|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4839 days) Posts: 400 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Faith vs Skepticism - Why faith? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
You don't know if cheese exists or not? Of course I know that cheese exists.
See, this is the point: You might very well know if it exists or not, but you can't make any statement regarding it until someone tells you what "it" is. You can't even say, "I don't know," because you are not in a position to make a declaration regarding your opinion: You don't have enough information to say. Because I don't have enough information to say, I am left without knowing if it exists or not. And if I don't know if it exists or not, then I'm agnostic.
You can't claim anything because you don't know what is being discussed. Your opinion might be that it does exist. It might be that it doesn't. It might be that you don't know. But until you know what "it" is, you cannot say anything at all on the subject. When the concept is not defined, I am unable to know if it exists or not. If I don't know if it exists, then I'm agnostic. I, quite literally, lack the knowledge of whether or not an undefined concept exists.
quote: If you know what "it" is, then it's called "I don't know." But if you don't know what "it" is, then there is no statement that can be made of any kind. Thus, there is no "knowing" or "not knowing" axis at all. Regardless of my knowledge of the definition of "it", if I do not know if it exists or not, then I'm agnostic by definition. You've asserted that I cannot make a statement, can you support that beyond repeating yourself? And you don't even have a name for the position between not knowing and knowing? I doubt it exists at all.
quote: You're missing the point. If you don't know what "it" is, it is nonsensical to talk about "knowing," "not knowing," or anything in between. Because if you do make such a statement, we end up with the ridiculous result that you have found yourself in, claiming you don't know if cheese exists.
But I didn't know what it was so I, quite literally, did not know if it existed or not. I don't see the problem here. Once the concept became defined, I had the knowledge of whether or not it exists. What's ridiculous about that?
quote: Incorrect.
So I DO know whether or not it exists!? No, that can't be right. Hrm. There must be some other position between not knowing and knowing. But you can't tell me what it is... I guess you're just plain wrong and I do, in fact, not know if it exists.
If the other person is talking about cheese, then of course you have knowledge of whether or not it exists. For you to claim "I don't know" puts you in the ridiculous position of saying you don't know if cheese exists. But if I don't know what they're talking about, then how can I know if it exists or not?
You're at a party. You're talking to someone. Some friends are having a discussion near you, but you aren't paying attention. Suddenly, you are pulled out by someone tapping you on the shoulder and asking, "What do you think?" If you say, "I don't know," your friends will laugh at you, "What do you mean you don't know if cheese exists?" Instead, you respond, "What are you talking about? Tell me what you're talking about and then I'll tell you what I think." Until you are told what the subject is, it is impossible for you to make a claim as to what your position is. You have a position and it isn't in question, but you can't divulge it even to yourself until you are told what on earth is being discussed.
I think its clearer what you are saying: For a concept like cheese, since I know that it exists then I'm not agnostic towards it. And if someone is talking about cheese and I don't know that it is what they are talking about, I can't be agnostic about it because I'm already not agnostic towards cheese. So I have to be in some undefined position until I know what they're talking about. My problem with this is that this undefined postion doesn't exist. If I don't know what they're talking about then I simply lack the knowedge of whether or not exists, regardless of my knowledge that cheese exists. I think this undefined position has come about as a debate point because its already been claimed in another argument and now that its been brought to the surface, you want to maintain your previous position. But when it requires inventing positions that don't exists, I think that's when its getting ridiculous.
If you know what is being talked about, it's called, "I don't know." If you don't know what is being talked about, then the entire concept of "knowing," "not knowing," or anything in between is nonsensical because you have no basis upon making a claim.
So what do you call the position between not knowing and knowing?
If you insist you don't know, you wind up in the ridiculous position of having to defend why you say you don't know if cheese exists. And I can easily defend it by saying that I didn't know what they were talking about. The basis for making my claim of agnosticism for its existence was that I didn't know what "it" was, so it was impossible for me to have the knowledge of whether or not it exists. And if I lack the knowledge of whether or not something exists, then I'm agnostic to it by definition. So what's the problem with that? Please don't bother just repeating yourself that I am unable to take that position. Why can't I? And what's wrong with my argument? Don't I, in fact, lack the knowledge of whether or not an undefined conept exists?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Well exactly. When you say "I don't know" you are not talking about the same concept I am. Concept X was always cheese in my mind. If I had defined what we were talking about you would have given a very different answer. Thus the concept needs to be defined to get a truthful and meaningful answer regarding belief. You have kind of proved my point. Meaningfullness aside, I did, in fact, lack the knowledge of whether or not your concept existed. There wasn't anything I could have been other than agnostic about it.
