Athiesm

[Flack_attack 0]

false, although replace "does not exist" with "does not matter" and that would be an accurate statement

Kindly elaborate.

[SilentSnow 1]

I see that Atheists on the forums use this following explanation to draw their conclusion of, "God not existing".Something CANNOT be considered true unless it is verified or able to be verified by scientific inquiry.However, the above statement is not scientifically verifiable.Therefore, through deductive reasoning: It is illogical for an athiest to use a "You can't prove --------" as a common argument in favor of atheism.Basically, if you're an atheist as a result of "God can't be proven" logical fallacy, you're now an agnostic.

Quick response-As far as I know this explanation is rarely used. Your statement hinges on the definition of "true". If you mean scientific truth then it becomes a meaningless tautology that is true by definition. No primary assumption or definition is scientifically verifiable. But not because the statement is illogical or false, but because it is not a testable hypothesis. "God cant be proven" is not a logical fallacy, but a legitimate empirical point and has nothing to do with whether you are an agnostic. You managed to make all five of your statements incorrect or misleading.Longer ramblings that no one ever reads-What you are really saying is that every last person on earth must be an agnostic, not just atheists. But this is a trivial distinction, and would eliminate almost every statement of opinion or fact ever made. We are atheists because we believe that is what best explains all of the evidence. Christians are christian because they believe that is the best explanation. If you want to be practical about it, there is really no such thing at all as an agnostic, unless you want to count people who absolutely refuse to even consider an answer to a question to be agnostic. If you are even 51 percent sure that there is no God, for practical purposes you are an atheist.There are no statements that are scientifically verifiable as absolute truth. Therefore no person can have any belief at all that is logical by your standard of truth, and you are using the wrong definition of "scientifically verifiable". We need to distinguish between absolute and probable truth. As far as I know there are only a few absolute nondefinitional statements about this world. Offhand, I can only think of three. 1.I exist in some form 2.I know that I cannot know the truth with absolute certainty beyond these statements(I know that I do not know) 3.Truth exists, even if it is only the statement that no absolute truth exists. None of these statements are at all useful other than to win philosophical arguments. Essentially we can state that no important absolute truths exist.This leaves us with only probablistic truth that we can usefully talk about. By this standard science doesnt have to prove anything absolutely, because no one at all can. Science assumes that holding things to rigorous logical and observational methods is the best method to find the truth. Whether this is actually true is a testable assumption if we can decide on what the truth is. But if we change your definition of truth to probablistic truth then the statement is just a tautology.I consider something to be true that meets all logical and empirical tests of it. There could be more than one different "truths" in a certain situation if we dont have adequate ways to differentiate them. However, once a hypothesis has failed a logical or physical test, it must be rejected. You can have scientific questions that apply only to yourself, such as what your favorite food is. If you want you can define these as personal truths, rather than general scientific truths. One useful way to think about it is decreasing restrictions on the truth. Absolute(deductive) truth is most restrictive, but is almost nonexistent. General scientific truth is followed by personal scientific truth. Beyond that are ideas that can only be partially tested, and lying outside the realm of truth are statements that cant be verified in any conceivable way. However, each level of truth is limited by the more restrictive layer above it. All scientific truths must be logical and all your personal truths must pass a general scientific test if it is applicable. The relevant argument is what realm of truth(or nontruth) religion might fall into. So to rewrite your statement in a way that makes sense- Something cannot be considered true unless it passes all of the available and relevant scientific tests. To say the previous statement is not absolutely provable does not make sense because no assumptions can ever be proven, but only tested for usefulness. To the extent that logic and observation apply in this world the first statement is true, though. However, keep in mind that there are different standards of truth that must be met in different situations.If I managed to actually explain this all completely clearly I would be pretty surprised, so let me know if you want me to clarify a point.

[brvheart 1,752]

if that's the only reason you don't believe then technically you're an agnostic.

Technically every 'atheist' is an agnostic, unless they themselves are God.... in which case, they couldn't really be agnostic either since they would know that they exist.

[crowTrobot 2]

Technically every 'atheist' is an agnostic, unless they themselves are God.... in which case, they couldn't really be agnostic either since they would know that they exist.

by that definition christians are agnostics too. so?

[brvheart 1,752]

by that definition christians are agnostics too. so?

Incorrect. While Christians can not know for certain that there is a God without being God themselves, they are not agnostics, because they claim that God is probable, not improbable.

