Why Are Theists Afraid of Agnostics?

[Coloradomtnman]

His point is that he cannot get himself to believe in God without empirical evidence.

His other point appears to me to be that he maintains it is a fact or truth that such evidence does not exist. I would in no way agree that to be a fact or a truth. I think the evidence is legion.

Which raises the question how two equally intelligent beings can be in total disagreement on the evidence. There, I suppose, are all kinds of reasons that may be the case. However, in my opinion more people refuse to believe because of pride or because of a fear of acknowledging God’s reality will make them feel more accountable for their actions or lack of action. Others are for some reason genuinely isolated from being able to comprehend no matter how much they may want to believe.

I suppose most Christians believe because it makes and sense and because they were told by reliable sources of its truthfulness and never questioned it, but gratefully accepted it. Still others, like myself, do not need faith or parental pleadings. The miracles are undeniable, and they are almost exclusively Christian in nature.

I know. I was trying to get him to respond. As for his lack of evidence supports his position claim...... Obviously his exposure to the scientific method is limited at best to make such a claim. Lack of evidence only means there is a lack of evidence, nothing more, nothing less, the wrong questions might be being asked, the tests poorly constructed, all potential variables not recognized, known or included, etc, etc, etc.
Basically there is no empirical evidence supporting or refuting God. If he's looking for it it's not there, the choice is his. essentually he's simply trying to justify his current position, maybe a backhand slap at fundamentalists or Christians in general, or trying to convince others of the "logic" of his claim/position. Heck, maybe all the above.

Lack of evidence can mean that there is only a lack of evidence. However, it can be applied to be lack of existence for something. There is no evidence of unicorns, for example. Does that mean we have not found any evidence for them or does that mean that there probable aren't any unicorns? Based on ALL of the evidence, it seems improbable that there are unicorns. Same with God. It doesn't prove there are no unicorns, and the same for God. Still, it doesn't support believing there are unicorns are God.

No, it simply means there is no known evidence of unicorns, again, nothing more, nothing less, anything else is pure supposition. Improbability, as used in your original premise has no basis as we are dealing with the pure application of the scientific method therefore everything is possible/probable until proven (empirically) to be otherwise.
By claiming improbability you have entered the realm of "faith".........

Yes, anything is possible. But not anything is probable. In Earth's gravity, drop a rock a trillion times. How many times would it float? Out of a trillion? Not many, if at all. The proposition of a rock floating is improbable. There is no evidence of floating rocks. Therefore believing that rocks float is irrational. Believing that they may float is being an agnostic. The fact that there is no evidence of floating rocks supports the proposition that rocks don't float. It doesn't prove it, but it does support it. Believing in floating rocks despite the lack of definitive proof doesn't make sense.

Again, you are applying the metaphysical to science to draw your conclusion. Gravity is an observable phenomenon and therefor a very poor comparison. You brought up empiricism then used the scientific lack of the empirical to postulate a conclusion. That goes against every aspect of pure physical science and the scientific method.
Based on pure science every unknown is possible/probable until empirically proven otherwise, choosing to "believe" something is impossible/improbable is, as noted in quotes, entirely faith based.

Alright, conceded.

Using the scientific method properly, how does one conclude that God definitively exists? And if one can't, how does one justify believing in God anyway?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Alright, the title is sensationalistic but it got you to click my thread, right?

No, the title does not rise to the sensational; for me it stops at around quizzical. The atheists in my family are at the agnostic end of the scale. There is nothing fearsome about them. They want physical proof of God--and they want God to act, or reveal Himself in a certain way. They have set their standards for God, God does not meet those standards, so God may as well not exist. They admit they have little interest in knowing or drawing closer to the God who is.

Secondly, they kind of get a kick out of independently doing it all on their own. They don't need God as He chooses to be. If it turns out there is a God, they would still prefer that God left them to themselves.

They could get on board with a God who is mighty fire, powerful mover, and swifter than the greatest wind--but a God who can be found in the tiniest of whispering sounds arouses little interest.

Are you like 'my' agnostic atheists?

Not at all. I'm extremely curious to the origins or everything - whatever that may be: a mighty God or a subtle God or something else totally unexpected.

My standards for evidence for God are the basic standards for any evidence: it's definitive, it's irrefutable, it leads to God on its own and the presupposition of God doesn't lead the evidence to that conclusion. In other words, an unbiased examination of all the evidence leads to the conclusion that God exists.

