Agnostic: a pointless term?

[IATIA]

...a unicorn would have to exist on a planescape, as all other equines do. They would also have to have a sizable, sustainable population count. We would therefore have discovered them by now, don't you think?

Not necessarily. Gorillas were myths/legends for quite some time.

Explorer Paul Du Chaillu was the first westerner to see a live gorilla during his travel through western equatorial Africa from 1856 to 1859. He brought dead specimens to the UK in 1861

(Not to suggest that I believe that unicorns exist only that the particular line of reasoning is invalid.)

[YGninja]

...a unicorn would have to exist on a planescape, as all other equines do. They would also have to have a sizable, sustainable population count. We would therefore have discovered them by now, don't you think?

Not necessarily. Gorillas were myths/legends for quite some time.

Explorer Paul Du Chaillu was the first westerner to see a live gorilla during his travel through western equatorial Africa from 1856 to 1859. He brought dead specimens to the UK in 1861

(Not to suggest that I believe that unicorns exist only that the particular line of reasoning is invalid.)

Biblical Unicorns do exist, today they're called Rhinoceros.
At the time of the writing of the King James version, Rhinos were called Unicorns.


U'NICORN, noun [Latin unicornis; unus, one, and cornu, horn.]
1. an animal with one horn; the monoceros. this name is often applied to the rhinoceros.
http://webstersdictionary1828.com

The latin is "Rhinoceros unicornis"

[AFTT47]

I don't think the unicorn is a good analogy for God. If we're looking for a unicorn here on Earth, there are only so many places where it could possibly be. The chances of an animal that size existing on this planet without a single shred of evidence is essentially zero. The situation with God is different. It could be entirely outside the universe, in a region between multiple universes. There is no reason to believe there is such a critter but we're talking about a realm we know nothing about. Not only is it impossible to rule out but I don't see how anyone could begin to predict odds.

Nuh, uh. Unicorns are magical, and they can drink fairy dust to travel into outer space, at least on full moons and Tuesdays.

Oh.

[wiploc]

I don't think the unicorn is a good analogy for God. If we're looking for a unicorn here on Earth, there are only so many places where it could possibly be. The chances of an animal that size existing on this planet without a single shred of evidence is essentially zero. The situation with God is different. It could be entirely outside the universe, in a region between multiple universes. There is no reason to believe there is such a critter but we're talking about a realm we know nothing about. Not only is it impossible to rule out but I don't see how anyone could begin to predict odds.

Why do you give god outs that you don't give the unicorn?

One could just as persuasively argue that there's zero chance of something the size of gods on this planet, but unicorns could exist in Fantasy Land.

[AFTT47]

Well, I wasn't thinking of a magical creature, just a horse with a horn. My mistake.

[Cato]

There are several different reasons why I consider myself agnostic. One is a general distrust of the human capacity to comprehend truth. One is the great variety of God ideas which make a single answer to a general question too difficult. Another is a leaning toward idealism as opposed to physicalism.

First off, thanks for taking my Buzz Lightyear meme in another thread tongue-in-cheek as intended. I only mention it here because I'm going to throw a couple ideas at you for consideration.

When you talk about your distrust in human comprehension of truth, what is your definition of truth? For me, truth hinges on the idea of justified true belief; which has nothing to do with what I'll call ultimate truth (I know, using the same word in the definition of the word you're trying to define. I'll assume you understand my meaning here). Just because we don't know it all doesn't mean what we do know can't be considered truth.

Einstein didn't prove Newton wrong; I'd like to assume you understand my meaning without a lot of explanation. Someday I think someone will come along that will make Einstein look like Newton. Today, even if a majority of people don't understant what F=ma means explicitly they understand it implicity. After 300 years I think the same would be understood of e=mc^2; even though by then the new Newton/Einstein would be 100 years old. Richard Feynman said "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics". Eventually 'Feynman' becomes a grade school insult.

Benny, I'm not being insulting here; just trying to appreciate the difference in approach. I'm comfortable with the human legacy of riding the asymptotic derivative curve towards ultimate truth; whereas you seem more comfortable assuming the end point and taking the integral under the curve and labeling it consciousness. If we reach the same point someday I will congratulate Herschel, Thomson, Rutherford, Chadwick, Neddermeyer, Higgs/CERN and their successors; whereas, you'll smuggly proclaim that Democritus knew it all along with no demonstration of the mechanism.

I believe that the truth is at a border condition: to be found at whatever is under QM, or inside a black hole, or at the Big Bang. And I think that in those conditions, there are so many ambiguities and paradoxes that words probably cease to really mean anything. In other words, I think in those cases, you might come across something you COULD call God, but whether people would choose to do so would still come down to their semantic preferences.

This calls to mind a quote from Anthony Leggett:

It may be somewhat dangerous to explain something one does not understand very well [the quantum measurement process] by invoking something [consciousness] one does not understand at all!

The reason this quote resonates with me has little to do with Leggett's authority (who the fuck is Leggett?), but that it applies to experts and laymen when considering the intersection of physics and philosophy.

[robvalue]

It seems to me that the only things that are impossible are those things that would contradict logic. For example, it's impossible to be a married bachelor. It's impossible for an all powerful God to create a creature that he cannot directly control.

The only way such things could be possible is if contradicitons are possible. This would mean our very understanding of the basics of logic are wrong.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Every year this thread surfaces.

See ya'll in 12 months

[robvalue]

How can you prove logic doesn't work, without using logic?

How can you establish anything without logic?

Apart from religion, of course.

[Tonus]

Well, I wasn't thinking of a magical creature, just a horse with a horn. My mistake.

In that case, you're right that it's not a good analogy for god, because a unicorn would be plausible.