Why Agnostic?

[Tiberius]

Again, I was talking about specific gods; i.e. those that are described by their actions.

The god who created the world in 6 days in the Bible does not exist (because the world was not created in 6 days).

This doesn't imply that the God of the bible does not exist, or that any other description of god does not exist, just this one. The only clues we have to go on concerning the existence of gods are the actions that are placed on them. If these actions are false, the god that the action is placed upon is false.

If multiple actions are placed upon a god, and one of those actions is disproven, then that specific godly action is false, and that affects the god overall.

In other words, people used to believe that their God created the world in 6 days, made a flood that killed people, can listen to prayers, etc. The actions of creation in 6 days and the flood are false, so the god described above it false, leaving us with a god who can listen to prayers (the test for this is as impossible as any other test for god).

[Purple Rabbit]

If multiple actions are placed upon a god, and one of those actions is disproven, then that specific godly action is false, and that affects the god overall.

That's right. That god concept is disproven. Holding on to it contrary evidence becomes a delusional act.

In other words, people used to believe that their God created the world in 6 days, made a flood that killed people, can listen to prayers, etc. The actions of creation in 6 days and the flood are false, so the god described above it false, leaving us with a god who can listen to prayers (the test for this is as impossible as any other test for god).

The test has been done under controlled conditions. It shows there is no positive correlation.

God is like an onion. Layer by layer the attributes are peeled off by science. But also every time new layers are added by theists and theologians. This can go on forever, theist re-interpret time and time again and disagree considerably amongst each other. It is indicative for believe in faith but not for the existence of god.

[Rhizomorph13]

God is like a union: He requires 10 percent dues and promotes people based on a time schedule instead of through meritocracy. He handles labor disputes and ensures high pay for all members of the union. There is periodically a strike when the company and the union cannot come to a consensus. I like it.

Or maybe you meant onion? (Sorry I thought it was funny)

Back to your regularly scheduled program.

Rhizo

[Purple Rabbit]

God is like a union: He requires 10 percent dues and promotes people based on a time schedule instead of through meritocracy. He handles labor disputes and ensures high pay for all members of the union. There is periodically a strike when the company and the union cannot come to a consensus. I like it.

Or maybe you meant onion? (Sorry I thought it was funny)

Back to your regularly scheduled program.

Rhizo

Thanks Rhizo. It was onion what I meant, but your union argument seems to hold also.

[Tiberius]

The test has been done under controlled conditions. It shows there is no positive correlation.

I said "listen to prayers", not act on them. There is no way to test whether God listens to prayers, since such a test would actually have to prove God first, something I hold as impossible (for reasons previously stated).

[Kyuuketsuki]

• "You say God created the world in six days. Since there was no six-day creation, you are therefore...
  • ... wrong about God's existence."
    
  • ... wrong about God's nature."
    
  • ... wrong about how long creation took."

Not sure who this was a criticism of but as far as I am concerned, given that most Christians appear to base their belief in the Christian god on their bible, that the Christian bible has this in it and that that part must rationally be rejected is immediate cause to view the rest of the book in the same light (in other words each and every essential claim made within must be subject to critical examination.

It's not that I am, as some claim, a fundamentalist it's that I recognise that if one is going to treat the bible in parts as analogy whilst accepting/rejecting other parts as stated then one must justify why one does that and give rational reasons (and perhaps a methodology) as to why one does so.

Kyu

[Ryft]

If these actions are false, the god that the action is placed upon is false.

So if someone asserts that Thomas Tenison crowned two British monarchs, built a bridge across the River Thames near Oxfordshire county, and gave the sermon at the funeral of Queen Mary II, and later it is discovered that he built no such bridge, how does that affect the existence of Tenison, the entity that the action is placed upon? (In my formation of the issue, it would not be the case that they are wrong about Tenison's existence but, rather, wrong about Tenison building a bridge.)

[Tiberius]

So if someone asserts that Thomas Tenison crowned two British monarchs, built a bridge across the River Thames near Oxfordshire county, and gave the sermon at the funeral of Queen Mary II, and later it is discovered that he built no such bridge, how does that affect the existence of Tenison, the entity that the action is placed upon? (In my formation of the issue, it would not be the case that they are wrong about Tenison's existence but, rather, wrong about Tenison building a bridge.)

The Tenison that is described in the assertion does not exist. A Tenison may also exist that did everything but build the bridge, but he wasn't the one being described in the assertion.

The key difference is between the description of the actions of a being, and the actual actions of a being. If one of the described actions is false, then that description is false, *that* specific being (the one being described) does not exist.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Attn: forum members:

About three years ago I developed my own scale. Critical evaluations are welcomed.

1. Gnostic (Strong) Theists:
Those who view the world (a) as though God exists, and argue that his existence (b) can be conclusively established.

2. Agnostic (Weak) Theists:
Those who view the world (a) as though God exists, and argue that his existence (b) cannot be conclusively established.

3. Agnostic (Weak) Atheists:
Those who view the world (a) as though God does not exist, and argue that his non-existence (b) cannot be conclusively established.

4. Gnostic (Strong) Atheists:
Those who view the world (a) as though God does not exist, and argue that his non-existence (b) can be conclusively established.

Hey, I like that scale ... it has potential! OK, I STILL don't like the work "Gnostic" but the scale is simple and if you changed "conclusively established" to "inferred" (especially on the science adherent side) and then added a mid "I don't give a sh**!" position you might have something.

It also strikes me that the two of you could try getting together and developing a scale ... it seems tio me there will ALWAYS be problems when an atheist or a theist develops a scale solo.

Kyu

[Ryft]

The Tenison that is described in the assertion does not exist. ...

So then Thomas Tenison never existed at all. This would have to be the case, since all we have are collections of versions that describe him. Those versions of Tenison exist, but as for the man himself? No one can assert he ever existed (because such arguments would be based upon those versions). And the case seems to be even more desperate: there are multiple Thomas Tenisons, some that did not exist and many that did exist, depending on the truth or falsehood of the versions in question. It is an interesting although, I imagine, highly contestable position to hold. I wonder how it would fare under historical scholarship and leading ontological theories. Barring any modification from you, I'm going to have to see if this idea has ever raised its head before and, if it did, what criticisms it sustained.

The key difference is between the description of the actions of a being, and the actual actions of a being.

But I detect a seemingly insurmountable problem here, Adrian. There can be no such thing as "actual actions" of Tenison, for the only thing available to us is "descriptions of the actions" of Tenison. Was tending to James Scott before his execution an "actual action" of Tenison? How would you determine that without begging the question or special pleading?

1. If one of the described actions is false,
2. then that description is false,
3. *that* specific being (the one being described) does not exist.

I am not following how 2 leads to 3.