OK. Lets try again. You ask me if god exists. You know what you mean by "god" in some sense but you won't tell me. I say "I don't know" because you haven't defined "god" to me. You take this as agnosticism towards your concept of god. But I am not agnostic towards your concept of god. Any more than you are agnostic towards cheese. Getting me to say "I don't know" is simply a silly word game.
I think you're playing the word games. "Getting you to saY"... seriously? If you admit that you don't know something then I've "gotten" you!? That seems paranoid. Whether you're willing to admit it or not, if you don't know what my god concept is, then you do, in fact, lack the knowledge of whether or not it exists. How could you possible know either way?
quote: Oh yeah? Well my concept of god is cheese. You've just proclaimed that you don't know if cheese exists or not. Now who's playing the word games.... It seems that you just have to regard yourself as an atheist regardless of what knowledge you don't have. No matter what, even if you don't know anything about the concept at all, you just cannot not regard yourself as an atheist!? You feel that if you admit that you don't know if it exists or not, then I will have "gotten" you Maybe you do have cognitive dissonance, but either way, you're comming off as a major psycho to me.
Let's try again. I am thinking of a concept. I know what it is. But I am not going to tell you. Do you believe concept X exists? Are you really declaring your agnosticism to my private concept? Or is "I don't know" simply the result of me refusing to tell you what the hell concept X is? Wait a minute... last time you said that you weren't going to tell me what it is and then we I did proclaim my position, you whipped it right out to say that I had undying agnosticism towards cheese and then you accuse ME of playing word games... Anyways, because I don't know what concept you are referring to, I am unable to have knowledge of whether or not it exists. Since I lack the knowledge of its existence, I am agnostic towards it by definition. What's wrong with that?
There has to be a concept to apply opinion and reasoning to. But being unable to apply that opinion and reasoning would leave you with a lack of knowledge on whether or not the concept exists and you would be left with the position of agnosticism.
If you or RAZD won't tell us what you mean by "god" then any statement of "I don't know" is no more or less indicative of agnosticism towards that concept of god than was your declaration of "I don't know" indicative of your agnosticism towards cheese. OOOoooohh. SO you're afraid that if you admit agnosticism towards an ill defined concept, then you'll no longer be an atheists towards that god. I think this might really be cognitive dissonance. Wow. I'm not out to get you and its no big deal if you admit that you lack knowledge. Although refusing to admit it makes you come off as being a little crazy.Besides, admitting agnosticism doesn't make you a non-atheists when its simply a lack of belief, no?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2981 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
But the situation here is a bit more complex because I think there is a concept. RAZD and CS do know (at least vaguely) what they believe in. But they won't say. I don't think they can say. I'm sure they'd love to explain it, but they lack any knowledge about it to give any description at all. This remains a problem in their entire argument, and has been a problem since the pseudo-thread. We remain with an ambiguous, nondescript concept that we have to contend with and weigh in on. They can't explain it in any more detail than that, so how can we be asked to take a position on it? First they need to explain in detail what we're talking about, then I'll try to match it to anything I've witnessed in reality. If they can't do this, then I remain skeptical (not to god him/her self) but to their concept of it. In your cheese example, the first thing that would need to be agreed on is that we all recognize what cheese is; if anyone is in the dark about cheese, or never seen cheese before, you would need to explain what cheese is, show them some cheese, describe what its made of, then you can proceed with your question. Likewise, if none of us have ever seen a god, you would need to explain what god is before we can proceed with the questioning. If the person asking the question, has never seen a god and can't give you a better description than an ambiguous, unknowable force, it would be the same as saying cheese is an ambiguous, unknowable food. In other words, it would be nonsense. I find it pointless to say that I'm agnostic to ambiguous, unknowable foods, in the same way that I find it pointless to say that I'm agnostic to ambiguous, unknowable forces. I take no position until they define what we're talking about. CS and I had this exchange in the pseudo-thread, starting with message 265:
quote: So CS and I agreed that it can be seen both ways. He thinks its agnosticism, while I feel its nothing at all. I hope this helps advance your discussion with him - but, probably not. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
But the situation here is a bit more complex because I think there is a concept. RAZD and CS do know (at least vaguely) what they believe in. But they won't say. Its not simply a refusal to say. Back in Message 393 you wrote:
quote: I didn't reply because it'd have been a long explanation and irrelevant to my point. But part of the problem is that the god concept is ambiguous. Its not just a refusal to say, but an inability to accurately describe it in a way that makes sense enough to type it out here. It is more of a lack of information than it is a refusal to supply it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
But the situation here is a bit more complex because I think there is a concept. RAZD and CS do know (at least vaguely) what they believe in. But they won't say.
