Mach
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2006
- Messages
- 27,745
- Reaction score
- 24,087
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Nonsense semantic quibbling. And please don't proclaim to know what I do or do not want to do.
-
This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
-
Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.
Agnostic Atheism vs. Gnostic Atheism: That last .01%
- Thread starter shagg
- Start date
Nonsense semantic quibbling. And please don't proclaim to know what I do or do not want to do.
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2011
- Messages
- 4,207
- Reaction score
- 2,615
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Mach
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2006
- Messages
- 27,745
- Reaction score
- 24,087
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Read the OP.
I am 99.99% sure that god(s) do not exist.
He makes the claim. Until we know what definition of "god" he's using, you can't evaluate if this is a reasonable position or not.
Are you suggesting you CAN know before we agree on a definition that you can know? Please do it for us.
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2011
- Messages
- 4,207
- Reaction score
- 2,615
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Until we know the meaning of 'god' intended. Not definition. A definition is not the meaning of a word. A definition is an attempt to convey the meaning of a word using a collection of different words. Did you actually make an attempt to understand the post I wrote to you?
Mach
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2006
- Messages
- 27,745
- Reaction score
- 24,087
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
How precisely do you intend to get the meaning intended by my use of the word [god], without me providing you with in laymans terms, a definition of [god]?
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2011
- Messages
- 4,207
- Reaction score
- 2,615
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
This is exactly what I was trying to explain to you originally. You do not need a definition to understand the meaning of the word. In fact, definitions are totally useless until a person already understands the meaning of a great many words. How could this person come to understand these words if a definition is required to understand meaning?
Think about very young children, toddlers. We don't give them dictionaries. They learn the meanings of words through use. Observing others use them. Has anyone ever given you an explicit definition of 'sweet'? Or 'through'? Or 'the'. Or - the classic example in philosophy - 'game'? I doubt it. You'd probably struggle to define these words esp without referring to a dictionary. But you have no difficulty understanding what they mean. There's no contradiction there because a definition is not meaning. A definition is an attempt to convey the same meaning using different words. Just because you can't come up with a collection of words that convey the same meaning as some word doesn't mean the word has no meaning.
No.... ignostics do not define gods at all. That is the main point, that we posit that we haven't even agreed on what is being discussed. if I had a definition of a god that I used I wouldnt be ignostic. The point is that there are thousands upon thousands of different concepts of gods that people put forward. Gods are what people want them to be. There is nothing that humans have seen that indicates anything about gods. Gods are a baseless concept invented by humans with nothing to back the claim. There isnt any continuity in the descriptions of gods. Meaning that while yes there are descriptions of gods like Zeus, other descriptions describe something entirely different. SO it makes no sense to ask if gods exist if those gods are all differently described.
Asking if one individual god exists isnt the same as asking if gods exist. With the latter you have to inquire what thy is talking about. It is like asking if X exists without ever defining what X is to start out with. So asking if undefined X exists is meaningless.
Mach
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2006
- Messages
- 27,745
- Reaction score
- 24,087
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
So I take it you cannot provide this definition of [god] so that we can analyze whether or not the claim is reasonable?
Then your notions on this are just as meaningless as the undefined word in question. Indistinguishable from nothing. Or silence.
Silence would advance your positions just as far as your behavior has right? (nowhere)
And how would you know if the collection of words has the same meaning, if the meaning has yet to be communicated? Or better, in the divine case, if no such experience from which to derive meaning, ever actually occurred?
That we learn an internal/abstract language in the mind before learning the definitions is irrelevant. We are in fact using words with meaning, to communicate. Or not.
Your choice if you want to.
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2011
- Messages
- 4,207
- Reaction score
- 2,615
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
But this is a frivolous position. It's pointing out a truism; we don't know what someone means by 'god' unless we know what they mean by 'god'. Of course you can't have an opinion about 'god' (or any string of characters) until you understand what a person means by that string of characters. This goes without saying. In this sense, everybody is ignostic about everything.
