Agnostics

[Excited Penguin]

[quote pid='1349578' dateline='1470067889']
... secular people, which agnostics clearly are.

My mother said she struggled with her faith every day.  She was an agnostic theist, one who believed that gods exist but didn't know that gods exist.
[/quote]

I was talking about agnostics, such as benny here. I know it doesn't make any sense without any additional qualifier, which is something I'm even now trying to argue.

[bennyboy]

Except, benny, that I agree with everything you've just said. I, too, would call those things God, can't solve X, believe solipsism is the only position we can hold with certainty. So, you see, we are cut of the same cloth on this issue, I can say that for certain after reading your particular phrasing of those ideas. Phrasing matters. You do not claim to know anything of those things,  id est you do not claim to know of the existence of any Gods, you merely allow for the possibility of their existence - if certain conditions were satisfied you would accept that possibility as truth.

The ambiguity of my belief is based on my knowledge state. I DO believe in God-- IF certain things are true about reality. I DO NOT believe in God-- IF certina things aren't true about reality. I both do and do not believe in God, until I open Schrodinger's box.

Benny, you are either a soft atheist, just like me, or a believer/worshipper of a deity. I would respect you very much if you accepted this and took a stand on the matter. Because you clearly cannot be both, by virtue of the respective definitions of the ideas at play here.

That's like saying Schrodinger's cat can't be both dead and alive. But one of the most fundamental facts of our physical reality is that it CAN. Wave/particle duality, etc. show that ambiguity until resolution is one of the most fundamental principles of reality.

[Excited Penguin]

Except, benny, that I agree with everything you've just said. I, too, would call those things God, can't solve X, believe solipsism is the only position we can hold with certainty. So, you see, we are cut of the same cloth on this issue, I can say that for certain after reading your particular phrasing of those ideas. Phrasing matters. You do not claim to know anything of those things,  id est you do not claim to know of the existence of any Gods, you merely allow for the possibility of their existence - if certain conditions were satisfied you would accept that possibility as truth.

The ambiguity of my belief is based on my knowledge state.  I DO believe in God-- IF certain things are true about reality.  I DO NOT believe in God-- IF certina things aren't true about reality.  I both do and do not believe in God, until I open Schrodinger's box.

Benny, you are either a soft atheist, just like me, or a believer/worshipper of a deity. I would respect you very much if you accepted this and took a stand on the matter. Because you clearly cannot be both, by virtue of the respective definitions of the ideas at play here.

That's like saying Schrodinger's cat can't be both dead and alive.  But one of the most fundamental facts of our physical reality is that it CAN.  Wave/particle duality, etc. show that ambiguity until resolution is one of the most fundamental principles of reality.

Yes, I get it, your lack of knowledge on the matter doesn't let you say conclusively say whether a god exists or not, it does allow you though to disbelieve a particularly grand proposition because of complete lack of evidence, such as a God.

So you either believe without evidence or disbelieve because it is lacking.

I'm not so sure that particular physical property applies across the board to everything in life. If I'm mistaken though, fortunately enough we have a couple of experts on the forum, let's hope they see our discussion and intervene, 'cause I've got a very strong feeling that you're talking way out of your ass here.

[bennyboy]

Yes, I get it, your lack of knowledge on the matter doesn't let you say conclusively say whether a god exists or not, it does allow you though to disbelieve a particularly grand proposition because of complete lack of evidence, such as a God.

So you either believe without evidence or disbelieve because it is lacking.

I'm not so sure that particular physical property applies across the board to everything in life. If I'm mistaken though, fortunately enough we have a couple of experts on the forum, let's hope they see our discussion and intervene, 'cause I've got a very strong feeling that you're talking way out of your ass here.

This isn't a science issue, it's a philosophical one. I'm using Schrodinger's cat as an example of something that is intrinsically ambiguous, and is not a matter of weight of opinion. This is what I'm saying about my view on God-- that it is in fact both possible to believe in something and its opposite, exactly equally, conditional on an unknown/unknowable state value.

[Mister Agenda]

I don't believe in boobledyboo. How could I?

Because "boobledyboo" as I define it means "bacon," and EVERYONE believes in bacon.  You just didn't know that, because you failed to ask the important question: "What do you mean by boobledyboo?"

I didn't know that because you substituted a nonsense word for 'bacon'.

[account_inactive]

Mmmm, I like bacon.

[Edwardo Piet]

I like anything that makes me go "mmm".

Mmm.

[bennyboy]

Because "boobledyboo" as I define it means "bacon," and EVERYONE believes in bacon.  You just didn't know that, because you failed to ask the important question: "What do you mean by boobledyboo?"

I didn't know that because you substituted a nonsense word for 'bacon'.

That's kind of the point.

[Excited Penguin]

Yes, I get it, your lack of knowledge on the matter doesn't let you say conclusively say whether a god exists or not, it does allow you though to disbelieve a particularly grand proposition because of complete lack of evidence, such as a God.

So you either believe without evidence or disbelieve because it is lacking.

I'm not so sure that particular physical property applies across the board to everything in life. If I'm mistaken though, fortunately enough we have a couple of experts on the forum, let's hope they see our discussion and intervene, 'cause I've got a very strong feeling that you're talking way out of your ass here.

This isn't a science issue, it's a philosophical one.  I'm using Schrodinger's cat as an example of something that is intrinsically ambiguous, and is not a matter of weight of opinion.  This is what I'm saying about my view on God-- that it is in fact both possible to believe in something and its opposite, exactly equally, conditional on an unknown/unknowable state value.

No, it's not possible, and that statement is ridiculous.

You either believe in a God or you don't. There is no other option here. Well, I suppose being dishonest about it is.

[Edwardo Piet]

Nah, regardless of honesty or dishonesty he still either believes or doesn't

But I know you know that EP