Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

However, there being only two options does not mean you have to select one as your position.

In the case of the existence of God. You do select an option. If you live as though God doesn't exist, that is, you're not following any religion or spirituality, then you practically did go for the second option [God doesn't exist]. I mean by God here the deity with the three-omni properties of course, and the just kind of deity.

My main point is that, if you sincerely exhausted all possible avenues looking for a just deity, then this deity surely doesn't exist. But then again it all comes down to exhausting all possible avenues.

don't believe the 'no god' option is true either; but I personally assign it a high probability because I think it's more likely to be true. 

Then you're not an agnostic. I am also curious to know how you reached this high probability of non existence.

But humans existed for tens of thousands of years before the Abrahamic god was so much as a gleam in a conman's eye.  As a Muslim, don't you consider it unfair that Allah didn't reveal himself to Mohammed until the 7th century? This clearly makes Allah unjust (according to your claims, at least).  Now, if you want to continue to claim that Allah is just, you've made the case that a god can reveal itself at any point and still exhibit justice.  If (according to your claims, at least) Allah not revealing himself makes him unjust, because all of the millions of humans who lived before Mohammed got the revelation had no access to it,  your entire argument vanishes in a puff of special pleading.

Boru

Islam considers God's existence as beyond doubt, and it was somewhat the case everywhere until the 17th century or so. According to our beliefs, Allah revealed a message to Muhammad, his existence was accepted even by Meccan pagans before the Islamic Prophet. The existence of God was not a matter of discussion in any Abrahamic religion.

I'm actually more concerned with your revelatory timeline than the existence of God.  You said earlier that it would be unjust of God to reveal himself at some point in the future, because all of the people who lived and died before that time would not have been able to take part in the revelation. But everything is at some point in the future.  If the revelation to Mohammed is God being just, why didn't he make the revelation to the very first humans, hundreds of thousands of years ago instead of waiting until the 7th century?

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

Islam also contends that it's twice revised and borrowed religion is the original recipe. Adam and Eves religion.

[R00tKiT]

If the revelation to Mohammed is God being just,

I already explained that this was not the Islamic revelation. God revealing himself has nothing to do with any Abrahamic religion, merely looking around and wondering convinced people of God throughout the ages, until they started to think that understanding how the universe works or the creatures evolved is somehow a substitute for wondering.

why didn't he make the revelation to the very first humans, hundreds of thousands of years ago instead of waiting until the 7th century?

Boru

Again, God revealing himself is a separate issue from religious revelation, which entails all kinds of rituals and prophetic teachings.

[The Grand Nudger]

Looking around and wondering convinced people of god, and that there was no god, Kloro.

[The Architect Of Fate]

 already explained that this was not the Islamic revelation. God revealing himself has nothing to do with any Abrahamic religion, merely looking around and wondering convinced people of God throughout the ages, until they started to think that understanding how the universe works or the creatures evolved is somehow a substitute for wondering.

Bullshit 

Again, God revealing himself is a separate issue from religious revelation, which entails all kinds of rituals and prophetic teachings.

More bullshit

[R00tKiT]

Looking around and wondering convinced people of god, and that there was no god, Kloro.

Curiously, it only led them to God for almost eighteen centuries. It still does, there is just more noise.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Curiously, it only led them to God for almost eighteen centuries. It still does, there is just more noise.

Bullshit

[The Grand Nudger]

Eighteen centuries is small potatoes. We've been fully modern for 50k, at least. Your god, and in fact the abrahamic god which predates your silly religion, are only a small fraction of what people have thought about gods.

I don't see what you find so disconcerting about the fact that other people have been looking around -not- seeing gods for longer than they've been made to believe your own? You believe, it would only be an issue of people having been wrong for far longer than they were right.

[Belacqua]

No it is not possible, you can't believe a god exists and doesnt exist at the sametime, it is impossible. You can believe a god exists and not know that a god exists and thats where gnostic and agnostic comes in. A weak belief and a strong belief is still belief.

Here you're just repeating your assertion, without any sort of supporting argument. It makes me wonder if this is something you believe for no reason. ("What's asserted without evidence..." etc.)

I think that your conclusion is too simple. Here are my reasons:

You seem to be assuming that the mind works logically. I do not believe that logic is the mind's default mode. Quite the opposite. 