But this is a different issue altogether. This is a matter of universals. Whether there is some common thread which all notions of 'god' share. Whether there is some 'god-ness' that determines whether some concept qualifies as belonging to the category of 'god' or not. And this isn't unique to 'god'. It's an issue for all kinds of concepts. Game is a classic example. There are many, many kinds of games. Monopoly, football, Fallout 4, fetch, war games. It's notoriously difficult to write an explicit definition that includes every instantiation of a game. But just because the category is very broad doesn't necessarily make it meaningless.
Regardless, this isn't what people are inquiring about when they ask "does God exist" or "is there a god". There not asking about if it's possible to nail down some common qualities that all notions of god fall into. They want to know whether any of the various instances they're interested in exist. In fact, a person could believe that some particular god - such as Zeus or the Christian God - exists and still deny there is a meaningful category of 'god-ness'.
No, "does X exist" is meaningless here not because it hasn't been defined but because you don't mean anything by it. It's a symbol with no attached meaning.
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2011
- Messages
- 4,207
- Reaction score
- 2,615
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I've provided numerous meanings of the word 'god' in this thread. Zeus, the Christian God, and so on. You seem to think I'm defending some notion of god. I'm an atheist (for most notions of god anyway. Some, the spinozan god, for example I can't say I'm an atheist because I don't really understand what Spinoza even means by it). I'm pointing out a confusion between meaning and definition that I see often among laypeople that leads to mistaken conclusions.
This doesn't follow. Did you not read what I just wrote? A lack of definition does not amount to a lack of meaning. Definition =/= meaning. A definition is an attempt to convey meaning.
He doesn't. A person who doesn't yet understand the meaning of a word certainly can't write a definition of it.
What?
It's relevant to seeing the distinction between definition and meaning.
The concept of gods has no value. There are people making claims about gods but none of them are doing anything more than making the crap up. There really isnt anything tangible to debate about gods.
It isnt broad, it is nonexistent; its make believe.
I dont care what version of a god that you made up or anyone makes up, they all are not defined by anything except imaginations.
Gods have no coherent attached meaning. Gods can mean anything to anyone. That is because one can just imagine anything that they want about gods and it holds just as much credibility as the bible or whatever anyone else says.
The concept of gods is completely meaningless; its just imaginations.
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2016
- Messages
- 34,697
- Reaction score
- 13,297
- Location
- Massachusetts
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I am a 100% pure godless athiest. I am redundant as well. I really don't get what is so difficult about knowing with 100% certainty that something imaginary does not exist. It comes to me as naturally as breathing.
Mach
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2006
- Messages
- 27,745
- Reaction score
- 24,087
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Splendid. Any claims you'd like to make with regards to them, now that you've provided what you mean when you write that?
Who claimed otherwise? I'm simply pointing out no one can tell what you mean, unless you provide the meaning of ambiguous words you casually throw into a debate.
Nonsense. Any one of us can look up some complex science definition and write it here, without understanding exactly what it means.
WTF do you think you do when you read a book and don't understand a word? Search your soul for the ****ing meaning of life?
You look up the GD definition. Good gods.
I don't see any value to what you're quibbling about, as it relates to the topic at hand.
They just ignore the facts about gods that we do have; that they are imaginary. The funny part is if you push them enough they will resort to admitting that they cannot be sure that the tooth fairy is make believe. Or try to claim that things like Santa Claus are a half truth so therefor gods are possible. But damned if they can explain how a god is a half truth without admitting the truth part isnt a god.
But really the reason that people dont admit that gods are imaginary is because of a bandwagon situation. They always point to famous people and say that everyone believes the way they do. I guess in their minds gods have to be possible to make sense in their circles.
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2011
- Messages
- 4,207
- Reaction score
- 2,615
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Nah. I'm not really discussing those particular claims. I'm making a point regarding the philosophy of meaning.
Well, you did...by demanding that without providing a definition a word was meaningless. That was your response to the OP. That he had to define god. I interjected to point out a confusion there regarding meaning vs definition that I see frequently.
:roll: I wasn't talking about copying syntax.
Yes! I'm not saying that definitions are useless; actually they are very useful. They can help us understand the meaning of words we are unfamiliar with.....by conveying that meaning using other words with which we are familiar.
