Agnosticism cannot be taken and treated as a unified belief system as it is merely a state of lack of faith. Some agnostics hold particular belief models that lead them to this state however these models are so astoundingly variable as to make two given agnostics often incomparable. They won’t necessarily even share one belief that unifies them just the state that their individual beliefs have led them to which is also highly variable. One may be fairly certain god/s exists but feel that it’s not truly knowable while anothermay be fairly sure it doesn’t but not feel they have sufficient evidence to discredit the possibility, while another may not even bother to form an opinion as they see it as unknowable and unnecassary.

As for the mention earlier that god/s is provable, that if he where to show up that would constitute proof. Well it would only constitute proof to those who saw him. If you don’t disregard people who claim god/s have appeared to them as either crazy or liars then it happens all the time, therefore it must be true he exists. However I’m sure you would disregard it if he appeared to someone else. If he showed up to you then it is easily and likely would be dismissed as hallucination. If he showed up to all man at once we still can argue it was all a mass halucintion from the depths of a unversal conciousness and not neccesarily the god/s it appeared to be. If it left behind a scientifically unexplainable miraclulous peice of evidence, that would mean nothing as their is plenty science has yet to explain (dark energy anyone?).

All sensory experience is fallable and filtered through one’s personal belief model. If the model is strong enough it can sufficiently validate or invalidate almost any belief. But PROOF thats a whole different monster, and is arguably impossible outside of predefind unverifiable or man-made models.

Of course the refutations of the absurdities of the judeo-xn god are “common,” after all the problems are glaring, the errors of the judeo-xn god notion simplistic in the extreme, and the facts quite straight-forward. Combine this with the overabundance of those willing to deny reality in favor of faith/religion, and you find that since the false and absurd claims about the existence of impossible beings are many, the quite simple and sound refutations are also many.

So do you have anything to salvage this impossible notion other than the ineffective dismissal tactic of calling the refutations “common?”

TXStorm: Actually, I’ve been planning on addressing your arguments (they’re common) on my own blog for some time. I’ll do it now. If you’re interested in what I think on the matter, visit me at http://talamini714.blogspot.com

Boy did you miss the point on that one. A leprechaun could just “show up”. God would not just “show up”. God would not exist in the material, “natural” world like you or I or leprechauns or rocks. He would exist outside this world, separate from it.

Why? Like Jennsen says, I though God was all-powerful…

And, like I said, who says leprechauns exist in the physical world?

Besides, God wouldn’t have to “show up” physically. In the OT, he supposedly did a lot of things that would certainly convince most atheists, if they happened today. Why don’t they happen? Even by Christ’s time, he had stopped doing any “big” miracles… why is that? Could it be because, unlike the OT books, the gospels were written just 70-100 years after Jesus, and if they mentioned some huge, world-shaking events, people at the time would say “but my grandfather never mentioned such a thing…”

No, the illogicality of agnostics is that they hold the Christian god, and every other supernatural / made up creature, to different standards. No wonder Christians sometime say that “everyone, deep inside, knows there’s a god”… that’s what I would conclude, too, by watching agnostics only.

Just to repeat: the lack of explicit physical evidence in this world for the existence of God implies neither the existence nor non-existence of God.

However: the lack of explicit physical evidence in this world for the existence of leprechauns implies non-existence of leprechauns.

Clear?

Your meaning is indeed clear. However, I couldn’t disagree more. Same standards of proof for every mythological being, please.

Without proof of something’s existence, the burden of proof is on the side who says it exists. Or, else, we would believe in anything – including the leprechauns, werewolves, goblins, and so on. After all, just because you’ve never seen them…

Boy did you miss the point on that one. A leprechaun could just “show up”. God would not just “show up”. God would not exist in the material, “natural” world like you or I or leprechauns or rocks. He would exist outside this world, separate from it.

Just to repeat: the lack of explicit physical evidence in this world for the existence of God implies neither the existence nor non-existence of God.

However: the lack of explicit physical evidence in this world for the existence of leprechauns implies non-existence of leprechauns.

Clear?

