Agnostic versus Atheist

[PRmerger]

Not even a photo-finish can tell them apart. They all come in as first (or last) depending on your point of view. Is the glass half empty or half full? Though I rather doubt whether you read all 666 (the mark of the Beast) of them… it takes some time, due to laughing uproariously. And yes, they are caricatures, but remember a caricature enhances the pertinent features of the original, making it more recognizable.

Look, if I was in a discussion with a prochoice advocate, and she asked me to give some arguments for the prochoice side that were the best ones, and why I found them wanting, I could certainly do that, even though I am prolife.

That’s because I am open minded and able to dialogue and consider the other point of view.

Someone who’s embracing an ideology without ever considering the other point of view is a blind fundamentalist.

And blind fundamentalists will fall for any absurd idea because he’s…blindly following something he doesn’t understand.

Now, can you please offer what argument for God you’ve considered that’s the best, and why you find it wanting?

In your own words, please.

 

[Tomdstone]

They made sacrifices for those gods, they made ritual paintings to ask for their benevolent interference. Just like the “Prayer Intentions” here of this forum. Not much of a difference, is there? Tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of years, and still asking for divine help, even when they are told that “God is immutable”. (And when someone says that the prayers are for our own benefit, they display their ignorance about the difference between meditative and supplicative or intercessory prayers.)

That is a question. I don’t see how God can be immutable and outside of time if He responds to prayers. Since God came down from heaven and became man to save us, I see God as a personal being inside of spacetime showing His love for His creation.

 

[PRmerger]

That is a question. I don’t see how God can be immutable and outside of time if He responds to prayers. Since God came down from heaven and became man to save us, I see God as a personal being inside of spacetime showing His love for His creation.

It’s the ever-present, irrefutable, formidable Catholic Both/And here. God is indeed a personal being inside of spacetime showing His love for His creation.

But He is also outside of spacetime.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

And any Agnostic who is interested in truth is obligated to examine all of the arguments that are presented for the existence of God.

True. I have yet to encounter a full proof argument for or against God’s existence. Some prominent Christian philosophers tend to not claim that one argument makes their case but rather it is based on a cumulative case stemming from several arguments. The case made from their arguments are usually based on likelihood, although from watching and reading some debates, you would think that there’s absolute certainty on the issue based on the attitudes and behaviors of many believers and non-believers.

Take for instance the debate on homosexuality. Many on both sides express so much certainty and attitude (literally) that you’d think the issue is settled but yet plenty of scientists, including the APA, are agnostic on the nature of sexual orientation. To make matters worse, when I’ve brought up a middle-ground or alternative view that homosexuality is not a choice but can change or shift on its own (biology and environment interplay) throughout a person’s lifespan, as opposed to the common views that it is immutable or that it is choice-based (changeable), I suddenly found myself being attacked from both sides. I had to be a believer or non-believer at that point (sigh!).

 

[PRmerger]

True. I have yet to encounter a full proof argument for or against God’s existence.

Why don’t you offer what you think is the best argument for God’s existence, and why you find it wanting.

Some prominent Christian philosophers tend to not claim that one argument makes their case but rather it is based on a cumulative case stemming from several arguments. The case made from their arguments are usually based on likelihood, although from watching and reading some debates, you would think that there’s absolute certainty on the issue based on the attitudes and behaviors of many believers and non-believers.

Really? I just recently heard a debate with William Lane Craig, a Christian apologist, who stated the exact opposite of what you’re proposing.

He said, “Of course, absolute certainty is is not available. But that’s really a red herring, since we have absolute certainty about almost nothing.”

Can you offer some sources for Believers who claim to have “absolute certainty”?

 

[PRmerger]

Take for instance the debate on homosexuality. Many on both sides express so much certainty and attitude (literally) that you’d think the issue is settled but yet plenty of scientists, including the APA, are agnostic on the nature of sexual orientation.

It sounds like you’re referring to the cause of sexual orientation.

Can you offer some examples of folks who claim to have “so much certainty” about what is the source of homosexual desire?

(Please cite your sources).

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Why don’t you offer what you think is the best argument for God’s existence, and why you find it wanting.

I should not be required to do this as it is not my claim that God exists. I’d rather you post a full-proof argument that your God exists. Full-proof as in there are no holes or speculation or assumptions involved.

Really? I just recently heard a debate with William Lane Craig, a Christian apologist, who stated the exact opposite of what you’re proposing.