Understandable how I can be coming across as a pedantic prick here. But in fact I'm trying to do the opposite. So let me explain
I see demands for an explicit, concise definition of some concept or another in philosophy discussions like this often. Especially regarding 1) god and 2) consciousness. Often - not always - these demands are disingenuous and stem from the confusion I keep harping on here - that a word needs to be clearly defined before we can understand its meaning.
The truth is people often do have an understanding of what someone means by words like 'conscious' even without being presented with an explicit definition. Simply refusing to proceed without a definition in this way is just a shutting-down of perfectly valid, healthy discussion. It's like demanding a person to define "the" or "is" before you continue the conservation. Or if you're leaving a store and the person behind with her hands full asks you to hold the door and you respond with "Please define which door. There are many possible doors to which you could be referring. The door to the Oval Office, the front door to my house, a schoolbus emergency door....". It's unnecessary and contrary to the principle of charity.
- Joined
- May 6, 2016
- Messages
- 1,908
- Reaction score
- 489
- Location
- Colorado
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Gnostic atheism is not atheism. If you're not certain that there is no god then you are not an atheist. Someone who is unsure whether God exists or not is an agnostic.
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2013
- Messages
- 1,681
- Reaction score
- 1,219
- Location
- Rhode Island
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Belief does not affect the possibility of existence. Nor does imagining something that there is no evidence of affect that thing's (the thing imagined) possibility of existence. The possibility of existence is the same before and after belief is formed or the thing is imagined, even if it is unknown.
I did not say that belief affects possible existences.
Can you name one god that isnt imaginary? Hint: you would need to produce evidence of (or a hypothesis for) gods to make them not imaginary.
Lacking a hypothesis for, or any evidence of gods makes them imaginary. There is no rationale that makes gods possible. If anyone thinks there is they never seem to be able to say it without making a positive claim. And if one is going to make a positive claim that gods are possible then they need to explain how.
It takes belief to make gods a possibility in the first place.
Agnosticism; the existence and nature of a god or gods are unknown. That lack of knowledge doesnt make gods possible. Most agnostics seem to not understand that the lack of knowledge about something is just that, a lack of knowledge. If someone tells a agnostic that no gods are possible or that gods are possible the agnostic lacks the knowledge to argue one way or the other. All what an agnostic can say about the existence of gods is: 'I do not know'. That is it, that is all they can rationally say since that is their position. But most agnostics like to dictate that gods could be possible because they just do not know one way or the other. When in reality they lack the information to make that assumption as well.
Do gods exist?
Agnosticism: I dont know
Is it possible that gods exist?
Agnosticism: I dont know.
Is there a .01% chance of gods existing?
Strong Agnostics will say yes, despite lacking any knowledge if gods are possible. Which can only mean that they are asserting a belief. They do this because they do not understand the basics of possiblity. As you said: Belief does not affect the possibility of existence. Well neither does knowledge. The lack of knowledge does not make what you lack knowledge of, possible. Asserting a .01% chance of something existing is a positive claim based on what? A lack of knowledge?
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2013
- Messages
- 1,681
- Reaction score
- 1,219
- Location
- Rhode Island
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Lets simplify here, and if I skip anything you really wanted a response to, I'll be happy to answer next post if you point it out.
We can agree on the fact that we have no knowledge or evidence that shows gods to be either possible or impossible. The truth here is unknown, but there is a truth, and it is one or the other. I have two approaches here, one of which just being a play on the word "possible". There's a reason I framed the OP in terms of certainty as opposed to possible/impossible. Impossible implies 100% certainty, but "possible" is a rather squishy term.
First, gods appear to be possible because they have not been proven to be impossible. Gods might be possible, they might not be possible, we don't know. The lack of knowledge gives the illusion of possibility. Like flipping a coin, catching it, slapping it down on the table and keeping your hand over it. Assuming this is a standard 2 sided coin, it's heads or tails. It seems possible it could be either, but in truth it is only one or the other. Tails seems possible, but if the coin is heads up under your hand, tails is not actually possible. This is the illusion of possibility that comes from lack of knowledge. But if, with your hand down, you ask someone "is it possible the coin landed tails?" they will universally answer yes, even if the coin has already landed on heads and tails is in fact impossible. The problem is that, in our ignorance, we can not tell the difference between what seems possible but is impossible and what is really possible. This is just the dual nature of the word "possible" in the english language. I'm going out of my way to acknowledge this because we'll go round in circles chasing our own tails if I don't. Even if I could contort this into a cheap win, I'm not interested. This is just a play on words like I said.