Were I to be convinced that God exists, with the characteristics of the God of the Bible, Christ, and the Holy Spirit, I would become one of those insufferable born-again types passionate about my new found existence and wanting desperately to share the good news with everyone.

As of yet, I remain unconvinced.

God is a spiritual being, not a physical one. What kind of physical evidence do you hope is uncovered? Isn't hoping for physical evidence of a spiritual being sort of like hoping to uncover the fingerprints of a trout?

Does God not manifest His will in the physical world? If He does not, how can one who exists in the physical world know of a non-physical existence? And what does existence itself mean if something does not exist in the physical world?

According to teachings the physical is an extension of God and Gods will unfortunately or fortunately the Bible states God gave man "Free Will", man has horribly misused it.

Would you agree that since God gave humankind free will, that He necessarily granted humankind the ability to reason? My argument being that what use is the free will to make decisions if one hasn't the ability to reason to consider the consequences or reasons for making a decision. If so, why do we need faith instead of finding God through our reasoning and choosing His salvation through free will?

 

[westwall]

Alright, the title is sensationalistic but it got you to click my thread, right?

However, there is some truth to it. Theists almost always label all unbelievers as atheists, either not understanding that agnostics also don't believe in their God or purposely or unconsciously leaving that designation out because agnosticism is unassailable.

Theists won't debate a self-proclaimed agnostic. I think for the same reason.

Theists typically define atheists as those who believe there is no God. Atheists define themselves as either believing there is no God or not convinced there is a God. I think theists like to define atheists as making the positive claim that there is no God because that is a weaker position than the position that theists' claims are not convincing.

It's very telling. The weaker position relies on an unsubstantiated claim - really a claim that can not be rationally supported at all. A faith-based claim, if you will.

We've all heard that counter from the faithful that atheism requires more faith than theism. That doesn't work with agnosticism.

It seems as though we all recognize wherher consciously or unconsciously that agnosticism is the only rational position: that belief is irrelevant to the big questions of existence. That believing there is no God is just a irrational as believing there is. Well, not AS irrational.

There is no evidence for the existence of God, and, although theists would never admit it, lack of evidence IS evidence that supports that no God exists. It doesn't PROVE it, but it supports it.

Agnosticism is a refrain from belief. It isn't fence sitting. It isn't cowardice. Its an inability to be convinced by irrational arguments, unsubstantiated claims, and insufficient evidence. Its simply not finding convincing arguments for making a decision. Perhaps that requires a leap of faith. But truth doesn't require faith or belief - truth is truth whether one believes it or not. But to convince others of truth requires definitive evidence and to convince others to believe requires a desire to subjugate rationality for a misdirected attempt to substantiate your own beliefs.

This agnostic will wait for the evidence. Until then, I can't believe.

I disagree. I, as a practicing agnostic , have enjoyed many a theologic discussion with theists.

 

[westwall]

I know. I was trying to get him to respond. As for his lack of evidence supports his position claim...... Obviously his exposure to the scientific method is limited at best to make such a claim. Lack of evidence only means there is a lack of evidence, nothing more, nothing less, the wrong questions might be being asked, the tests poorly constructed, all potential variables not recognized, known or included, etc, etc, etc.
Basically there is no empirical evidence supporting or refuting God. If he's looking for it it's not there, the choice is his. essentually he's simply trying to justify his current position, maybe a backhand slap at fundamentalists or Christians in general, or trying to convince others of the "logic" of his claim/position. Heck, maybe all the above.

Lack of evidence can mean that there is only a lack of evidence. However, it can be applied to be lack of existence for something. There is no evidence of unicorns, for example. Does that mean we have not found any evidence for them or does that mean that there probable aren't any unicorns? Based on ALL of the evidence, it seems improbable that there are unicorns. Same with God. It doesn't prove there are no unicorns, and the same for God. Still, it doesn't support believing there are unicorns are God.

No, it simply means there is no known evidence of unicorns, again, nothing more, nothing less, anything else is pure supposition. Improbability, as used in your original premise has no basis as we are dealing with the pure application of the scientific method therefore everything is possible/probable until proven (empirically) to be otherwise.
By claiming improbability you have entered the realm of "faith".........

Yes, anything is possible. But not anything is probable. In Earth's gravity, drop a rock a trillion times. How many times would it float? Out of a trillion? Not many, if at all. The proposition of a rock floating is improbable. There is no evidence of floating rocks. Therefore believing that rocks float is irrational. Believing that they may float is being an agnostic. The fact that there is no evidence of floating rocks supports the proposition that rocks don't float. It doesn't prove it, but it does support it. Believing in floating rocks despite the lack of definitive proof doesn't make sense.

