(July 15, 2009 at 2:20 am)Arcanus Wrote: How is God altered if the stories are allegorical? I am not aware that allegorical narratives by definition cannot portray actual entities (e.g., describing some characteristic of an entity via an allegorical aid).I'm talking about actual events. The God of the Old Testament who created the world in 6 days does not exist because there was no 6 day creation. The God of the Old Testament who flooded the world does not exist because there was no global flood.
etc.
(July 15, 2009 at 6:00 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: No Adrian, I AM listening I just don't agree with you ... that's the point!You said
Quote:we are still in a two state scenario i.e. you cannot "not know" whether you believe a given claim or not, you either do or you don'tYet I have never claimed agnosticism means "not knowing whether you believe" . This is something you keep on saying in your rebuttals, and it counts for nothing since you aren't actually responding to my point! Hence my accusation that you weren't listening. My view of agnosticism (the one original defined by Huxley) is that of actually knowing (absolute knowledge), not whether you know or don't know whether you believe a claim.
To be an agnostic according to Huxley, you say that it is impossible to know anything absolutely (although the word usually associates with purely "knowledge of God". In other words, if someone comes forward claiming knowledge of God, the agnostic says this is impossible. Typical brain in a jar scenario; we cannot know anything absolutely.
Quote:No, it's not ... no one can KNOW (nothing is absolute) therefore it cannot be about knowing.My point exactly...an agnostic is one who holds the view that nothing can be absolutely known. Atheism/Theism covers belief, Agnosticism/Gnosticism covers claims of knowledge. The gnostic claims spiritual knowledge, or that God's existence/non-existence can be "known". The agnostic claims otherwise.
Quote:No it wasn't for reasons already given.You didn't give any reasons. You said "I suppose I could (but won't since I don't greatly care) even argue that your use of it constituted a strawman" (emphasis mine). I'd love to see why you think it is a strawman...if you can find the time to "care" to give me a response.
Quote:I never said such a being could not be observed empirically ... my argument has always been that any claimed being must have observable aspects.Yet if such a being had omnipotence, surely it could alter the minds of observers like yourself? I mean, it's the standard argument used by philosophers. Technically speaking, the world could have been created last Thursday and everything made to look older than it really is, our minds created to think this way. It's also a creationist argument, but it does raise interesting questions. Perhaps you could explain how we can empirically observe such a being? It seems that if you agree with me that there are no absolutes, empiricism is meaningless when dealing with such a being. It can only tell us the probability of something existing of happening the way we think it does (relative knowledge); it cannot tell us anything absolutely.
Another example perhaps, but how would you test a being of omniscience? If a man walked into your office and said "Kyu, I am God". How would you be able to test this man? All tests for omniscience require the examiner to also be omniscient...
Quote:When I said you were closer to Frodo's POV I didn't mean you were a believer but that you were closer in philosophical terms and I believe you are ... based on something Frodo said you said (never saw you say it) it appears that you believe that to test for a god like being you need god-like tools, I do not agree, I believe that in order to affect this universe something has to have an effect and such effects can be measured, tested, examined ... that the being supposedly causing them is some whacked up super-dude is entirely irrelevant.I agree with you, but this only extends to gods who do not claim omnipotence. Gods who can do anything can cover up their changes, or even affect the entire nature of the universe to make it look like the changes ever happened. That is mine (and fr0d0's apparently) point about testing gods. Furthermore,
if a being had omniscience, they would know how to change the affect the universe without revealing themselves.
Also, you assume that we can measure everything in this universe, which I disagree with. You also seem to think empiricism holds all the answers, yet you have admitted that there are no absolutes. I cannot seem to bring together your two views; that there are no absolutes (I agree with this one), but that we can measure the affects of a god and deduce that it is...a god.
