(August 17, 2014 at 1:04 pm)Blackout Wrote:Hi Blackout, I guess this is the corollary discussion to the one we're having on the 'Prove your claim' thread.
1. As sure as you need to be to make a positive claim. This will differ from person to person. I would say that I need 100% certainty to make a positive statement; it's a point of intellectual honesty for me.
2. Yup. The Arahamic gods are impossible (based on their attribute definitions) therefore I can be 100% certain of their non-existence. The claims for the existence of deist gods are impossible to address as there can be no evidence so whilst I don't have to care about their existence, either way, I can make no gnostic claim.
3. That's entirely up to you! Gnosis regards your claims to knowledge, your 'justified-true' beliefs. If you can provide a justification that satisfies your standards of evidence, you will make a gnostic claim. For example, AronRa puts it this way: "If you can't show it, you don't know it" and "PEARL" (Physical Evidence And Reasoned Logic). That states his method of justification very clearly. On the other end of the spectrum, Ken Ham states 'The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it!'. Once again, very clear standards of evidence.
4. Generally, I'm agnostic. So many theistic gods have such vague or deliberately ethereal definitions as to put them outside the realms of honest enquiry. I simply put my hands up, on grounds of intellectual honesty, and say 'I don't know' (and sometimes 'I can never know'). That doesn't mean I won't argue the toss regarding the likelihood of such gods.
Quote:Also why are most theists gnostics? Why the hell to they claim to have knowledge on something that has no evidence?I started to cover this off in 3.: standards of evidence. Indoctrination also plays a part: there are people who rigourously compartmentalise their religious beliefs and therefore don't apply the same standards that they might apply when addressing other matters.
Quote:There is no evidence for unicorns and most people will generally claim to know unicorns don't exist, since the possibility is unlikely and illogical. Could we apply the same to the god hypothesis and dismiss it on the basis that since there is no evidence (just like it happens with bigfoot, dragons, unicorns, etc.) god can't exist just like unicorns or dragons can't exist (unless evidence is presented on the contrary)?This is the point I was making about 'likelihood'. I dismiss god claims until evidence can be put forward. That doesn't mean I make a gnostic claim against the god in question, it simply means that I find no justification for belief.
Sum ergo sum