Again, you are applying the metaphysical to science to draw your conclusion. Gravity is an observable phenomenon and therefor a very poor comparison. You brought up empiricism then used the scientific lack of the empirical to postulate a conclusion. That goes against every aspect of pure physical science and the scientific method.
Based on pure science every unknown is possible/probable until empirically proven otherwise, choosing to "believe" something is impossible/improbable is, as noted in quotes, entirely faith based.

Alright, conceded.

Using the scientific method properly, how does one conclude that God definitively exists? And if one can't, how does one justify believing in God anyway?

There is no way to show whether God exists, or not. It is simply not a provable thing.

 

[RandomVariable]

You haven't been reading this forum lately I take it. Us theists have been pummelling everything and everyone who comes our way. Thanks for stepping up. You have a point to that catchy intro?

Excellent. I'm glad you're up to the challenge.

So my main point has to do with the nature of why beliefs are held, in particular beliefs in God. What makes you so sure that God exists that you BELIEVE it but not so sure that you KNOW it? I'm drawing a distinction here between belief and knowledge and about sufficient and valid reason for what one believes and for what one knows.

Uh, you might want try someone less, well, familiar with God. I'm happy to play though. I know God because I talk with him every day.

So then the question is, how do I know you aren't delusional about that? How do you show an unbeliever that just because you speak to Him everyday, God exists. That's hardly a convincing argument for any perspective outside of yours? Does He respond? Do you hear His voice? If so, how do you know you aren't hallucinating? How do I know you aren't hallucinating?

Oh my gosh! I have been stating that I talk to God I do not know how many times and that is the first time I have actually got questioned. I have absolutely no idea why not but all I can say is, About time!

There certainly a lot of questions in there. Let's see. Let's get back to the first question. Second question, does he respond. Yes. Hear voice. No. How do I know I am not hallucinating? (You actually asked that twice, understandably.) Wow, this is a tricky one. Here is one way. I have to constantly work at hearing him. It is not just like, "Wait, someone is talking to me." It is more like, "What, did you just say something?" "Did I just hear something?" I have to tune my ear to him. Reading the Old Testament has been the biggest help. He came to me so I do not know if this is generally true or an isolated incidence. I am blessed that he noticed me, unfortunately, fortunately maybe, he has not seemed to notice anyone else, at least not that I know of. That probably does not explain much but I will leave it at that and you can ask more questions where you find the biggest holes.

See, isn't this fun?! Debating is great! It's a great opportunity to put one's own positions to the test or to think more about those positions. To learn about one's self. I like learning.

You probably already know what my next question is: how do I know you aren't deluded or hallucinating? Everything you've written above is personal experience. And there is evidence in your response of potential bias on your part.

Everyone is deluded in someway, just watch American Idol auditions to see one kind of way that may manifest itself. People tend to believe things about themselves or about external reality that aren't true, or aren't exactly true. We want to believe that we are being as objective as possible, but bias is hard to recognize and delusion even more so. I think I'm really smart. Am I deluding myself? If I am, how would I recognize it? By having it shown to me in such a way that I can no longer deny that I am dumb or at least of middling intelligence? When confronted in such a way that I have to face a difficult admission that goes against everything I believe about myself, would I calmly accept it or refuse by further delusionment?

I gave it some deep thought. God was there but did not give me an answer. Maybe in the morning. It really is a very difficult question, of course. One thing I can say is that it took a whole bunch to convince me. Why God keep at it I may never know. It is like something floating in front of you and you reach out expecting to pass right through it and you grab it. You bounce it against the floor and you hear it hit and come back up to your hand. You put it back where you found it, floating in the air like that, and walk away. You come back the next day and it is still there. This happens day after day. And then you find it in other places until you know it is there whenever you look for it, you believe in it, you miss it when it is gone, you know that it wants you to search for it and find it. It is God and it is wonderful. He is wonderful.

 

[Ringel05]

No, the title does not rise to the sensational; for me it stops at around quizzical. The atheists in my family are at the agnostic end of the scale. There is nothing fearsome about them. They want physical proof of God--and they want God to act, or reveal Himself in a certain way. They have set their standards for God, God does not meet those standards, so God may as well not exist. They admit they have little interest in knowing or drawing closer to the God who is.