Second, and this is really the meaty part, is how we treat the unknown.
You throw that word "Imaginary" around like it means something here. Before, you've stated that imaginary things can be dismissed without evidence (although you refused to say they were impossible) much like a child's imaginary friend. I have to admit it's caused me to stumble because it's hard to counter. You don't really commit to anything with that position, so there's little to argue against. But this is really just a red herring. Human imagination, adult or child, has nothing to do with possibility of existence. Ask any successful inventor. You could certainly say that often the human imagination produces ideas that end up being impossible (inventors will agree there too). But you can not turn this into a blanket statement that all things imaginary do not exist or are impossible. One does not follow the other. And you beat me to the punch, knowledge does not affect possibility of existence either, more that we agree on.
I feel it boils down to this: Is the unknown possible, impossible, or neither (without using the play on words above)? I would say no to impossible right off the bat. To claim the unknown is impossible is to try and confine ones self to a mental bubble, where certainty is assumed. To claim the unknown is possible is to play the naive eternal optimist, and be disappointed after having every lottery ticket checked because you never watch the news and don't see it being announced there was no winners (And thus you believed it was possible you hit the jackpot right up until the machine checked your numbers). So we are left with neither. Taking care to acknowledge the things we can not be certain about, respecting peoples beliefs because we know that we can not disprove them with certainty, even if they take a tremendous leap of faith to truly believe in while retaining a rational mind. The point of this thread is that atheists that debate as though they were certain gods do not exist or that gods are impossible have no business doing so. They have made a similar leap of faith, if in the opposite direction and not quite as big as the theist. There is no certainty with regards to the unknown. My 99.99% certainty is hyperbolic, I'm a bit less certain than that. But, the truth being unknown, 99.99% certainty is the upper limit (without going into the 99.999%, 99.9999% ad infinitum). 100% is not possible, otherwise we would not be referring to the truth of the matter as unknown. For those who act certain, that last .01% is an assumption and nothing more. And that assumption means you are not 100% certain.
Now you offer a contradictive argument from you first point. First possibility was squishy now you are saying that its a little less certain. But like I said no matter the percentage of certainty, you are still certain to a degree. When in fact you really just dont know if gods are possible or not. It would be wise for you to just admit that you dont know, rather than trying to make it look like you know that gods could be possible. If you dont know if gods are actually possible then you cant claim that they are possible. You can most certainly say that you guess that gods could be possible, but you dont actually know if they are possible. That would be a rational position if you lack any knowledge of gods and their possibility. But to claim that since you lack knowledge of something so it is possible is irrational and assumes knowledge that you dont have.
Our actual knowledge of gods, is that they are nonexistent . This follows the form of propositional knowledge. There is no knowledge of gods existing. In order to present gods you have to imagine them. When you say that gods are possible you are imagining gods. Without any supporting arguments for gods you cannot address them as anything other than nonexistent. if you want to claim that there could be a possibility (even a slight one) that gods could exist you need to actually explain how. You cant just say that gods could be possible based on your specific lack of knowledge.
A 50/50 percent chance of something being positive or negative, is neutral. It expresses a lack of knowledge of whether something is a positive or a negative. If you lack the knowledge to say something is one way or the other you must remain impartial and be ethical enough to stand on the ground of reason. It is irrational (if you lack any knowledge of gods) to assert that gods are possible or impossible. If someone else asserts that gods are possible or impossible you can demand them to explain how. But having the position of a lack of knowledge you will be unable to refute much of what they say without claiming to have knowledge that you said you dont have.
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2010
- Messages
- 8,951
- Reaction score
- 2,232
- Location
- UK
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
Fantastic to see this actually being discussed and debated rather than just regurgitated as dogma as we had become used to. I am following posts from both FFA and yourself. Just thought it warranted saying.