He said, “Of course, absolute certainty is is not available. But that’s really a red herring, since we have absolute certainty about almost nothing.”

Can you offer some sources for Believers who claim to have “absolute certainty”?

When pressed, some honest Christians and atheists will admit that their belief could be wrong since they are not absolutely certain that it is right. However, we often find their behavior does not always match what they profess. You can gauge this by seeing how people react or approach issues that conflict with their own views. Typically, when skeptics and atheists are presented with any matter involving the supernatural, it is dismissed right-off-the-bat. When a Christian is presented with natural explanations for their religious experience, many tend to dismiss it right-off-the-bat. People who are OPEN to the idea that their view can be wrong don’t cling to their views and dismiss contrary views so readily. They certainly wouldn’t die for their beliefs nor kill others for deviating from their beliefs.

Sure, in our real world daily lives we behave like we are certain for practical reasons, to raise our kids, to survive, etc, but in an intellectual context that is not necessary nor valid.

I’d also question Dr. Craig on the following:
So Dr. Craig doesn’t have certainty that Jesus is God or that the Pope is infallible in his doctrinal teachings? Does the Pope acknowledge that he could be wrong? What is the probability that Christians attribute to their Christian belief in God, assuming that all Christians are open to the idea that their view is false?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

It sounds like you’re referring to the cause of sexual orientation.

Can you offer some examples of folks who claim to have “so much certainty” about what is the source of homosexual desire?

(Please cite your sources).

Are you asking because you really don’t know the answer to your question, or do you like taking these extra steps, or ???

Take discrimination, for example. Sexual orientation does not have a discrimination protection status in all 50 states nor at the federal level, unlike race, gender, etc. One big reason for that and why there’s a debate on the issue is because some consider homosexuality to be natural on the same scale as race and gender and some don’t. And to pivot off of the point in my last post to you, my point is confirmed by seeing how some gay supporters attack “ex-gays” or even just the concept. Clearly, there is some established certainty out there as to the nature of homosexuality and sexual orientation, overall.

You can read up about one issue here:
nccivitas.org/2009/why-sexual-orientation-not-protected-nondiscrimination-class/

Majority of Americans believe people are born gay…
gallup.com/poll/183332/majority-say-gays-lesbians-born-not-made.aspx

Keep in mind, I have nothing against gays and I’m against discrimination of all sexual-orientations even if not proven to be as biologically based as race. However, that still doesn’t mean we stretch the truth for propaganda or to get more acceptance.

 

[PRmerger]

Are you asking because you really don’t know the answer to your question, or do you like taking these extra steps, or ???

Take discrimination, for example. Sexual orientation does not have a discrimination protection status in all 50 states nor at the federal level, unlike race, gender, etc. One big reason for that and why there’s a debate on the issue is because some consider homosexuality to be natural on the same scale as race and gender and some don’t. And to pivot off of the point in my last post to you, my point is confirmed by seeing how some gay supporters attack “ex-gays” or even just the concept. Clearly, there is some established certainty out there as to the nature of homosexuality and sexual orientation, overall.

You can read up about one issue here:
nccivitas.org/2009/why-sexual-orientation-not-protected-nondiscrimination-class/

Majority of Americans believe people are born gay…
gallup.com/poll/183332/majority-say-gays-lesbians-born-not-made.aspx

Keep in mind, I have nothing against gays and I’m against discrimination of all sexual-orientations even if not proven to be as biologically based as race. However, that still doesn’t mean we stretch the truth for propaganda or to get more acceptance.

Please read my question again, AB.

You assert that folks have “so much certainty” about the cause of homosexuality.

I have some skepticism about your claim.

Please offer some examples of some folks who claim to know, with “so much certainty” what causes homosexuality.

Here is your assertion, again: “Many on both sides express so much certainty and attitude (literally) that you’d think the issue is settled but yet plenty of scientists, including the APA, are agnostic on the nature of sexual orientation.”

 

[PRmerger]

When pressed, some honest Christians and atheists will admit that their belief could be wrong since they are not absolutely certain that it is right.

Dr. Craig was not “pressed”. He was simply correcting uninformed folks.

People who are OPEN to the idea that their view can be wrong don’t cling to their views and dismiss contrary views so readily.

This is very Catholic!

And that is why I am asking you and Sol to offer some arguments for God that you find to be the best arguments, (and why you find the wanting).