Secondly, they kind of get a kick out of independently doing it all on their own. They don't need God as He chooses to be. If it turns out there is a God, they would still prefer that God left them to themselves.

They could get on board with a God who is mighty fire, powerful mover, and swifter than the greatest wind--but a God who can be found in the tiniest of whispering sounds arouses little interest.

Are you like 'my' agnostic atheists?

Not at all. I'm extremely curious to the origins or everything - whatever that may be: a mighty God or a subtle God or something else totally unexpected.

My standards for evidence for God are the basic standards for any evidence: it's definitive, it's irrefutable, it leads to God on its own and the presupposition of God doesn't lead the evidence to that conclusion. In other words, an unbiased examination of all the evidence leads to the conclusion that God exists.

Were I to be convinced that God exists, with the characteristics of the God of the Bible, Christ, and the Holy Spirit, I would become one of those insufferable born-again types passionate about my new found existence and wanting desperately to share the good news with everyone.

As of yet, I remain unconvinced.

God is a spiritual being, not a physical one. What kind of physical evidence do you hope is uncovered? Isn't hoping for physical evidence of a spiritual being sort of like hoping to uncover the fingerprints of a trout?

Does God not manifest His will in the physical world? If He does not, how can one who exists in the physical world know of a non-physical existence? And what does existence itself mean if something does not exist in the physical world?

According to teachings the physical is an extension of God and Gods will unfortunately or fortunately the Bible states God gave man "Free Will", man has horribly misused it.

Would you agree that since God gave humankind free will, that He necessarily granted humankind the ability to reason? My argument being that what use is the free will to make decisions if one hasn't the ability to reason to consider the consequences or reasons for making a decision. If so, why do we need faith instead of finding God through our reasoning and choosing His salvation through free will?

Not a theologian, just relating teachings.

 

[Meriweather]

No, the title does not rise to the sensational; for me it stops at around quizzical. The atheists in my family are at the agnostic end of the scale. There is nothing fearsome about them. They want physical proof of God--and they want God to act, or reveal Himself in a certain way. They have set their standards for God, God does not meet those standards, so God may as well not exist. They admit they have little interest in knowing or drawing closer to the God who is.

Secondly, they kind of get a kick out of independently doing it all on their own. They don't need God as He chooses to be. If it turns out there is a God, they would still prefer that God left them to themselves.

They could get on board with a God who is mighty fire, powerful mover, and swifter than the greatest wind--but a God who can be found in the tiniest of whispering sounds arouses little interest.

Are you like 'my' agnostic atheists?

Not at all. I'm extremely curious to the origins or everything - whatever that may be: a mighty God or a subtle God or something else totally unexpected.

My standards for evidence for God are the basic standards for any evidence: it's definitive, it's irrefutable, it leads to God on its own and the presupposition of God doesn't lead the evidence to that conclusion. In other words, an unbiased examination of all the evidence leads to the conclusion that God exists.

Were I to be convinced that God exists, with the characteristics of the God of the Bible, Christ, and the Holy Spirit, I would become one of those insufferable born-again types passionate about my new found existence and wanting desperately to share the good news with everyone.

As of yet, I remain unconvinced.

God is a spiritual being, not a physical one. What kind of physical evidence do you hope is uncovered? Isn't hoping for physical evidence of a spiritual being sort of like hoping to uncover the fingerprints of a trout?

Does God not manifest His will in the physical world? If He does not, how can one who exists in the physical world know of a non-physical existence? And what does existence itself mean if something does not exist in the physical world?

According to teachings the physical is an extension of God and Gods will unfortunately or fortunately the Bible states God gave man "Free Will", man has horribly misused it.

Would you agree that since God gave humankind free will, that He necessarily granted humankind the ability to reason? My argument being that what use is the free will to make decisions if one hasn't the ability to reason to consider the consequences or reasons for making a decision. If so, why do we need faith instead of finding God through our reasoning and choosing His salvation through free will?

I do believe in free will, and also tend to think faith the size of a mustard seed is what prompts us to find God through reasoning and prayer.

 

[Ringel05]

I know. I was trying to get him to respond. As for his lack of evidence supports his position claim...... Obviously his exposure to the scientific method is limited at best to make such a claim. Lack of evidence only means there is a lack of evidence, nothing more, nothing less, the wrong questions might be being asked, the tests poorly constructed, all potential variables not recognized, known or included, etc, etc, etc.
Basically there is no empirical evidence supporting or refuting God. If he's looking for it it's not there, the choice is his. essentually he's simply trying to justify his current position, maybe a backhand slap at fundamentalists or Christians in general, or trying to convince others of the "logic" of his claim/position. Heck, maybe all the above.

