[wenger16]

The thing is we don't know "everything"; we probably don't know1 per cent of everything. Therefore when people present concrete "100 per cent true" arguments against a creator or for a creator its doesn't make sense.

Think of it this way... think of everything you know as a human being everything you know exists and everything you have ever learn about..eveything inluding whole universe everything you know exists...now in your mind put a "bubble" around it and trap everything inside...now tell me where has that bubble come from and the bigger question WHY? why is it there? Now friends there is no way to answer that question because we simply don't know. You might try to answer it with an answer like the big bang etc etc but the knowledge that leads to the answer of big bang lies inside that of bubble and therefore we cannot comprehend.

I don't know whether god exists but all i know is we will never really know the mystery of the universe or that "bubble" because simply we are not meant to know.

This probably doesn't even make sense but just contemplating the meaning of life etc.

[Ape Gone Insane]

It's never really been about that. It's about observing what we can, forming assumptions on that and weighing up which is a higher chance of being correct.

[BananaWhale]

I think your post would make more sense without the bubble analogy hehe

[wenger16]

(Original post by Ape Gone Insane)
It's never really been about that. It's about observing what we can, forming assumptions on that and weighing up which is a higher chance of being correct.

Yeah I agree because that's when science and theories come in to it. But you have to recognise we can only ever make assumptions as you said we will never really know.

[SsEe]

(Original post by wenger16)
The thing is we don't know "everything"; we probably don't know1 per cent of everything. Therefore when people present concrete "100 per cent true" arguments against a creator or for a creator its doesn't make sense.

Think of it this way... think of everything you know as a human being everything you know exists and everything you have ever learn about..eveything inluding whole universe everything you know exists...now in your mind put a "bubble" around it and trap everything inside...now tell me where has that bubble come from and the bigger question WHY? why is it there? Now friends there is no way to answer that question because we simply don't know. You might try to answer it with an answer like the big bang etc etc but the knowledge that leads to the answer of big bang lies inside that of bubble and therefore we cannot comprehend.

I don't know whether god exists but all i know is we will never really know the mystery of the universe or that "bubble" because simply we are not meant to know.

This probably doesn't even make sense but just contemplating the meaning of life etc.

You're basically explaining why agnostic atheism is the way to go.

[Carter78]

(Original post by wenger16)
Yeah I agree because that's when science and theories come in to it. But you have to recognise we can only ever make assumptions as you said we will never really know.

At the same time we convict people for murder based on the very strong evidence that they have committed the crime (DNA samples etc), even though we very often lack video proof of the crime taking place.

It's funny how the religious often say "there's not enough proof for evolution/etc". Well there's more evidence for this then there is for God.

[wenger16]

(Original post by SsEe)
You're basically explaining why agnostic atheism is the way to go.

what do you believe?

[DaveSmith99]

Even the strongest and most outspoken atheists (Dawkins etc) don't say anything with 100% certainty.

[R.P.Everything.]

We need to acknowledge that we don't know everything...which is why we should be sceptical of all those who claim to be privy to the secrets of the universe and its creator.

[almasy]

(Original post by Carter78)
At the same time we convict people for murder based on the very strong evidence that they have committed the crime (DNA samples etc), even though we very often lack video proof of the crime taking place.

It's funny how the religious often say "there's not enough proof for evolution/etc". Well there's more evidence for this then there is for God.

http://www.cracked.com/article_19213...-our-eyes.html

uh, no proof for evolution? there's as much proof for evolution as there is humanity existing

[SsEe]

(Original post by wenger16)
what do you believe?

Not a lot. I don't believe there is a god (in my book, that's the atheist part of me). I don't believe there isn't a god either. As you say, there's nothing pointing definitively in either direction. I certainly don't know whether or not a god exists (that's the agnostic part of me). In fact, I do believe that our current picture of god is so flexible that it can be altered to get around any argument against it. If someone comes up with a cast iron logical argument against it, god can be redefined to be "outside logic" as a way out. The whole concept is set up to be immune to counter argument. Hence, I don't think it's even possible in principle to come up with disproof. Does that make me a strong agnostic. Or a gnostic agnostic? Damn words and their slippery definitions.

[R.P.Everything.]

(Original post by SsEe)
Not a lot. I don't believe there is a god (in my book, that's the atheist part of me). I don't believe there isn't a god either. As you say, there's nothing pointing definitively in either direction. I certainly don't know whether or not a god exists (that's the agnostic part of me). In fact, I do believe that our current picture of god is so flexible that it can be altered to get around any argument against it. If someone comes up with a cast iron logical argument against it, god can be redefined to be "outside logic" as a way out. The whole concept is set up to be immune to counter argument. Hence, I don't think it's even possible in principle to come up with disproof. Does that make me a strong agnostic. Or a gnostic agnostic? Damn words and their slippery definitions.