They certainly wouldn’t die for their beliefs

One can die for a belief because he has certainty it’s true; absolute certainty is not required.

nor kill others for deviating from their beliefs.

I am quite certain that it’s absolutely wrong to kill someone for deviating from your belief.

You’re not sure about this, AB?

Are you of the position that it may be a good thing to kill someone for deviating from your belief? (Let’s just say it’s a religious belief we’re talking about here).

I’d also question Dr. Craig on the following:
So Dr. Craig doesn’t have certainty that Jesus is God or that the Pope is infallible in his doctrinal teachings?

Oh, I’m sure he has certainty that Jesus is God. Just not *absolute *certainty.

Incidentally, you may want to do some research first on Dr. Craig before you question him.

Are you familiar with him at all?

I have certainty (but not absolute certainty ) that you know very little about him.

To wit: Dr. Craig is NOT Catholic.

(Or maybe it is Catholicism/Christianity you know very little about, and believe that non-Catholics profess that the Pope is infallible?)

 

[PRmerger]

Does the Pope acknowledge that he could be wrong?

I think you are operating from some grave misapprehensions regarding what Papal Infallibility invokes.

Yes, the Pope can be wrong.

Pope Julius II and Pope Gregory XIII, among others, sired illegitimate children.

#wrong.

And here’s Pope B16 saying that he could be wrong, as others are free to disagree with him: " So everyone is free to disagree with me"
catholiceducation.org/en/culture/catholic-contributions/preface-from-jesus-of-nazareth.html

What is the probability that Christians attribute to their Christian belief in God, assuming that all Christians are open to the idea that their view is false?

We have certainty about our beliefs. Just not absolute certainty.

Just like you have certainty about some of your beliefs. Just not absolute certainty.

You live your life on faith just like the rest of us professed Christians, AB.

 

[PRmerger]

I should not be required to do this as it is not my claim that God exists.

If you are an Agnostic (and it appears you are based on your screenname), then it is your obligation, if you are a lover of truth, to examine the arguments for God’s existence.

You haven’t examined any of them yet? Is that what’s going on here?

 

[Solmyr]

I am absolutely certain that I exist. (“Cogito ergo sum”… or the even more “certain” variant “coito ergo sum”) Also I am absolutely certain that married bachelors do not and cannot exist. So, absolute certainty can be attained. Though it might be interesting to find out what separates “certainty” from “absolute certainty”. Or maybe “Cartesian certainty”. To be certain about something seems to be enough, the addendum of “absolute” here is meaningless chaff.

 

[PRmerger]

I am absolutely certain that I exist. (“Cogito ergo sum”… or the even more “certain” variant “coito ergo sum”) Also I am absolutely certain that married bachelors do not and cannot exist. So, absolute certainty can be attained. Though it might be interesting to find out what separates “certainty” from “absolute certainty”. Or maybe “Cartesian certainty”. To be certain about something seems to be enough, the addendum of “absolute” here is meaningless chaff.

Yep. So you agree with Dr. Craig (and the CC): we have absolute certainty about ALMOST nothing.

Now, it’s been more than 4 hours (which is the time you gave to me to answer a question).

So can you please offer, in your own words, the best argument for God’s existence, and why you find it wanting.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . I’d rather you post a full-proof argument that your God exists. Full-proof as in there are no holes or speculation or assumptions involved. When pressed, some honest Christians and atheists will admit that their belief could be wrong since they are not absolutely certain that it is right. . .

It isn’t a matter of being right. However, the fact that we can be right or wrong is proof that we do not create the truth; we discover it out there.

As far as I can see, there is no one argument that will prove anything. We appear to create coherent systems of understanding and they fit or don’t what we intuit to be real, at least to some extent. It has been evident to me that Christianity and specifically Catholicism fits the bill better than any other.

It boils down to our connection with reality. Understanding is the intellect’s means of connection. But, it’s the heart that reveals the truth.

God is someone with whom we develop a relationship. How one descibes that relationship, to the other, might come across as a god-concept, merely a set of ideas. There is one God, but whatever to which we give ourselves, becomes our god, be it worldly success, possessions, power and pleasure.