Lack of evidence can mean that there is only a lack of evidence. However, it can be applied to be lack of existence for something. There is no evidence of unicorns, for example. Does that mean we have not found any evidence for them or does that mean that there probable aren't any unicorns? Based on ALL of the evidence, it seems improbable that there are unicorns. Same with God. It doesn't prove there are no unicorns, and the same for God. Still, it doesn't support believing there are unicorns are God.

No, it simply means there is no known evidence of unicorns, again, nothing more, nothing less, anything else is pure supposition. Improbability, as used in your original premise has no basis as we are dealing with the pure application of the scientific method therefore everything is possible/probable until proven (empirically) to be otherwise.
By claiming improbability you have entered the realm of "faith".........

Yes, anything is possible. But not anything is probable. In Earth's gravity, drop a rock a trillion times. How many times would it float? Out of a trillion? Not many, if at all. The proposition of a rock floating is improbable. There is no evidence of floating rocks. Therefore believing that rocks float is irrational. Believing that they may float is being an agnostic. The fact that there is no evidence of floating rocks supports the proposition that rocks don't float. It doesn't prove it, but it does support it. Believing in floating rocks despite the lack of definitive proof doesn't make sense.

Again, you are applying the metaphysical to science to draw your conclusion. Gravity is an observable phenomenon and therefor a very poor comparison. You brought up empiricism then used the scientific lack of the empirical to postulate a conclusion. That goes against every aspect of pure physical science and the scientific method.
Based on pure science every unknown is possible/probable until empirically proven otherwise, choosing to "believe" something is impossible/improbable is, as noted in quotes, entirely faith based.

Alright, conceded.

Using the scientific method properly, how does one conclude that God definitively exists? And if one can't, how does one justify believing in God anyway?

We believe when we go to sleep we will wake up, we believe when we go about our daily routine nothing will happen to us, we believe the sun will come up tomorrow, we believe that if we eat something we've been eating for decades we won't have an anaphylactic reaction. We do many things on faith every day, why is it such a stretch to have faith in an all powerful benevilent God?

 

[indiajo]

There is no way to show whether God exists, or not. It is simply not a provable thing.

This is not true. God, if he existed, could prove it. Anywhere, anytime.
Very simple, by the way. And, in my humble opinion, he would, If he would be as fair, loving, caring for the naked monkeys as the faithful always tell. Why should he rely on the made up and totally inconsitent stories of liars?

Ok, he works in mysterious ways, burning bushes and so on. Magic Las Vegas tricks. We know THAT already.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“Theists typically define atheists as those who believe there is no God.”

Which is ridiculous given the fact one cannot 'not' believe in something that never existed as perceived by theists to begin with.

The mistake theists make is to incorrectly believe that their 'god' is 'real' and that those free from faith 'reject' that 'reality,' manifesting in an 'aberration.'

 

[Ringel05]

“Theists typically define atheists as those who believe there is no God.”

Which is ridiculous given the fact one cannot 'not' believe in something that never existed as perceived by theists to begin with.

The mistake theists make is to incorrectly believe that their 'god' is 'real' and that those free from faith 'reject' that 'reality,' manifesting in an 'aberration.'

Obviously you did not read the discussion between Coloradoman and myself or you would not have committed such a logical fallacy.

 

[sealybobo]

Alright, the title is sensationalistic but it got you to click my thread, right?

However, there is some truth to it. Theists almost always label all unbelievers as atheists, either not understanding that agnostics also don't believe in their God or purposely or unconsciously leaving that designation out because agnosticism is unassailable.

Theists won't debate a self-proclaimed agnostic. I think for the same reason.

Theists typically define atheists as those who believe there is no God. Atheists define themselves as either believing there is no God or not convinced there is a God. I think theists like to define atheists as making the positive claim that there is no God because that is a weaker position than the position that theists' claims are not convincing.

It's very telling. The weaker position relies on an unsubstantiated claim - really a claim that can not be rationally supported at all. A faith-based claim, if you will.

We've all heard that counter from the faithful that atheism requires more faith than theism. That doesn't work with agnosticism.

It seems as though we all recognize wherher consciously or unconsciously that agnosticism is the only rational position: that belief is irrelevant to the big questions of existence. That believing there is no God is just a irrational as believing there is. Well, not AS irrational.