If people say that somehow the mind is logical and reasonable and rational, but that sometimes the body (in the form of feelings) interfere with this logical operation, they are believing something which is a hold-over from religious thought. The mind is not something separate from the body. Mind-body dualism is false. 

Some people say "the mind is what the brain does," but this is also too simple. In fact the mind is one of many things that the body does. And more things affect the mind than just the brain. The liver makes hormones which change our thinking. I've seen articles claiming that gut bacteria affects thinking. Sapolsky at Stanford says that if you catch toxoplasmosis from cat poo it is likely to affect your taste in clothing. 

The mind evolved for survival, not for logical correctness. If ambivalence in belief is helpful -- "I don't believe that's a tiger in the grass, but it probably is" -- then logical contradiction will be selected for.

So logic is not the default mode. And that means that the rules of logic -- if you believe A you can't also believe not-A -- don't necessarily hold in people's thinking. Logic is something we can work on and strive for. We can manage it sometimes. But we've all seen cases of people who think they're being perfectly logical when in fact they weren't. (It may be the case with your claims here too. Perhaps you want the mind to work logically, so you ignore all the empirical evidence that it doesn't.) 

It would probably make sense for you to read something about phenomenology. Husserl, Merle-Ponty, Henry -- those guys. There is a huge and persuasive body of work on how the world of our experience differs from the world of math and the world that science tells about. Science can tell us the truth, but we may not experience the world that way. What Husserl calls the Lifeworld (Lebenswelt) -- our values, thoughts, and beliefs -- doesn't follow the world of logic, reasonable cause-and-effect, or the laws of nature as science describes them. As a simple example, time goes faster or slower depending on whether class is interesting or boring. Science tells us that's an illusion, but our experience tells us it's not. 

So if we want to talk about people rather than logic-robots, we have to think about how people function.

[Mr.wizard]

No it is not possible, you can't believe a god exists and doesnt exist at the sametime, it is impossible. You can believe a god exists and not know that a god exists and thats where gnostic and agnostic comes in. A weak belief and a strong belief is still belief.

Here you're just repeating your assertion, without any sort of supporting argument. It makes me wonder if this is something you believe for no reason. ("What's asserted without evidence..." etc.)

I think that your conclusion is too simple. Here are my reasons:

You seem to be assuming that the mind works logically. I do not believe that logic is the mind's default mode. Quite the opposite. 

If people say that somehow the mind is logical and reasonable and rational, but that sometimes the body (in the form of feelings) interfere with this logical operation, they are believing something which is a hold-over from religious thought. The mind is not something separate from the body. Mind-body dualism is false. 

Some people say "the mind is what the brain does," but this is also too simple. In fact the mind is one of many things that the body does. And more things affect the mind than just the brain. The liver makes hormones which change our thinking. I've seen articles claiming that gut bacteria affects thinking. Sapolsky at Stanford says that if you catch toxoplasmosis from cat poo it is likely to affect your taste in clothing. 

The mind evolved for survival, not for logical correctness. If ambivalence in belief is helpful -- "I don't believe that's a tiger in the grass, but it probably is" -- then logical contradiction will be selected for.

So logic is not the default mode. And that means that the rules of logic -- if you believe A you can't also believe not-A -- don't necessarily hold in people's thinking. Logic is something we can work on and strive for. We can manage it sometimes. But we've all seen cases of people who think they're being perfectly logical when in fact they weren't. (It may be the case with your claims here too. Perhaps you want the mind to work logically, so you ignore all the empirical evidence that it doesn't.) 

It would probably make sense for you to read something about phenomenology. Husserl, Merle-Ponty, Henry -- those guys. There is a huge and persuasive body of work on how the world of our experience differs from the world of math and the world that science tells about. Science can tell us the truth, but we may not experience the world that way. What Husserl calls the Lifeworld (Lebenswelt) -- our values, thoughts, and beliefs -- doesn't follow the world of logic, reasonable cause-and-effect, or the laws of nature as science describes them. As a simple example, time goes faster or slower depending on whether class is interesting or boring. Science tells us that's an illusion, but our experience tells us it's not. 

So if we want to talk about people rather than logic-robots, we have to think about how people function.

We are talking about people and people can not believe a god exists and not believe a god exists simultaneously, people do not function that way so I don't know what you are babbling about.