Do you believe in God?

[BHRxRacer]

It's not brand new.

How old is it? When did people of this earth started giving that name, Agnostic-atheist?

I have no idea what that means.You answered a question I didn't ask and now it's my turn to ask a question for you to answer? Huh?

I asked you what question you want me to answer. You said "anything would be nice". I thought we were playing the "give me a random answer and I'll form the question that should've preceded it" game so I gave you a random honest answer.

Then you are agnostic.

...Okay, why are others calling me atheist?

last which is factual.

Figuratively speaking, maybe. An opinion cannot be factual.

but I can tell you that you're wrong if you think strawberries are blue

Yeah, but only because "strawberries are blue" is not an opinion.

so I'm not giving you new information despite you claiming it says something else. Right?

Right, because both what you said and what's in that article are wrong. You're trying to argue that strawberries are blue.



@SuperCobraJet I agree with the principle you're discussing, but I don't think you're presenting it well. I don't think it'll change their mind anyway, I'd give up if I were you.

Because what is logical to one person can be totally illogical to another...

I hope that was sarcastic.

 

[Famine]

How old is it? When did people of this earth started giving that name, Agnostic-atheist

Right around the time people started questioning if there was a god. And not being burned at the stake for it.

The Wikipedia article on the term says the late 19th Century. Sounds about right...

I asked you what question you want me to answer. You said "anything would be nice". I thought we were playing the "give me a random answer and I'll form the question that should've preceded it" game so I gave you a random honest answer

Actually you asked what straight answer I'd like on this topic.

...Okay, why are others calling me atheist

No idea. Ask them.

Figuratively speaking, maybe. An opinion cannot be factual

It's my opinion that, relative to my position, the sun will elevate above the horizon at approximately 6.04am - just under 5 hours from now.

Yeah, but only because "strawberries are blue" is not an opinion

Why isn't it?

Right, because both what you said and what's in that article are wrong.

That's your opinion - one of the third type that you said wasn't in the article because you didn't actually read it and your opinion is demonstrably wrong.

Now support that opinion. You won't be able to of course, but that hasn't stopped you so far.

 

[Imari]

15000 posts and it seems like very little progress has been made.

Several thousand years of human history, and not much progress has been made either. At least some places don't stone people to death and burn them any more for completely trivial religious infractions, but some still do.

The level of progress in this thread is probably if anything slightly higher than the progress of humanity on the whole, although there's always some normalising factors to make sure we don't get too far ahead of ourselves.

 

[BHRxRacer]

Right around the time people started questioning if there was a god. And not being burned at the stake for it.

The Wikipedia article on the term says the late 19th Century. Sounds about right...

And when was the word atheist invented then?

Actually you asked what straight answer I'd like on this topic.

So it wasn't a specific question. Ok.

No idea. Ask them.

Ok

@Imari @huskeR32 @mistersafeway Get in here and argue with Mr. Famine on whether I am an atheist or agnostic.

It's my opinion that, relative to my position, the sun will elevate above the horizon at approximately 6.04am - just under 5 hours from now.

Because it's not your opinion, it is a fact.

Why isn't it?

I'm sure you're qualified enough to know the scientific answer to that, as I do. Don't bring up the color blind argument.

That's your opinion - one of the third type that you said wasn't in the article because you didn't actually read it and your opinion is demonstrably wrong.

Opinionception? No, it's not my opinion it is a fact.

Now support that opinion. You won't be able to of course, but that hasn't stopped you so far.

Of course I won't be able to, nobody can. I can support the facts I stated above, which are not opinions. Would you like me to support those instead?

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Rationality.

Another congrats on on such substance here.
Let me offer a definition, whatever the atheist playbook says it is.

Does GTPlanet have a policy of abolishing irrational threads?.

So which is it now, rational or irrational?

This is exactly why you're not worth talking to. That sentence has no meaning. It's like you've just thrown together some words.

If I was you, I would dummy up too.

No. I would accept it if the evidence was peer-reviewed, statistically relevant and attainable in any repeat of the experiment by any sufficiently trained third party.

So is that a yes or a no?
Or is it just rationale on the move again?

@SuperCobraJet I agree with the principle you're discussing, but I don't think you're presenting it well. I don't think it'll change their mind anyway, I'd give up if I were you.

While many here obviously won't admit it, they know a rational argument when they see it.

For reasons that were explained to you so very many times during your last go-round here, that sentence is utter nonsense.

To the contrary, its anything but nonsense.

 

[BHRxRacer]

@Scaff BTW here's another member's translation. Satisfied now?

Translation: A human's obedience and commitment to the ideology or idea that he or she has embraced

You're welcome.