I’m not sure I can prove the existence to God. What I can do is talk about what pointed me to God. And that was essentially, the existence of others and our capacity to connect. This may mean nothing to the reader, but it is what did it - someone asking me a simple question, “What is a soul?” I found myself incapable of formulating any sort of satisfying explanation for the reality of the soul who had asked. In time, I have found the most concise and comprehensive explanation, in Christianity. And, the way to implement, to express that truth is through God’s church. How does one argue, that the fact that there is an argument, proves the point. I am of course summarizing a long process filled with joys, suffering and, not the least part of which, is action.

We each have our path, which becomes one Way in love, to God. It is not a matter of being right but of being more loving.

 

[Tomdstone]

As far as I can see, there is no one argument that will prove anything.

If you study Euclidean geometry, you will find many solid and water tight proofs of various theorems.

 

[Aloysium]

If you study Euclidean geometry, you will find many solid and water tight proofs of various theorems.

I was thinking about a proof for God, who as the Source of existence transcends what reason creates, such as mathematics and geometry. Existence is most definitely rational and can be understood to some extent. An understandin of God requires revelation and ultimately, surrender to God’s will to love. The view that there is no profo, I have to admit comes from observing how difficult it is for some people to understand the proof.

 

[Bradski]

What’s with the difference between certainty and absolute certainty? If you are certain, there is no requirement for a qualifier. It is literally redundant to use one. Yes, I appreciate its use in common parlance, but it does not add anything.

If I am certain that God does not exist (and I am not), it is nonsensical to then ask if I am ABSOLUTELY certain. The question has been answered.

To say that someone is certain that God exists is a statement that stands on its own. To go on to say that although there is certainty, there isn’t absolutely certainty is nonsense. Simply answer the following question: Are you 100% certain that God exists?

If the answer is yes, then there is 100% belief. There IS no 101%. There IS no 150%. There IS no ‘absolute’ certainty. It’s 100% or less. You can’t get any more than 100%.

As to the best argument for God, it’s an unreal question.

I would like a show of hands as to those who started with a blank slate and ran though all the arguments for all the gods and then sifted through them until they came up with one the god in whom they could believe. That person might be able to tell you the argument that they considered to be the best.

Everyone else (and make yourself known if you are not one of these) started within a belief system and then, in time, either accepted or rejected the arguments from that belief system. Again, those that accepted the arguments may be able to tell you the one that they consider to be the best.

Those that didn’t can only tell you the least worse.

And to answer that…the least worst argument for why so many people believe in God is…that so many people believe in God.

 

[PRmerger]

What’s with the difference between certainty and absolute certainty? If you are certain, there is no requirement for a qualifier. It is literally redundant to use one. Yes, I appreciate its use in common parlance, but it does not add anything.

If I am certain that God does not exist (and I am not), it is nonsensical to then ask if I am ABSOLUTELY certain. The question has been answered.

Yes, I agree with this.

As to the best argument for God, it’s an unreal question.

This is a peculiar statement.

Unreal question? Meaning it doesn’t exist?

Well, now I’m going to create it: what’s the best argument for God’s existence that you’ve encountered, and why do you find it wanting?

There. Now it exists. It is a real question.

Everything you say below is irrelevant.

Just tell us what argument you’ve considered for God’s existence, and why it fails.

I would like a show of hands as to those who started with a blank slate and ran though all the arguments for all the gods and then sifted through them until they came up with one the god in whom they could believe. That person might be able to tell you the argument that they considered to be the best.

Everyone else (and make yourself known if you are not one of these) started within a belief system and then, in time, either accepted or rejected the arguments from that belief system. Again, those that accepted the arguments may be able to tell you the one that they consider to be the best.

Those that didn’t can only tell you the least worse.

And to answer that…the least worst argument for why so many people believe in God is…that so many people believe in God.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Please read my question again, AB.

You assert that folks have “so much certainty” about the cause of homosexuality.

I have some skepticism about your claim.

Please offer some examples of some folks who claim to know, with “so much certainty” what causes homosexuality.

Here is your assertion, again: “Many on both sides express so much certainty and attitude (literally) that you’d think the issue is settled but yet plenty of scientists, including the APA, are agnostic on the nature of sexual orientation.”

I’m really skeptical that you wouldn’t know what gay supporters tend to argue although I suppose it’s wrong of me to assume that you are informed on the issue, both on the intellectual level and POPULAR level.

I already provided ample evidence and the context of which people use their arguments for homosexuality. Have you seen the documentary, Religulous? Bill Maher is a fine example of someone who tried to attack an “ex-gay” by asserting that homosexuality was genetic or that people were born that way.

I can post a video clip of that if you’d like.