But What If You're Wrong ...

[Unrepresented]

Whoaaa! You guys changed the definition of agnosticism, too???? [emoji38]





Well, when we talk of the existence of God - it's usually refers to the Christian God. That's why the Bible is the most scrutinized Scriptures there is.

If you claim to be agnostic as far as supernaturalism is concerned - then your agnosticism should also apply to God....after all, He is supernatural!
You have absolutely nothing to stand on to say that He doesn't exist when you're claiming on "being still agnostic on our ability to ultimately know all supernatural claims."

If that is your stance, you cannot write Him off. You've got to be agnostic when it comes to Him, too. Simple as that.

This has been posted before. I'll post it here to summarize the points we're disagreeing on without drawing this further off topic.

 

[Summerwind]

Oh hey it's Pascal's Wager, haven't seen that one in a while.

Why should I worship Christianity before I die to go to Heaven? What if Judism or Islam were the right faith? What if they're both completely wrong and it was Hinduism were right? What if the only way to get to heaven was through the sacrifice of a virgin? It's complete non-sense to start a premise like this assuming your religion is "correct" because you have no proof of being accurate plain and simple.

That is just so well said, I'm going to just quote it so it's repeated exactly as presented.

 

[zyzygy]

besides, you can always fall back on accepting Jesus as you draw your last breath.

Would that help if the Hindus are right?

 

[tosca1]

"a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena" I think that "a definition of one's ability to know" explains that pretty well.

And you have exactly the same thing to stand on saying He does exist. :shrug:

By the very definition you've given explains why you cannot conclude that God doesn't exist!

And no, we're definitely not on the same boat here. Unlike atheists, theists have evidences that support the belief in the existence of God.

 

[tosca1]

This has been posted before. I'll post it here to summarize the points we're disagreeing on without drawing this further off topic.

We've already discussed that in another thread! You can bring out all the charts you want.
You guys make it sound so complicated when truly, it's simple.

It all boils down to the person's belief.

If you don't believe that any gods exist, you are an atheist. Doesn't matter if you don't claim to know that no gods exist.

It's your belief that defines you!

 

[Unrepresented]

We've already discussed that in another thread! You can bring out all the charts you want.
You guys make it sound so complicated when truly, it's simple.

It all boils down to the person's belief.

If you don't believe that any gods exist, you are an atheist. Doesn't matter if you don't claim to know that no gods exist.

It's your belief that defines you!

Yes. I brought it back up because you still don't seem to understand the nuance.

 

[tosca1]

Yes. I brought it back up because you still don't seem to understand the nuance.

There is no nuance! It's your BELIEF that defines you. There is no other so-called "subtle variation!"

If you don't believe God exist, you're an atheist! That's saying it straight!

 

[Manc Skipper]

All I'm saying is for you to consider the :" What If?" and of course the odds vs. the payoff.]

?Which of the thousands of religions should I choose

What kind of God accepts followers who are simply playing the odds?

 

[Critter7r]

By the very definition you've given explains why you cannot conclude that God doesn't exist!

And no, we're definitely not on the same boat here. Unlike atheists, theists have evidences that support the belief in the existence of God.

And by the same definition you cannot conclude that He does.

There are no "evidences" that withstand more than a few moments of logical, honest scrutiny.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

If you accept Pascal's wager as valid then you should believe in the religion with the worst concept of Hell or its equivalent. Most people's idea of the Christian Hell comes from Dante's Inferno, not the Bible. So if you don't believe in the Christian God then your punishment may be eternal separation from God. But in another religion your punishment may actually be torture on top of separation from God. What if I come up with a religion that says if you don't believe in my God not only will you suffer eternal punishment but your children will suffer as well, regardless of what they believe. That would make the Hell of my religion the worst and thus if you are playing the odds you would have to believe in my religion, regardless of whether or not I have any evidence for it.

The whole premise is absurd to the core.

 

[iangb]

There is no nuance! It's your BELIEF that defines you. There is no other so-called "subtle variation!"

If you don't believe God exist, you're an atheist! That's saying it straight!

This is correct. But agnostics atheists (or 'agnostics', as you term them) also do not believe God exists. This is different from believing that God does not exist, which is an active statement of belief.

You do not use words this way, you have made this clear. Many other people (including those responsible for the bus ad you referenced) do use words this way. You're going to have to accept that and move on, not derail the thread with more semantic chicanery.

 

[tosca1]

And by the same definition you cannot conclude that He does.

Oh no, we're not on the same token at all!

There are no "evidences" that withstand more than a few moments of logical, honest scrutiny.

Just because you don't agree (for whatever reasons you may have), doesn't mean that the rational evidences are not there.
We have rational evidences to support the probability of God's existence, whether you agree or not. Some of those evidences come from men who excel in their fields in science.


Those evidences doesn't require your validation, you know.

 

[iangb]

Oh no, we're not on the same token at all!