I agree with a lot of what you said, but out of interest - once you recognise the unfalsifiable nature of religion, do you not think that being agnostic just plays into the trap of religion? A lot of ideas and entities can be removed from debate, simply by making them unfalsifiable - for example, the cliched Russel's teapot, or the Invisible magic rain fairy. Surely, an unfalsifiable argument is just a weak argument, which should be dismissed for the very nature of its construction?

[SsEe]

(Original post by R.P.Everything.)
I agree with a lot of what you said, but out of interest - once you recognise the unfalsifiable nature of religion, do you not think that being agnostic just plays into the trap of religion? A lot of ideas and entities can be removed from debate, simply by making them unfalsifiable - for example, the cliched Russel's teapot, or the Invisible magic rain fairy. Surely, an unfalsifiable argument is just a weak argument, which should be dismissed for the very nature of its construction?

I think I'm just making the observation that the existence of a deity is unfalsifiable. In my view, the debate isn't over whether or not a god exists. That's a silly debate because of the unfalsifiability. One side can't win! It's over whether or not the theist's arguments in a god's favour are valid. That's the place where an agnostic atheist takes a positive stance. I think their arguments are invalid. Certainly the argument that "God exists because you can't prove he doesn't" is very weak!

[K the Failure]

(Original post by SsEe)
I think I'm just making the observation that the existence of a deity is unfalsifiable. In my view, the debate isn't over whether or not a god exists. That's a silly debate because of the unfalsifiability. One side can't win! It's over whether or not the theist's arguments in a god's favour are valid. That's the place where an agnostic atheist takes a positive stance. I think their arguments are invalid. Certainly the argument that "God exists because you can't prove he doesn't" is very weak!

Many theistic arguments are valid. They're just not sound.

I disagree that neither side can win in a debate. The atheist argues that it is unreasonable to have a belief in any deities, whereas the theist argues that it is (probably arguing that it's reasonable to, for some reason or another, believe in his particular deity). It's not he doesn't exists vs. he does exist', it's 'it doesn't make sense to believe vs. yeah it probably doesn't so I'm gonna throw out the F word'.

[TheRustaman]

The difference is that theistic folk claim to have the answer in "God did it."
Whereas atheists will say either "We don't know yet," or "What does the evidence we have gathered suggest?"

[SsEe]

(Original post by K the Failure)
Many theistic arguments are valid. They're just not sound.

True. You know what I mean though.

I disagree that neither side can win in a debate. The atheist argues that it is unreasonable to have a belief in any deities, whereas the theist argues that it is (probably arguing that it's reasonable to, for some reason or another, believe in his particular deity). It's not he doesn't exists vs. he does exist', it's 'it doesn't make sense to believe vs. yeah it probably doesn't so I'm gonna throw out the F word'.

In the debate of whether or not there is a god, the theist could win in principle. But I think you're saying what I was trying to say. We're not saying that their conclusion is wrong. We're saying that they have no good argument to support their conclusion.

[james.h]

This isn't a new perspective on matters.

Succinctly, I'd say it's the logical acceptance that one cannot know the truth of any matter (eliding a discussion on what "truth" means in this context; case in point ) since all human observation is fallible.

However, logical acceptance does not always lead to firm belief.

[ROYP]

Obviously noone knows the answers to all these things but it doesn't matter what people believe until organised religion comes into it. People should just accept that we know next to **** all about anything and making up religions with stupid rules doesn't help anyone

[E.Blackadder]

(Original post by wenger16)
I don't know whether god exists but all i know is we will never really know the mystery of the universe or that "bubble" because simply we are not meant to know.

you claim that there are unknown unknowns and yet claim that you know we will never know them. the best you can say is that we may never know them, not that we aren't meant to know them. who knows what lies out there and whether or not we will eventually be able to detect and understand what they are. for thousands of years quantum mechanics was an unknown unknown, isaac newton had no chance of discovering the principles of quantum chromodynamics
yet that doesn't mean we never had a chance.

[metalthrashin'mad]

(Original post by wenger16)
The thing is we don't know "everything"; we probably don't know1 per cent of everything. Therefore when people present concrete "100 per cent true" arguments against a creator or for a creator its doesn't make sense.

Think of it this way... think of everything you know as a human being everything you know exists and everything you have ever learn about..eveything inluding whole universe everything you know exists...now in your mind put a "bubble" around it and trap everything inside...now tell me where has that bubble come from and the bigger question WHY? why is it there? Now friends there is no way to answer that question because we simply don't know. You might try to answer it with an answer like the big bang etc etc but the knowledge that leads to the answer of big bang lies inside that of bubble and therefore we cannot comprehend.

I don't know whether god exists but all i know is we will never really know the mystery of the universe or that "bubble" because simply we are not meant to know.

This probably doesn't even make sense but just contemplating the meaning of life etc.

Sounded like a crude way of Descartes method of doubt. Doubt everything you think you know and see what you can know and what you can't.

You also say "put a bubble in your mind" then "where does the bubble come from" WUT?