There is no evidence for the existence of God, and, although theists would never admit it, lack of evidence IS evidence that supports that no God exists. It doesn't PROVE it, but it supports it.

Agnosticism is a refrain from belief. It isn't fence sitting. It isn't cowardice. Its an inability to be convinced by irrational arguments, unsubstantiated claims, and insufficient evidence. Its simply not finding convincing arguments for making a decision. Perhaps that requires a leap of faith. But truth doesn't require faith or belief - truth is truth whether one believes it or not. But to convince others of truth requires definitive evidence and to convince others to believe requires a desire to subjugate rationality for a misdirected attempt to substantiate your own beliefs.

This agnostic will wait for the evidence. Until then, I can't believe.

Let me explain it to you simple. No one can be a true "atheist" unless they are a god themselves. But what is the opposite of theist?

So if the reality is that unless we are a god we can't know for sure, same goes for you theists. So unless you have met god or are a god, then you can't be a "theist" if we can't actually call ourselves atheists.

The most rational position to have is agnostic atheist because the probability of there being a god is not an equally probable outcome. But lets say it's 50/50 chance there is a god. That would make you an agnostic theist.

In other words you are someone who doesn't know but leans towards believing in god(s).

If you aren't sure and don't lean either way you are an agnostic.

So if you keep calling yourselves theists, please keep calling us atheists because we know as much as you do.

Only thing is you guys claim you know. You think you know. You don't.

 

[sealybobo]

“Theists typically define atheists as those who believe there is no God.”

Which is ridiculous given the fact one cannot 'not' believe in something that never existed as perceived by theists to begin with.

The mistake theists make is to incorrectly believe that their 'god' is 'real' and that those free from faith 'reject' that 'reality,' manifesting in an 'aberration.'

Why can't someone 'not' believe in something that never existed?

I don't believe in UFO's, Big Foot, Santa, Virgin Births, talking snakes, 350 year old men, living in a whale for 3 days, Leprechans.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Lack of evidence can mean that there is only a lack of evidence. However, it can be applied to be lack of existence for something. There is no evidence of unicorns, for example. Does that mean we have not found any evidence for them or does that mean that there probable aren't any unicorns? Based on ALL of the evidence, it seems improbable that there are unicorns. Same with God. It doesn't prove there are no unicorns, and the same for God. Still, it doesn't support believing there are unicorns are God.

No, it simply means there is no known evidence of unicorns, again, nothing more, nothing less, anything else is pure supposition. Improbability, as used in your original premise has no basis as we are dealing with the pure application of the scientific method therefore everything is possible/probable until proven (empirically) to be otherwise.
By claiming improbability you have entered the realm of "faith".........

Yes, anything is possible. But not anything is probable. In Earth's gravity, drop a rock a trillion times. How many times would it float? Out of a trillion? Not many, if at all. The proposition of a rock floating is improbable. There is no evidence of floating rocks. Therefore believing that rocks float is irrational. Believing that they may float is being an agnostic. The fact that there is no evidence of floating rocks supports the proposition that rocks don't float. It doesn't prove it, but it does support it. Believing in floating rocks despite the lack of definitive proof doesn't make sense.

Again, you are applying the metaphysical to science to draw your conclusion. Gravity is an observable phenomenon and therefor a very poor comparison. You brought up empiricism then used the scientific lack of the empirical to postulate a conclusion. That goes against every aspect of pure physical science and the scientific method.
Based on pure science every unknown is possible/probable until empirically proven otherwise, choosing to "believe" something is impossible/improbable is, as noted in quotes, entirely faith based.

Alright, conceded.

Using the scientific method properly, how does one conclude that God definitively exists? And if one can't, how does one justify believing in God anyway?

We believe when we go to sleep we will wake up, we believe when we go about our daily routine nothing will happen to us, we believe the sun will come up tomorrow, we believe that if we eat something we've been eating for decades we won't have an anaphylactic reaction. We do many things on faith every day, why is it such a stretch to have faith in an all powerful benevilent God?

I think my main point in response would be: Why is it necessary to believe in God? From an unbeliever's POV, belief isn't necessary. What I mean is, let's take the Big Bang Theory for example. I don't believe in the BBT because it's a theory and not a belief system. It doesn't require my belief. The BBT is our current best description of the evidence we have observed. It may be inaccurate. It is incomplete. But so far its the best we have. I don't believe in it, and so no faith is required. Same for the theories of evolution. So far all evidence for God, from my perspective, is incomplete. All the differing descriptions of God may be inaccurate. There is no definitive proof. So why should I believe?