For instance the judeo-xn god idea contains the notion that this hypothetical being is omnipotent. However the very notion of omnipotence is itself non-sensical and contradictory. Amusingly this appears even in the xn world with the simplistic, but no less powerful, questions like “can ‘god’ create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it?” No matter how one answers this (as long as one actually answers it) the notion of this god loses omnipotence. If he can lift all rocks, then he lacks the ability to create rocks he cannot lift, therefore not omnipotent. If he can create rocks that he cannot lift, then he lacks the ability to lift all rocks therefore not omnipotent.

Similiar problems arise with regard to omniscience, omnibenevolence, and even the “creator of all” aspects. Toss in the problem of evil and nothing remains upon which to hang this judeo-xn notion of “god.”

If this “god” does not possess these basic and necessary charateristics, then what on earth could one mean with the word “god?”

So while we of course should recognize that we do not have all of the answers, that is to say that we are not omniscient, and allow that it is at least theoretically possible that there exists some being which is a god, but fails to have any of these characteristics of the judeo-xn god, we ought not fall prey to allowing that we cannot disprove the existence of this particular “god” given the logically impossible descriptions given of it.

The first part is correct: by definition, God is a concept that cannot be proven or disproven, we are “unable to to know if God exists”.

But that’s where you are wrong. The existence of God is provable. It’s just not disprovable.

There are many ways in which the existence of God (or a god) could be proved. The easiest of which would be God to, simply, show up. A more detailed list is here.

What we can never do is disprove the existence of God.

But, in fact, we can’t disprove the existence of anything! Think about it. Can you disprove the existence of leprechauns? No. You haven’t seen the whole world. You haven’t been everywhere, haven’t look under every nook and cranny. And even if you had, an apologist could say leprechauns exist “in the spirit world” most of the time, and leave no physical evidence when they appear here.

You can’t ever prove things don’t exist – they just might exist somewhere you haven’t looked yet, and it’s a big universe out there. The problem with that is that, if you’re a real agnostic (and not just an agnostic about the Christian god, like most seem to be), you won’t ever say anything doesn’t exist, because its non-existence hasn’t been proved (and can never be), and so you will say that you don’t have enough knowledge to decide either way.

However, if things can be proved but not disproved, logic dictates that the burden of proof is on the side that can prove anything at all. We can’t prove that there are no werewolves, but I’m convinced that they don’t exist; if you believe they do, you’d better come up with one. Same thing with God.

But no matter what anybody says they’ve seen, anybody will be able to explain it away. In fact, this is an item of Christian doctrine. Even if a man were to come back from the dead, they would not believe.

I don’t think that’s quite true. If I witnessed an OT-style miracle, I might not believe instantly, but I’d consider it quite likely that God, or more precisely a god existed. (even if there was a god, I don’t think he (or she) would be like the one described in the Bible, who is so “small”, limited and full of the prejudices of the era that he was obviously man-made).

From my experience, it’s actually Christians who are impossible to convince, and very adept at explaining away contradictions and blatant lies in the Bible (wasn’t Jesus supposed to come back before his generation died out, 2000 years ago? It’s clearly stated there, yet apologists explain that embarassing verse away – they have about 1950 years of experience doing so!). Have you an idea of how many dates for the apocalypse – clear dates, not just “real soon” – have been predicted by Christianity, and were, of course, wrong, since we’re still here? We’ve been in the “end times” for almost 2000 years now…

Really, I hate it when Christians have the nerve to say that atheists are the stubborn, closed-minded ones, who wouldn’t believe even if they saw obvious miracles with their own eyes. We’re not the ones who believe that there’s something above reason or above reality…

I don’t believe that statement to be misleading at best. The first part is correct: by definition, God is a concept that cannot be proven or disproven, we are “unable to to know if God exists”. But the second part is distracting; if I believe we are unable to know if God exists, what difference does it make that there is no evidence of God? By definition there is no proof of God. God is not a concept that may be observed or proven from within our world. In fact, I would take it a step further; if I assume that God exists as defined, would there be explicit physical evidence of his existence? I think the answer is “no”. I think we would observe exactly what we see around us.

