Which god? The god you believe in is very different from the one that many others believe in - do you have evidence or proof in the nonexistence of their gods?
In any case, to have either proof or evidence of the nonexistence of some god requires that god to be defined. We can prove a tri-omni god does not exist because he is logically contradictory. We by definition can have neither proof nor evidence of the non-existence of a deistic god. We have lots of evidence of the non-existence of the god of Bible literalists, but not proof since their god can magic anything up. So your statement indicates you haven’t thought through this issue.
As I am not familiar with the properties ascribed to other deities, I’m pretty much going with what I know: the Christian/Jewish/Islamic God. I am agnostic towards That Guy. If Vishnu or Odin or Cthulu are alleged to be all-powerful, then I would have to be agnostic towards them, as well (and I’d be atheistic with respect to my personal beliefs regarding their existence).
Functionally equivalent, sure: He’s not necessary for the proper care and function of the Universe. But, again, that does not logically necessitate His non-existence.
I also believe that Agnosticism only exists precisely because gods (well, God, anyway, for the most part, especially over the past couple millenia) are a precocious bunch who refuse to make themselves publicly known. So I’m not so sure that it’s a blanket statement “We can never, under any circumstances, know about the existence of God”, but rather more “Given things as they are, we cannot know anything about the existence of God”. If God were more of an extrovert in the modern day (assuming, of course, that He were to exist at all), I’m pretty sure agnosticism wouldn’t exist as a philosophy (or atheism, for that matter).
And that is exactly why some theists insistence that atheism involves proof of the nonexistence of god or even claims to knowledge that gods don’t exist is so bogus. It seems very reasonable to me to believe that these gods don’t exist even if I don’t know that much about them.
If God were more of an extrovert in the modern day (assuming, of course, that He were to exist at all), I’m pretty sure agnosticism wouldn’t exist as a philosophy (or atheism, for that matter).
[/QUOTE]
That’s why pTerry writing about the gods throwing rocks at the atheists windows is so funny. On Discworld I wouldn’t be an atheist. (Or an agnostic.)
Which reminds me of a beef I have with the movies and TV. There the atheist or skeptic disbelieves through faith, and keeps on disbelieving in the face of clear evidence of aliens, esp or god (like in Improperly Touched by an Angel.) The implication seems to be that believers don’t have to consider why we don’t believe, since it is a fault in our peronality and not based on evidence. All the evidence is there, and we don’t believe it out of blindness. C. S. Lewis is a particular offender in The Last Battle.
I don’t follow your logic, either agnostics are atheists, or proof of God doesn’t exist. But it does, millions of people have experienced God. Just because science don’t like personal experience doesn’t make it any less real. God is personal.
I have thought it through zillions of times, I experienced it. There is only One God, but thousands of interpretations of this One God. That don’t change anything because people define God as they want. No one can really define God, God is what God is. God is experienced. The only definition I have is unconditional love. I believe that is the nature of God, as least that is what I felt upon being in God’s presence.
As I see things (in my, admittedly, haughty & superior way), agnosticism is a position as regards knowledge, where atheism is a position as regards beliefs.
In other words, I’m agnostic in that I have seen no proof of an omnipotent being, yet consider it impossible to disprove the existence of one. I’m atheistic in the sense that the absence of evidence makes it impossible for me to have faith in one.
Thinking you experienced something is not the same as thinking it through. We may not be able to define some gods fully, but we sure can define their interactions with us. The Bible has God taking physical action in the world. The deistic god does no such thing. Are they the same god? Some cultures have many gods, some have one. Is that equivalent? Is anyone having a claim of god experience correct? if not, how can you tell which are and which aren’t?
I call myself agnostic because, considering we’re talking about- some kind of all-knowing being with powers far beyond what we can understand- it’s silly to think us puny little human critters can know fuck-all about something so much larger than us.
But we’re only talking about knowledge of existence here. If God wrote “I exist” using the stars, we don’t really have to consider his anatomy to accept that there is a god.
OK, for the sake of discussion let’s assume half of the people in the world were born color-blind. The other half could see all the colors. Now, the color-blind people were skeptical of the others “believing” in color, and asked for a definition of the color “red.” Like what it looked like, what good was it, and how the world was improved by the color “red.”