If reason is a necessary component of free will, why must I make that leap from being unsure due to insufficient evidence to belief? Belief seems irrelevant.

Having faith that I will wake after sleeping is not the same as having faith in a creator, especially one which is only described in ancient texts or by those who have a personal investment in their religion or religious beliefs (which is a potential bias and therefore not totally credible).

Does that make sense?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Alright, the title is sensationalistic but it got you to click my thread, right?

However, there is some truth to it. Theists almost always label all unbelievers as atheists, either not understanding that agnostics also don't believe in their God or purposely or unconsciously leaving that designation out because agnosticism is unassailable.

Theists won't debate a self-proclaimed agnostic. I think for the same reason.

Theists typically define atheists as those who believe there is no God. Atheists define themselves as either believing there is no God or not convinced there is a God. I think theists like to define atheists as making the positive claim that there is no God because that is a weaker position than the position that theists' claims are not convincing.

It's very telling. The weaker position relies on an unsubstantiated claim - really a claim that can not be rationally supported at all. A faith-based claim, if you will.

We've all heard that counter from the faithful that atheism requires more faith than theism. That doesn't work with agnosticism.

It seems as though we all recognize wherher consciously or unconsciously that agnosticism is the only rational position: that belief is irrelevant to the big questions of existence. That believing there is no God is just a irrational as believing there is. Well, not AS irrational.

There is no evidence for the existence of God, and, although theists would never admit it, lack of evidence IS evidence that supports that no God exists. It doesn't PROVE it, but it supports it.

Agnosticism is a refrain from belief. It isn't fence sitting. It isn't cowardice. Its an inability to be convinced by irrational arguments, unsubstantiated claims, and insufficient evidence. Its simply not finding convincing arguments for making a decision. Perhaps that requires a leap of faith. But truth doesn't require faith or belief - truth is truth whether one believes it or not. But to convince others of truth requires definitive evidence and to convince others to believe requires a desire to subjugate rationality for a misdirected attempt to substantiate your own beliefs.

This agnostic will wait for the evidence. Until then, I can't believe.

Let me explain it to you simple. No one can be a true "atheist" unless they are a god themselves. But what is the opposite of theist?

So if the reality is that unless we are a god we can't know for sure, same goes for you theists. So unless you have met god or are a god, then you can't be a "theist" if we can't actually call ourselves atheists.

The most rational position to have is agnostic atheist because the probability of there being a god is not an equally probable outcome. But lets say it's 50/50 chance there is a god. That would make you an agnostic theist.

In other words you are someone who doesn't know but leans towards believing in god(s).

If you aren't sure and don't lean either way you are an agnostic.

So if you keep calling yourselves theists, please keep calling us atheists because we know as much as you do.

Only thing is you guys claim you know. You think you know. You don't.

I'm well aware of this sealy. Were you responding to me?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Not at all. I'm extremely curious to the origins or everything - whatever that may be: a mighty God or a subtle God or something else totally unexpected.

My standards for evidence for God are the basic standards for any evidence: it's definitive, it's irrefutable, it leads to God on its own and the presupposition of God doesn't lead the evidence to that conclusion. In other words, an unbiased examination of all the evidence leads to the conclusion that God exists.

Were I to be convinced that God exists, with the characteristics of the God of the Bible, Christ, and the Holy Spirit, I would become one of those insufferable born-again types passionate about my new found existence and wanting desperately to share the good news with everyone.

As of yet, I remain unconvinced.

God is a spiritual being, not a physical one. What kind of physical evidence do you hope is uncovered? Isn't hoping for physical evidence of a spiritual being sort of like hoping to uncover the fingerprints of a trout?

Does God not manifest His will in the physical world? If He does not, how can one who exists in the physical world know of a non-physical existence? And what does existence itself mean if something does not exist in the physical world?

According to teachings the physical is an extension of God and Gods will unfortunately or fortunately the Bible states God gave man "Free Will", man has horribly misused it.

Would you agree that since God gave humankind free will, that He necessarily granted humankind the ability to reason? My argument being that what use is the free will to make decisions if one hasn't the ability to reason to consider the consequences or reasons for making a decision. If so, why do we need faith instead of finding God through our reasoning and choosing His salvation through free will?

I do believe in free will, and also tend to think faith the size of a mustard seed is what prompts us to find God through reasoning and prayer.