Note that this is significantly different from the other examples the author provided: leprechauns, unicorns, vampires, and werewolves. If I assume those to exist would I expect to see explicit physical evidence of their existence? Absolutely. All of those examples are provable within this world.

Personally I don’t think that agnosticism is making any statement regarding the likelihood of either the existance or non-existence of God. What agnosticism says is this: the lack of explicit physical evidence in this world for the existence of God implies neither the existence nor non-existence of God. And I don’t think that’s intellectually dishonest at all.

Oh and if a man came back from the dead and told me god was real.
I would probably consider it to be a possibility. Simply due to the fact that 30 seconds without oxygen and our brain dies. (Unless in extremely cold circumstances.)

But no matter what anybody says they’ve seen, anybody will be able to explain it away. In fact, this is an item of Christian doctrine. Even if a man were to come back from the dead, they would not believe. God doesn’t want to force anybody to believe in Him, as would be the case if He showed Himself every time anybody called. I don’t understand why – But that’s the way He is. He’s not a natural phenomenon that you can prove or disprove. He’s a person that you can meet.

I’m not trying to convince you that God exists. I’m just trying to show you that it’s not ridiculous for me to believe that He does.

Now that said, I understand that the intent is to remark upon “agnosticism” and “knowledge” as they are used colloquially, not to their actual meanings.

Matt: how exactly have you observed God? A “feeling deep inside you”? (you seem too intelligent to believe in “proof” such as a likeness of the Virgin Mary in tree bark, or something that looks a bit like the face of Jesus in a slice of pizza…) Did you observe a true, big miracle, like God “used” to do in the Old Testament? One of the much smaller miracles Jesus does in the Gospels? The even smaller ones the apostles later did, which were always either changing someone’s mind, or “cure” epileptic seizures?

No, sorry, I really think any “indication” of the existence of God in your life is of the “feeling in your heart” kind. Correct me if I’m wrong, though.

Would you “trust me about it” if I told you I saw Bigfoot yesterday? Please don’t be offended, but it’s not a question of “trust” at all. I know you’re being completely honest; I simply think you’re wrong, that it was wishful thinking which made you “see” (or, more exactly, feel) something that isn’t really there.

Anyway, this one is about agnosticism, and how agnostics refuse to see that one hypothesis is much more likely than the other… and we’re both getting offtopic.

If I say that I’ve seen somebody, I’m not bringing you a proof. I’m bringing you an observation. If you don’t want to believe what I say, you have to decide not to trust me – Call me crazy and dismiss me.

We disagree about the axioms, and until we agree about them, there’s no proving anything. All proofs use step-by-step logic to go from axioms to a conclusion. Of course our conclusions are different – I’ve observed something that you haven’t, and you don’t trust me about it.

How would the non-existance hypothesis be more logical?
In all reality we are without evidence either way.

Are you prepared to say the same about werewolves, vampires, goblins, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and Dogar and Kazon, the Fetid Twin Gods of Darkness? Because there’s no proof whatsoever that any one of them doesn’t exist.

Don’t you (people, not just Kren) see what I mean? Anyone can make up something, and then of course there’s no proof that that something doesn’t exist. But that doesn’t mean that its existence and non-existence are equally likely.

If I come up and say “dragons exist”, it would be absurd to say that you can’t say whether they exist or not, as both possibilities are likely. One of them is MUCH more likely than the other, and it’s ridiculous – and intellectually coward – to refuse to see that.

Really, the burden of proof is on the side of those who say that something exists, when that something is completely undetectable by any means, isn’t logically required to exist, has never been seen (except for books written thousands of years ago by nomadic shepherds, and full of contradictions), evidence contradicts the stories told about him (the flood, fossils, and so on), and isn’t really more than just another one in a line of other “deities” whose existence has been discredited thousands of years ago.

Of course, if you’re prepared to say that it’s equally likely that dragons exist and that they don’t, then there’s really nothing more I can say here…

I realize in most cases, without ANY evidence of something, that thing is usually concidered non existant, BUT this isn’t anything physical we are talking about here. So I don’t think either one is more logical than the other.