[antistuff 0]

Incorrect. While Christians can not know for certain that there is a God without being God themselves, they are not agnostics, because they claim that God is probable, not improbable.

they claim its a little more than probable.

[crowTrobot 2]

Incorrect. While Christians can not know for certain that there is a God without being God themselves, they are not agnostics, because they claim that God is probable, not improbable.

by the definition you used *everyone* is an agnostic. which direction you lean based on probability is irrelevant.also please explain how anyone can have a meaningful personal relationship with something that "probably" exists : )

[BWToth 0]

Unless you are 100% certain that God does exist, in which case you are in denial, delusional or irrational, then you are by definition agnostic.even if you believe that the probability is 99.999% that goes DOES exist the 0.001% of doubt you retain would mean that you are agnostic by definition.In turn, most people have agnostic beliefs about EVERYTHING in the world, I am agnostic with regard to the existence of gravity. All I know for certain is that I exist, cogito ergo sum.

[antistuff 0]

also please explain how anyone can have a meaningful personal relationship with something that "probably" exists : )

well they do seem to have them with something that doesnt exist.....

[antistuff 0]

All I know for certain is that I exist, cogito ergo sum.

Are you sure?

[BWToth 0]

Are you sure?

Yes. Descartes dude.Give me a possible explaintation that disproves my, your, existence, cogito ergo sum debunks them all.

[brvheart 1,752]

they claim its a little more than probable.

If by they you mean me, then you are correct.

by the definition you used *everyone* is an agnostic. which direction you lean based on probability is irrelevant.also please explain how anyone can have a meaningful personal relationship with something that "probably" exists : )

It's a valid question and one that is impossible to explain unless you experience it for yourself... much like walking on the moon I suppose. Also, I was obviously just being objective in how I worded my sentence. I do believe that God exists and is an important part of my life. But since I'm not God, I can not say that he in fact exists or doesn't exist, which was the point of my previous post.

[semaj550 0]

Yes. Descartes dude.Give me a possible explaintation that disproves my, your, existence, cogito ergo sum debunks them all.

Well the idea of cogito ergo sum proving existence is only true from a first-person point of view. It makes existence a relative thing. It can only prove that you exist to yourself, not to anyone else.You do realize that Descartes is the same guy responsible for a very famous proof for the existence of God, don't you? Does the same guy both confirm your existence but fail to confirm God's?

[BWToth 0]

Well the idea of cogito ergo sum proving existence is only true from a first-person point of view. It makes existence a relative thing. It can only prove that you exist to yourself, not to anyone else.You do realize that Descartes is the same guy responsible for a very famous proof for the existence of God, don't you? Does the same guy both confirm your existence but fail to confirm God's?

Just because he has two theories, and one of them is easily proven false, doesn't make the other theory false as a result.Yes, I know it only proves that you exist to yourself, that's the point.Obviously Descartes ideas are hugely flawed, which I'd be more than willing to discuss, but I'd rather get back to this atheism stuff.

[WrongWay 0]

Well the idea of cogito ergo sum proving existence is only true from a first-person point of view.

Not to mention, it is cicrular logic. The premise "I think", assumes existance of the 1st person "I". The think is irrelivant and "I think, therefor I am" can be reduced to "I, therefor I am".It proves nothing except that it is very easy to prove something you've just premised to be true.

[11 to 1 0]

Incorrect. While Christians can not know for certain that there is a God without being God themselves.....

What makes you think we aren't? Or that you aren't? My issue with these discussions is always that the term under discussion is not defined. Just what is this "God" that an atheist insists does not exist? How can one know if we can "prove" something unless we define the thing we say doesn't, or does, exist? Since the atheist is contending the thing does not exist, thee atheist must provide their own definition of the thing. As in: "I say there's no such thing as a werewolf." If you ask me what a "werewolf" is, I can probably give a simple definition. If you say "There's no such thing as God," I, as a theist, may agree or disagree with you, if I know what your definition of the word "god" is.

[BWToth 0]

Not to mention, it is cicrular logic. The premise "I think", assumes existance of the 1st person "I". The think is irrelivant and "I think, therefor I am" can be reduced to "I, therefor I am".It proves nothing except that it is very easy to prove something you've just premised to be true.

This isn't right, but I'm not sure why, I'll figure it out and get back to you.