Why is faith, in this context, important? For free will to be meaningful, we must also be able to reason. Faith is letting go of reasoning to make a decision based on what? Desire? Flip of a coin? Enculturation? Pragmatism? Shouldn't one believe in God because the evidence for Him is irrefutable, undeniable, definitive, and He is the ONLY conclusion one can come to after examining all the evidence, for and against, objectively using the anility to reason He granted us? Shouldn't there be no evidence against the existence of God?

 

[Ringel05]

God is a spiritual being, not a physical one. What kind of physical evidence do you hope is uncovered? Isn't hoping for physical evidence of a spiritual being sort of like hoping to uncover the fingerprints of a trout?

Does God not manifest His will in the physical world? If He does not, how can one who exists in the physical world know of a non-physical existence? And what does existence itself mean if something does not exist in the physical world?

According to teachings the physical is an extension of God and Gods will unfortunately or fortunately the Bible states God gave man "Free Will", man has horribly misused it.

Would you agree that since God gave humankind free will, that He necessarily granted humankind the ability to reason? My argument being that what use is the free will to make decisions if one hasn't the ability to reason to consider the consequences or reasons for making a decision. If so, why do we need faith instead of finding God through our reasoning and choosing His salvation through free will?

I do believe in free will, and also tend to think faith the size of a mustard seed is what prompts us to find God through reasoning and prayer.

Why is faith, in this context, important? For free will to be meaningful, we must also be able to reason. Faith is letting go of reasoning to make a decision based on what? Desire? Flip of a coin? Enculturation? Pragmatism? Shouldn't one believe in God because the evidence for Him is irrefutable, undeniable, definitive, and He is the ONLY conclusion one can come to after examining all the evidence, for and against, objectively using the anility to reason He granted us? Shouldn't there be no evidence against the existence of God?

How I drew my personal conclusion (after decades of wrestling with just such questions is; Cause and effect, for every action there is a reaction, for every decision/action there is a consequence. Free will, according to God is to chose Him or not, there is a consequence to either decision. I would rather believe and be wrong then not believe and be wrong........ But that is only one aspect of the equation. Did my becoming "born again" make me a holy roller? Obviously it didn't, my relationship, like everyone elses, is personal, I'm not called to proselytize though in my humble opinion God is manifested all around us every second of every day, we just have to look and see it.
Scientific process is one thing, believing in someone/thing greater than we are is something else. The way I look at it, as I have stated many times, is I'm not responsible for anyone's "salvation" and or "sins", I have my own demons to wrestle so faith is important if we make it important though we take so many things on faith throughout our daily lives.
As with everything else in life it's a personal choice, no one can convince you one way or the other, we're not God.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Theists won't debate a self-proclaimed agnostic.

how do you debate with someone who has no opinion?.....

 

[Taz]

Theists won't debate a self-proclaimed agnostic.

how do you debate with someone who has no opinion?.....

Not no opinion, my opinion is that I see no proof for or against the existence of god(s).

 

[Taz]

Not at all. I'm extremely curious to the origins or everything - whatever that may be: a mighty God or a subtle God or something else totally unexpected.

My standards for evidence for God are the basic standards for any evidence: it's definitive, it's irrefutable, it leads to God on its own and the presupposition of God doesn't lead the evidence to that conclusion. In other words, an unbiased examination of all the evidence leads to the conclusion that God exists.

Were I to be convinced that God exists, with the characteristics of the God of the Bible, Christ, and the Holy Spirit, I would become one of those insufferable born-again types passionate about my new found existence and wanting desperately to share the good news with everyone.

As of yet, I remain unconvinced.

God is a spiritual being, not a physical one. What kind of physical evidence do you hope is uncovered? Isn't hoping for physical evidence of a spiritual being sort of like hoping to uncover the fingerprints of a trout?

Does God not manifest His will in the physical world? If He does not, how can one who exists in the physical world know of a non-physical existence? And what does existence itself mean if something does not exist in the physical world?

According to teachings the physical is an extension of God and Gods will unfortunately or fortunately the Bible states God gave man "Free Will", man has horribly misused it.

Would you agree that since God gave humankind free will, that He necessarily granted humankind the ability to reason? My argument being that what use is the free will to make decisions if one hasn't the ability to reason to consider the consequences or reasons for making a decision. If so, why do we need faith instead of finding God through our reasoning and choosing His salvation through free will?

I do believe in free will, and also tend to think faith the size of a mustard seed is what prompts us to find God through reasoning and prayer.

Why, is god hiding?