 

[Imari]

If you really think so then I think our problem would be your lack of understanding of English or logic, not mine.


"willing to concede that gods may exist" and "Were such evidence to be presented to them, they would deny it."

If they're willing to concede that gods may exist, how come if evidence were presented to them (such as god himself coming down to stare them in the face), they would still deny it? Which one is it? This is a genuine question I honestly cannot see how you don't understand that.

I'm going to spell this out just as clearly as I can so that you can't attempt to, yet again, respond by saying "nope".

To an Imari/agnostic:
Gods may or may not exist.
Evidence of gods does not exist.
Therefore, if gods exist there is no evidence of them.

These things are not contradictory. As you can see, there is no logical contradiction in those three statements. They are contradictory to a layman because of an additional statement that Imari/agnostics do not recognise.

To a layman:
Gods may or may not exist.
If X exists, then it is always possible to find evidence for X.
Therefore, if gods exist it is always possible to find evidence of gods.

Imari/Agnostics don't believe that there is a necessary connection between the existence of a god, and the existence of evidence for a god. Given that we're talking about a potentially omnipotent being with unknown control over the universe and any number of other things, that's not illogical. It's contrary to what we know of the universe so far, but there's no rule that says that a god has to behave by the rules of the universe. If he's the creator of the universe, he's outside of those rules more or less by definition.

That's why, if an Imari/agnostic were to be presented with evidence for the existence of god, then within their worldview that evidence cannot be real. It must be false evidence, or they must deny one of the axioms of their belief.

An Imari/agnostic would thus deem any evidence of god to be false evidence. Anyone who would accept that evidence would not be an Imari/agnostic as they would be violating the axioms of Imari/agnosticism. They would be something else, probably an Imari/atheist.

If you disagree, then for the love of God point out the flaw in the logic rather than just responding in the negative. It's getting really old.

@Imari @huskeR32 @mistersafeway Get in here and argue with Mr. Famine on whether I am an atheist or agnostic.

Hard to say. You're adamant that you're not whatever Famine is, which makes it a lot more difficult.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Don't bring up the color blind argument.

OOooh, this caught my interest.

I bought a green Craghoppers fleece in February of this year whilst in Betws-y-coed. I liked it, I wanted a green one, and I even referred to it in the shop as the green one. About 6 weeks ago, I discovered (by referring to it in conversation as "my green fleece"....) that it's Brown. Imagine my surprise... well actually I wasn't surprised at all, I am quite colour deficient especially when it comes to detected the red element of light (it seems)...

... So, I'm curious as to whether or not my belief that it's green, stays a belief, even though it could be scientifically proven to be wrong... or does it become an opinion that I personally hold, that others can very easily (and rightfully) disagree.

 

[BHRxRacer]

false evidence.

There is no such thing. That's why your earlier definition was contradictory.


There's no such thing as false evidence. If it's false, it's not evidence. Given this new information, can you now give me a run down of the 3?

Here are the originals:

An atheist does not recognise any current evidence as proof of god or gods, but accepts that there could be such evidence. Were it to be presented to them, they would revise their opinion (and be somewhat embarrassed, probably).

An agnostic does not recognise any current evidence as proof of god or gods, and believes that no such evidence can or will exist even if a god or gods were to exist. Were such evidence to be presented to them, they would deny it.

A non-theist does not recognise any current evidence as proof of god or gods, and believes that no such evidence can or will exist because there is no god or gods. Were such evidence to be presented to them, they would deny it.


Change them according to the fact that "evidence" cannot be false. You can use the word "claim" instead, if you like.

If you disagree, then for the love of God point out the flaw in the logic rather than just responding in the negative. It's getting really old.

I'm trying to know what language you're typing in because you seem to be selective. Sometimes you use proper English, other times you use common English. When you mix them up, your statements become contradictory and confusing. Especially when your definition as well as others' disagree with @Famine. I don't know which one to go by.

Just follow what I asked above.

Hard to say. You're adamant that you're not whatever Famine is, which makes it a lot more difficult.

I don't care what Famine is, it was a joke. Am I an atheist to you or agnostic? If I'm atheist, then argue that with @Famine why and tell me what you guys settle on.

OOooh, this caught my interest.

I bought a green Craghoppers fleece in February of this year whilst in Betws-y-coed. I liked it, I wanted a green one, and I even referred to it in the shop as the green one. About 6 weeks ago, I discovered (by referring to it in conversation as "my green fleece"....) that it's Brown. Imagine my surprise... well actually I wasn't surprised at all, I am quite colour deficient especially when it comes to detected the red element of light (it seems)...