Just because you don't agree (for whatever reasons you may have), doesn't mean that the rational evidences are not there.
We have rational evidences to support the probability of God's existence, whether you agree or not. Some of those evidences come from men who excel in their fields in science.


Those evidences doesn't require your validation, you know.

Claiming that something is evidence does not make it so. If the evidence does not stand up to scrutiny then it is not evidence, despite your claims to the contrary.

Evidence absolutely requires validation, since invalid evidence is... invalid.

 

[Critter7r]

Just because you don't agree (for whatever reasons you may have), doesn't mean that the rational evidences are not there.
We have rational evidences to support the probability of God's existence, whether you agree or not. Some of those evidences come from men who excel in their fields in science.

Those evidences doesn't require your validation, you know.

Actually, they do. What I accept as truth is the only thing that matters. To me.

A link or two to these "evidences" would be interesting for me to read, though. (No sarcasm. Even though I'm a non-believer, I find the subject fascinating).

 

[Athrawan]

It's not an eternity in a terrible place, it's an eternity in no place. I don't mean More's Utopia, I mean the eternal death which God will confer on every unrepentant human sinner.

 

[Athrawan]

It's never tooooo LATE until God says it's tooooo LATE!

 

[zyzygy]

It's never tooooo LATE until God says it's tooooo LATE!

Which god?

 

[Athrawan]

While I agree that your first two statements are true, I question the validity of the third assertion. It does not follow logically from the first two statements. God's omniscience and omnipotence do not require that free will is an illusion. The fact that God knew how you would decide before you decided, does not negate your ability to decide. God's knowing how we will decide, before we decide, is reflective of the fact that He exists outside of time. He created time when He created the physical universe. If He created it, He exists outside it. For God, every point on our linear time scale is now. God not only tells us to choose, He tells us which choice is the better one. He tells us to choose life. Life as He sets it before us.

 

[Unrepresented]

While I agree that your first two statements are true, I question the validity of the third assertion. It does not follow logically from the first two statements. God's omniscience and omnipotence do not require that free will is an illusion. The fact that God knew how you would decide before you decided, does not negate your ability to decide. God's knowing how we will decide, before we decide, is reflective of the fact that He exists outside of time. He created time when He created the physical universe. If He created it, He exists outside it. For God, every point on our linear time scale is now. God not only tells us to choose, He tells us which choice is the better one. He tells us to choose life. Life as He sets it before us.

If you create the universe you're creating all the actions within it. If you're doing so with pure freedom from ignorance, you're aware of all the actions you're creating.

 

[Athrawan]

Non sequitur. Your facts are uncoordinated. Creating a universe only creates the possibilities of action within it. It does not create the actions within it. Allowing something to happen is, in no way, the same as causing it to happen.

 

[Unrepresented]

Non sequitur. Your facts are uncoordinated. Creating a universe only creates the possibilities of action within it. It does not create the actions within it. Allowing something to happen is, in no way, the same as causing it to happen.

There are no "possibilities" if you know everything, only outcomes. You aren't omniscient if you don't know the answers.

 

[CrabCake]

If I'm wrong then it depends on why I'm wrong. If I'm wrong because it turns out God doesn't exist, then I still lived an amazing life. If I'm wrong because it turns out Islam was right, then as a worshipper of a false god, I'm probably screwed. If I'm wrong because the buddhists are right, then I guess I'll just cycle right back in. If I'm wrong because....you get the point.

That's why Pascal's wager isn't very useful as a defence of a particular religion. Everyone is betting on their view being right and no one is doing so based on statistical probability.

 

[iguanaman]

the problem is that people do complain.. They live a life rejecting God and then when stuff happens guess what they do...they complain and to the God they had totally rejected.. Sorry but its tooooo LATE!

What does that mean, "too late"? Do you think it is some kind of a game show and God is the master of ceremonies? Does that bother you at all? Why would God play a game with us? What if you choose door #3 and should have chosen door #1?

 

[Athrawan]

Again, your logic escapes me. I don't see that knowing what will happen removes possibilities. I don't believe that anything I said would lead a reasonable person to conclude that I believe that God doesn't know all the answers. I think some of our miscommunication is that you & I have very different understandings of God.

 

[iangb]

Again, your logic escapes me. I don't see that knowing what will happen removes possibilities. I don't believe that anything I said would lead a reasonable person to conclude that I believe that God doesn't know all the answers. I think some of our miscommunication is that you & I have very different understandings of God.

To illustrate what he means:

If God throws a dice, does He know which way it will land?
If 'no', God 'doesn't know all the answers'. If 'yes', is there really any possibility that the dice could have landed a different way?

Or the Biblical version:

Did God know that Abraham would try to sacrifice Issac on God's command?
If 'no', God 'doesn't know all the answers'
If 'yes', then did Abraham really have the ability to choose anything different?

EDIT: By 'know', I don't mean 'make a good guess but could be wrong'. I mean 'know for 100% certain because of omniscience'.