I don't think they can say. I'm sure they'd love to explain it, but they lack any knowledge about it to give any description at all. This remains a problem in their entire argument, and has been a problem since the pseudo-thread.
Yes, you're much closer than Straggler.
CS and I had this exchange in the pseudo-thread, starting with message 265:
quote: So CS and I agreed that it can be seen both ways. He thinks its agnosticism, while I feel its nothing at all.
Quite right. I maintain though, that you do lack the knowledge of the existence of an unknown concept and that agnosticism is a correct description of that position.
I find it pointless to say that I'm agnostic to ambiguous, unknowable foods, in the same way that I find it pointless to say that I'm agnostic to ambiguous, unknowable forces. The point is that you do, in fact, lack the knowledge and there's nothing wrong with admitting it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
If the concept doesn't exist how can any position on it exist?
When you ask the question "Does god exist?" do you literally have no idea what it is you are asking about? If you don't then I don't see how you can claim belief in it.If you do then any claim of "I don't know" on my part is identical to your proclaimed agnosticism towards cheese. Meaningless and misleading.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Is god a conscious being immune from empirical detection?
If CS or RAZD will even go that far in defining whatever it is we are talking about then we can have a reasoned opinion on the matter. If they literally have no damn idea at all what it is they believe in, not even the vaguest of concepts possible, then frankly they are mad for stating belief in "it".
I hope this helps advance your discussion with him - but, probably not. There is either a concept or there isn't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
CS writes: But part of the problem is that the god concept is ambiguous. Its not just a refusal to say, but an inability to accurately describe it in a way that makes sense enough to type it out here. It is more of a lack of information than it is a refusal to supply it. Be as ambiguous as you like. But when you ask "Do you believe god exists?" unless you have literally no idea what it is you yourself mean by "god" (and have stated belief in) then any claim of "I don't know" on my part is as stupid and misleading as was your proclaimed agnosticism towards cheese. If I don't know what concept it is you are asking me about I am not agnostic. I just don't know what the fuck we are talking about. They are (blatantly) not the same position.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
If the concept doesn't exist how can any position on it exist? What do you mean? If the concept doesn't exist then the position is that it doesn't exists Or do you mean if we're left without a concept? If we're not talking about something then we're not talking about anything
When you ask the question "Does god exist?" do you literally have no idea what it is you are asking about? No, I do have some idea.
If you do then any claim of "I don't know" on my part is identical to your proclaimed agnosticism towards cheese. Meaningless and misleading. Yet honest and true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
If I don't know what concept it is you are asking me about I am not agnostic. I just don't know what the fuck we are talking about. But if you don't know what we're talking about, then its impossible for you to know if it exists or not and you must be agnostic.
But when you ask "Do you believe god exists?" unless you have literally no idea what it is you yourself mean by "god" (and have stated belief in) then any claim of "I don't know" on my part is as stupid and misleading as was your proclaimed agnosticism towards cheese. And yet, you are still left with a lack of knowledge if it exists or not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
But if you don't know what we're talking about, then its impossible for you to know if it exists or not and you must be agnostic. No. If I don't know what we are talking about then as far as I am concerned there is no concept upon which to state any opinion. Which part of this is so difficult for you to understand?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Straggler writes: If the concept doesn't exist how can any position on it exist? What do you mean? Unless you define the concept in your head in some way no position is possible. Not even "I don't know" I cannot possibly even say "I don't know" regarding a non-existent concept.
