through to forever. I sort of like "permanent agnosticism" option there since it at least makes it plain what is meant.

[McCulloch]

As I said earlier, that must be qualified. If one claims we can't know now, I would absolutely agree. If however one claims we can't know ever, I would say that's an impossible claim to make. If nothing else, and there is a God, we'd know when we died, presumably. Also, the above statement appeals to the subjective, but if all is not subjective, it would negate the statement as well for being one of a "strong" agnostic. I think we'd need to settle the "does the objective exist" issue first (yeah right) before we begin to talk about "never".

Without one of those qualifiers, one would have to assume that "never" is implied, and that appears to be what most people mean when they say it. But I don't think they've thought it through to forever. I sort of like "permanent agnosticism" option there since it at least makes it plain what is meant.

If we qualify the term we to refer to living humans, then strong agnosticism is a valid and consistent point-of-view. They claim that we cannot know if there is or is not a god. Forever is not in the available time frame for a living human.

[ThePainefulTruth]

If we qualify the term we to refer to living humans, then strong agnosticism is a valid and consistent point-of-view.

I agree.

They claim that we cannot know if there is or is not a god. Forever is not in the available time frame for a living human.

So we also agree that we can only talk about what is knowable now, which is not strong/permanent agnosticism according to the definitions and the all-is-subjective thus unknowable paradigm.

[Ooberman]

As I have often said: if there is a God, he is most probably not only different from what we think, but different from what we CAN think.

"A coherent concept"? I don't know that I have any concept of God at all, never mind a "coherent" one. Once again, I don't think that's necessary. It certainly isn’t for me.

Then "God" doesn't mean anything to me, if it doesn't mean anything to you.

If we don't even know if the term "God" is coherent, how do we have any belief about a God at all?

Atheism is only in a response to someone claiming there is a God. They presumably have a concept that appears coherent to them, yet without evidence for their definition, we are no closer to a coherent definition.
The atheist, and I argue everyone, has only one option: to be an atheist in the face of ANY definition of God that doesn't validate it's claim as accurate, and agnosticism only if a coherent definition of God can be obtained.



After all, on the face "God" is an incoherent concept: some conscious being that transcends all we know about conscious beings.

It's already far more coherent to say that it is a psychological state, a mythical character, etc. - things we already know about all other Gods.

[Cephus]

Because "I don't know what's in the bag" is as far as one can go. I choose to decline to guess, since no one is going to open the bag and verify ANY guesses.

Then if you don't know what's in the bag, you can't possibly believe in it because you can't even define what it is. That makes you an atheist by definition.

[cnorman18]

As I have often said: if there is a God, he is most probably not only different from what we think, but different from what we CAN think.

"A coherent concept"? I don't know that I have any concept of God at all, never mind a "coherent" one. Once again, I don't think that's necessary. It certainly isn’t for me.

Then "God" doesn't mean anything to me, if it doesn't mean anything to you.

First: I never said (funny how often I'm obliged to note that in response to your posts) that God "doesn't mean anything" to me. I don't presume to DEFINE God; that's all.

Second: What God means to you is neither my business nor of any interest to me. I'm not here to convince anyone of anything. People ask about my views, and I answer. That's all.

For the rest -- as I've said from the start, it still seems to me that you're demanding that people have to claim to know things that they don't if they wish to call themselves "theists"; that "I don't know" -- something that we say every day about myriads of things is somehow unacceptable when speaking of religion, but -- dare I say it -- about NOTHING ELSE; and therefore ALL people other than hardcore fundamentalist/literalist/dogmatists must label themselves "atheists."

Sorry. I disagree.

Tell you what: You think in the ways that suit YOU, and I'll think in the ways that suit ME. I won't tell YOU what and how to think, and you won't tell ME what and how to think. Okay?

[cnorman18]

Because "I don't know what's in the bag" is as far as one can go. I choose to decline to guess, since no one is going to open the bag and verify ANY guesses.

Then if you don't know what's in the bag, you can't possibly believe in it because you can't even define what it is. That makes you an atheist by definition.

So if one can't define something, it does not therefore exist?

Sorry. Once again, I disagree.

Same offer I just made to Ooberman:

You think in the ways that suit YOU, and I'll think in the ways that suit ME. I won't tell YOU what and how to think, and you won't tell ME what and how to think. Okay?

[Ooberman]

As I have often said: if there is a God, he is most probably not only different from what we think, but different from what we CAN think.

"A coherent concept"? I don't know that I have any concept of God at all, never mind a "coherent" one. Once again, I don't think that's necessary. It certainly isn’t for me.

Then "God" doesn't mean anything to me, if it doesn't mean anything to you.

First: I never said (funny how often I'm obliged to note that in response to your posts) that God "doesn't mean anything" to me. I don't presume to DEFINE God; that's all.

It seems the same thing to me.

Second: What God means to you is neither my business nor of any interest to me. I'm not here to convince anyone of anything. People ask about my views, and I answer. That's all.

i understand. i don't have a problem with that. I am speaking as a topic of conversation among people trying to philosophize about something.

For the rest -- as I've said from the start, it still seems to me that you're demanding that people have to claim to know things that they don't if they wish to call themselves "theists"; that "I don't know" -- something that we say every day about myriads of things is somehow unacceptable when speaking of religion, but -- dare I say it -- about NOTHING ELSE; and therefore ALL people other than hardcore fundamentalist/literalist/dogmatists must label themselves "atheists."

Sorry. I disagree.

Tell you what: You think in the ways that suit YOU, and I'll think in the ways that suit ME. I won't tell YOU what and how to think, and you won't tell ME what and how to think. Okay?

I think people ought to understand what it is they believe in if they claim their belief is coherent. That's all. I'm not so draconian as you are making out, though, I agree it places a burden on theists which may make them bristle.


I am here to discuss the philosophical side of Belief. Beliefs that people have no interest in defending or exploring are of no interest to me. They are a dime-a-dozen. I can make up Gods just as well as anyone here.

I'm interested in the Belief, and if it is true (and how one demonstrates it) or, from where such Beliefs (if false) originate.


If one can't define something they claim to believe in, then I suspect they are expressing something other than a Belief. I think it's a wishful emotion.

If one can't define, in coherent terms, the object of their belief, I think it's fair to call it irrational or incoherent. Something not coherent is incoherent.

All of this frustration that I sense from theists can be cleared up by proving their case, not by trying to get atheists to change their definition of a coherent idea.