RE: Agnostic Atheism? Your opinions..
November 23, 2011 at 1:01 pm
(This post was last modified: November 23, 2011 at 1:52 pm by mayor of simpleton.)
How about the absense of any empirical evidence substanciating the necessity of the supernatural thing in questioning existing (empirically) in the first place?
In all due respect to the universe/cosmos, non-anthropomorphic implications of the orgin of space/time (meaning the the designations of creation/destruction/design/morals/agendas/intentions are all subject to our persection to exist in the first place... aka "intuitive") and the function of accumulation and adaptation...
What substanciates the necessity of any deity in the first place other than our anthropomorphic ego saying because (that's about as intuitive as you can get, or)?
Please please please... realize that analogies such as "no evidence for life existing anywhere else in the universe" is not a proper simile to "no evidence for a supernatural thing existing within the universe (a natural thing), with only natural evidences to support it".
Our problem here, again, is the mixing up of intuitive "evidences" as credible for empirical arguments (arguments a posteriori). All intuitive suppositions/premises within an a posteriori argument are false and inappropriate... arguments from ignorance at best. Unless we are allowing credence to a priori arguments for deities, intuitive premises are not true.
I haven't considered this, but please tell me that we are not diving into "existential arguments"... as these are not really arguments, but rather a statement of faith... it's difficult to argue or prove that which is considered to be "self-evident"... the error of the given being the answer to the question being posted.
Meow!
GREG
btw... this might be of interest as well.
"The Moving Goalpost" (a logical fallacy)
A method of denial arbitrarily moving the criteria for “proof” or acceptance out of range of whatever evidence currently exists. If new evidence comes to light meeting the prior criteria, the goalpost is pushed back further – keeping it out of range of the new evidence. Sometimes impossible criteria are set up at the start – moving the goalpost impossibly out of range -for the purpose of denying an undesirable conclusion.
In all due respect to the universe/cosmos, non-anthropomorphic implications of the orgin of space/time (meaning the the designations of creation/destruction/design/morals/agendas/intentions are all subject to our persection to exist in the first place... aka "intuitive") and the function of accumulation and adaptation...
What substanciates the necessity of any deity in the first place other than our anthropomorphic ego saying because (that's about as intuitive as you can get, or)?
Please please please... realize that analogies such as "no evidence for life existing anywhere else in the universe" is not a proper simile to "no evidence for a supernatural thing existing within the universe (a natural thing), with only natural evidences to support it".
Our problem here, again, is the mixing up of intuitive "evidences" as credible for empirical arguments (arguments a posteriori). All intuitive suppositions/premises within an a posteriori argument are false and inappropriate... arguments from ignorance at best. Unless we are allowing credence to a priori arguments for deities, intuitive premises are not true.
I haven't considered this, but please tell me that we are not diving into "existential arguments"... as these are not really arguments, but rather a statement of faith... it's difficult to argue or prove that which is considered to be "self-evident"... the error of the given being the answer to the question being posted.
Meow!
GREG
btw... this might be of interest as well.
"The Moving Goalpost" (a logical fallacy)
A method of denial arbitrarily moving the criteria for “proof” or acceptance out of range of whatever evidence currently exists. If new evidence comes to light meeting the prior criteria, the goalpost is pushed back further – keeping it out of range of the new evidence. Sometimes impossible criteria are set up at the start – moving the goalpost impossibly out of range -for the purpose of denying an undesirable conclusion.
Moral is as moral does and as moral wishes it all too be. - MoS
The absence of all empirical evidence for the necessity of intuitive X existing is evidence against the necessary empirical existence of intuitive X - MoS (variation of 180proof)
Athesim is not a system of belief, but rather a single answer to a single question. It is the designation applied by theists to those who do not share their assumption that a god/deity exists. - MoS
I am not one to attribute godlike qualities to things that I am unable to understand. I may never be in the position to understand certain things, but I am not about to create an anthropomorphic deity out of my short-commings. I wish not to errect a monument to my own personal ignorace and demand that others worship this proxy of ego. - MoS
The absence of all empirical evidence for the necessity of intuitive X existing is evidence against the necessary empirical existence of intuitive X - MoS (variation of 180proof)
Athesim is not a system of belief, but rather a single answer to a single question. It is the designation applied by theists to those who do not share their assumption that a god/deity exists. - MoS
I am not one to attribute godlike qualities to things that I am unable to understand. I may never be in the position to understand certain things, but I am not about to create an anthropomorphic deity out of my short-commings. I wish not to errect a monument to my own personal ignorace and demand that others worship this proxy of ego. - MoS