CS writes: No, I do have some idea. Then until you share it no comment on my (or anyone elses) part has any meaning,. You could be talking about ethereal moon monkeys for all I know. In which case claiming agnosticism on my part is just insane. And thus I refuse to do it.
Straggler writes: If you do then any claim of "I don't know" on my part is identical to your proclaimed agnosticism towards cheese. Meaningless and misleading. Yet honest and true. Honest and true? You think claiming that you are agnostic about the existence of cheese is an "honest and true" reflection of your beliefs? Are you mad? It is deceptive and dishonest to take any proclamation of "I don't know" as being equivalent to agnosticism towards the concept of god you have in your head but will not reveal. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2981 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined:
|
Oni writes: I don't think they can say. I'm sure they'd love to explain it, but they lack any knowledge about it to give any description at all. This remains a problem in their entire argument, and has been a problem since the pseudo-thread.
CS writes: Yes, you're much closer than Straggler. Haha! If I achieve nothing else in these debates then this is good enough for me!
I maintain though, that you do lack the knowledge of the existence of an unknown concept and that agnosticism is a correct description of that position. What knowledge could there be of something that is, by its very definition, claimed to be unknown?
The point is that you do, in fact, lack the knowledge and there's nothing wrong with admitting it. To be fair, we ALL lack the knowledge of things that are by their very definition unknown. I gladly admit that I don't know, and add to that the fact that ANY unknown concept is unknown to ALL of humanity. If I'm agnostic to unknown concept for which we lack knowledge on, then so are you. How can you possibly have knowledge of something that is unknown? Unless you are claiming that you know the description of this unknown force, then I would ask for the method you used to gain knowledge of it, and if you could please describe it. What information am I lacking that is limiting my understanding of this unknown concept? - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
From Message 431:
No. If I don't know what we are talking about then as far as I am concerned there is no concept upon which to state any opinion. Which part of this is so difficult for you to understand? Because regardless of you're opinion on the matter, you do lack the knowledge of whether or not the concept exists. For you to not lack the knowledge means that you do have the knowledge (which is obviously wrong) unless there is some position between not knowing and knowing that I am unaware of. Even if you feel like its a meaningless non-position, the fact that you do lack the knowledge defines you as being agnostic. From Message 432:
Unless you define the concept in your head in some way no position is possible. Not even "I don't know" I cannot possibly even say "I don't know" regarding a non-existent concept. But you do, in fact, not know.
Then until you share it no comment on my (or anyone elses) part has any meaning,. You could be talking about ethereal moon monkeys for all I know. In which case claiming agnosticism on my part is just insane. And thus I refuse to do it. Regardless of whether or not you see meaning in the answer, you are in a position of lacking the knowledge of whether or not the concept exists. That is agnosticism by definition.
Honest and true? You think claiming that you are agnostic about the existence of cheese is an "honest and true" reflection of your beliefs? No, but when I didn't know what the concept was, it was impossible for me to know if it existed or not so I did not have the knowledge of whether or not it existsed, ergo I was agnostic.
Are you mad? It is deceptive and dishonest to take any proclamation of "I don't know" as being equivalent to agnosticism towards the concept of god you have in your head but will not reveal. No, it is simply what the word means.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Haha! If I achieve nothing else in these debates then this is good enough for me! Does this mean we get to do Jager shots!?
What knowledge could there be of something that is, by its very definition, claimed to be unknown? That's what I'm screamin'!
To be fair, we ALL lack the knowledge of things that are by their very definition unknown. I gladly admit that I don't know, and add to that the fact that ANY unknown concept is unknown to ALL of humanity. If I'm agnostic to unknown concept for which we lack knowledge on, then so are you. How can you possibly have knowledge of something that is unknown?
Exactly! Even if the concept that I didn't know about happened to be cheese, it was impossible for me to know if it existed or not. I had to be agnostic.
Unless you are claiming that you know the description of this unknown force, then I would ask for the method you used to gain knowledge of it, and if you could please describe it. What information am I lacking that is limiting my understanding of this unknown concept?
And once we start getting into those particulars, then you have something that you can be an atheist to. Before that, you're stuck in a position of agnosticism.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024