Strong agnosticism a joke and proof of Gods Existence

[abcdefg]

while atheists and theists both can supply arguments for their believes, how can strong agnosticism prove “God’s existence can’t be proved”. this is a paradox. if God’s existence can be proved then they’re trying to prove something wrong. if not, any attempt would be futile. the only possible way is admitting it’s a blind faith.

Can anyone prove Goldbach conjecture can’t be proved? it can only be proved right or wrong. but can’t be proved “can’t be proved”.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Q: Did you hear about the dyslexic, agnostic, insomniac?
A: He lay awake at night wondering if there really was a dog.

 

[Darrel]

Catholic Dude:

Q: Did you hear about the dyslexic, agnostic, insomniac?
A: He lay awake at night wondering if there really was a dog.

lol,

Nice! :clapping:

 

[MichaelLewis]

abcdefg:

while atheists and theists both can supply arguments for their believes, how can strong agnosticism prove “God’s existence can’t be proved”. this is a paradox. if God’s existence can be proved then they’re trying to prove something wrong. if not, any attempt would be futile. the only possible way is admitting it’s a blind faith.

Can anyone prove Goldbach conjecture can’t be proved? it can only be proved right or wrong. but can’t be proved “can’t be proved”.

I suspect a strong agnostic is a bit like a radical skeptic. They would have a very high standard for “knowledge” such that even if they encountered God, they would wonder if he were an alien or a dream or some ‘spiritual’ yet non-divine being. I’m not a strong agnostic myself, but I can sympathize to some extent. Imagine you were in heaven, and had regular contact with God. Might you not wonder (indeed, might God not wonder?) if there were an even greater being, if THIS really was God? (Of course this assumes that you are able and allowed to so speculate in heaven.)

All things considered though, I don’t think it makes sense to have a higher epistemic standard, given maximal evidence, for believing in God than one has for believing in any other feature of the external world.

Michael

 

[Tmaque]

I was quite agnostic for several years. I would still say that the existence of God hasn’t been proved in the emperical sense. I would not say it is impossible because I believe that it will be completely evident one day when Christ returns. I would have said at the time that the existence of God can never be proven without some sort of worldwide miraculous event that can be witnessed by many people and from which we can draw no other conclusion.

 

[eptatorata]

abcdefg:

while atheists and theists both can supply arguments for their believes, how can strong agnosticism prove “God’s existence can’t be proved”. this is a paradox.

You may want to reflect on Gödel’s incompleteness theorems and the brain in a vat thought experiments. Regardless, let’s stick to the less contentious topic of systems of formal logic and state that proposition P can neither be shown to be true nor false within that formal system. A paradox? I think not.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Regardless, let’s stick to the less contentious topic of systems of formal logic and state that proposition P can neither be shown to be true nor false within that formal system.

Surely the one given this gift of formal logic is presumptuous to put himself on the same plane of logic with the gift Giver.

 

[Ahimsa]

In order to prove God’s existence, you would have to define what “God” is.

Let’s say that God is “all-knowing”. Can you prove that God is all-knowing if you yourself are not all-knowing? If God says that there are 244 quadrillion stars in another universe, could you verify that? I doubt it.God could be “knowing-more-than-you”, which is not the same as “all-knowing”.

Let’s say that God is “all-good”. Can you prove that God is all-good, if you can’t delve into the mind of God and see for yourself, “Yes, there is only good here”? In addition, you yourself would have to have definite knowledge of what constitutes “good”; I doubt any human has such definite knowledge.

Similar arguments against proving God’s existence can be made with any “God is all-xxx” definition.

On the other hand, if you want to say, God is that which knows more than any human, is more moral than any human, or is more powerful than any human or thing; then that sort of God might be provable.

Otherwise, the “all-xxx” sort of God is not provable. That sort of God is only reachable via faith.

 

[eptatorata]

Gilbert Keith:

Surely the one given this gift of formal logic is presumptuous to put himself on the same plane of logic with the gift Giver.

Can you refer me to a textbook or academic paper that defines ‘plane of logic’? I’m not familiar with that term.

Oddly enough, if what you say is true you have just gone a long way towards formally proving strong agnosticism.