Here you give me the definition of the what is meant when we say I believe in “red.”
And here I will give you the definition of what is meant when we say I believe in God.
We are working way too hard here. Forget peanut butter.
Religion = Superstitious. Bear with me, not demeaning religion but I think we can all agree that there are superstitious people around.
Superstitious - Have a set of beliefs (must wear old college football shirt on game day, lucky belt for special occasions, certain acts have consequences, etc…); Have rites (salt over the shoulder, crossing fingers, etc…); Have a being they believe in (vampire, medicine man, lucky charm person, etc…).
Atheist - Superstition is bunk, doesn’t have to go around actively denying it or debunking it. Just ignores it.
Me - Agnostic - Not superstitious but my mom is dead, I don’t believe I can harm her, yet I still step over cracks in the sidewalk.
Glad you brought this up. The color-seeing people can show that they are able to differentiate between objects that otherwise look identical to the color blind. Different people who claim to be color-seeing will sort objects identically, even when done in a double-blind experiment. So the definition of red is: “a characteristic of light reflectivity that allows some people to reliably differentiate among objects that look identical to others”.
The color-blind can tell there is a difference between a white object and a red object by the different shades of gray, and most other colors as well, so your definition fails. It does not enable them to tell which shade of gray is red. Not interested in double-blind experiments, only the definition of red so that a color-blind person can “know” red when they see it.
You are changing what you asked. In your previous post you said: 'Here you give me the definition of the what is meant when we say I believe in “red.” ’
Now you are asking for a definition that allows a color-blind person to “see” red. This may not be possible. We can, however, demonstrate to a color-blind person’s satisfaction that red exists. I don’t believe you can do that for god.
Well, the paragraph above told more of what I wanted, but the reason for the whole thing is this.
Half of the people don’t see color, while the other half do. The half that don’t become skeptical about the existence of color and think the half that does see color are ignorant, superstitious, self-deluded, etc. They keep asking for evidence and when the half that can see color try to explain what they see, the half that can’t calls them names, etc. They say personal experience is not reliable, and it doesn’t matter how many say they see color they can still be wrong.
Sound familiar? No, I don’t think any color can be explained to someone who is color-blind. Just as I don’t think God can be explained to someone who has not experienced God. But those that have experienced color and God know that color and God exist. You can’t read about color and know it, and you can’t read about God and know God. Personal experience is very important to understand the world we live in. How about thoughts, emotions, light, and many, many other things we need personal experience to understand. Science is faulty in many areas of “logic” and need to quit trying to invade areas they don’t have personal experience with.
OK, there it is, at least a small part of it. Incidentally in the spirit world I have seen colors unknown in the physical, but please don’t ask me to define/describe them. God is real.
Well, the color blind people could do a simple experiment. They could have the people who could see color identify a set of identical items with the colors that they are. These things are hollow. The color blind people take the items sorted by this thing “color” and put in pieces of paper distinguishing the sets. They then mix them up, and have the color seeing people resort them, not looking inside. If they can do so perfectly (as they can) they can either see color or have X ray vision.
God would be even easier to demonstrate, assuming he exists. Why doesn’t he want everyone to know about him. Why does he “inspire” people in contradictory ways. Either god doesn’t exist, or he’s as dumb as a turnip, or he doesn’t give a crap if we believe in him or not.
I just provided an experiment that would convince the color-blind that color exists, and that certain people can differentiate colors. If ESP experiments were as successful, we’d all be convinced of that. Now, if the so called color-seeing people either refused to do the experiment, or always failed, and claimed that the color blind people were messing it up, we’d be suspicious. If they insisted on being left alone in a room, and afterwards could do it, we’d be very suspicious. Of course the colors used would be the ones indistinguishable to the color blind.
No, the question is whether colors (or gods) exist. It could be easily demonstrated that colors do. We know how the inside of an atom works, but I doubt anyone truly understands it intuitively.
By the same logic protons, radio waves, ultrasonic frequencies and DNA, to name a few things, don´t exist.
Just because I can´t see something directly with my bare eyes doesn´t mean it is not real; there are many ways to make invisible but real world things appear to our senses. No such thing with a god, there´s no experiment that will prove it.