... So, I'm curious as to whether or not my belief that it's green, stays a belief, even though it could be scientifically proven to be wrong... or does it become an opinion that I personally hold, that others can very easily (and rightfully) disagree.

Science fact: To human beings that are not color blind, strawberries are red.

Since you're color blind, the aforementioned (nitpickable) scientific fact does not apply to you. Therefore it remains intact.

From your point of view, and by point of view I mean your vision not opinion, it is whatever color you see it is. It's not just a belief, it's a fact. A fact with a different (but not in principle) scientific explanation to why strawberries are red to those without colorblindness.

 

[Exorcet]

Science fact: To human beings that are not color blind, strawberries are red.

They're red to anyone. Some people can't determine this with their eyes alone though (or rather can't determine as much information as someone who isn't colorblind), but any device that can analyze the light reflected by them will tell you what their surface likes to reflect and what it doesn't.

 

[BHRxRacer]

They're red to anyone. Some people can't determine this with their eyes alone though (or rather can't determine as much information as someone who isn't colorblind), but any device that can analyze the light reflected by them will tell you what their surface likes to reflect and what it doesn't.

Did you miss the "nitpickable" part? Even what you said can be nitpicked. We shouldn't go into details about the science unless science itself was the topic. This thread is about believing in god, so let's use layman terms and layman definitions when it comes to science. Don't be a @Famine.

 

[Exorcet]

I think it's more than nitpicking. Whatever color the coat or strawberries are is verifiable, even by those who are colorblind.

"From your point of view, and by point of view I mean your vision not opinion, it is whatever color you see it is. It's not just a belief, it's a fact."

There are multiple facts. First, the color is perceived in a certain way. Second that the color is of a certain set of wavelengths. As soon as the latter is determined, belief should go out the window as to what the color of the coat is.

 

[Imari]

There's no such thing as false evidence. If it's false, it's not evidence.

Correct. False evidence = not evidence. Welcome to basic logic. Which is why Imari/agnostics don't accept evidence to the proof of gods. They believe all evidence of gods to be false, ie. not evidence at all. There cannot be evidence of gods for an Imari/agnostic.

Why is that contradictory? I could put a blue strawberry in front of you, and if you didn't believe that evidence of blue strawberries could exist you would refuse to accept that it was indeed a blue strawberry. You might claim that it was actually an off-shade of purple, or that it was a deformed raspberry, or that it was some kind of magical solid hologram.

Evidence is evidence when viewed objectively, but you cannot make people recognise what they don't want to see, and you cannot make people be objective. Just as anyone can shut their eyes and not look at what's put in front of them, people can turn off their rationality and refuse to proceed through the logical conclusions of the observations they've made. Religious people do this a lot.

An agnostic can be provided with objective, concrete evidence of gods, and all they have to do to maintain their faith is sit there going "nuh uh". It's not rational, but belief is not rational. It's internally logically consistent though, given the axioms of their faith nothing put in front of them could possibly be actual evidence of gods.

An agnostic is not in an objective position, they're not viewing this thing in front of them with a totally open mind. They know what it can't be before they've even sat down. This is the problem with many belief systems, there are some things that they just know. This is the difference with atheists, any aspect of what they think they know can be changed by the correct objective evidence.


Seriously, do what I asked and point out the flaw in the logic I posted. Here, I'll post it again.

To an Imari/agnostic:
Gods may or may not exist.
Evidence of gods does not exist.
Therefore, if gods exist there is no evidence of them.

 

[Danoff]

Change them according to the fact that "evidence" cannot be false. You can use the word "claim" instead, if you like.
.
.
.
Just follow what I asked above.

How about you start responding to the substance of peoples' posts? Then maybe folks will be more inspired to respond to you.

 

[BHRxRacer]

I think it's more than nitpicking. Whatever color the coat or strawberries are is verifiable, even by those who are colorblind.

"From your point of view, and by point of view I mean your vision not opinion, it is whatever color you see it is. It's not just a belief, it's a fact."

There are multiple facts. First, the color is perceived in a certain way. Second that the color is of a certain set of wavelengths. As soon as the latter is determined, belief should go out the window as to what the color of the coat is.

That's basically nitpicking. You're not wrong(although I can still nitpick things from your posts), but I don't know what point you're trying to make by this. Showing off your knowledge? I've got some bad news for you if that's what you're trying to do.

They believe all evidence of gods to be false, ie. not evidence at all.

The sentence you're looking for is "They believe there is no evidence of gods"

There cannot be evidence of gods for an Imari/agnostic.

Absolutely 100%? What would happen if one day it turns up?

Why is that contradictory?

Because of your poor choice of words.

I'm not trying to offend you btw, I'm just frustrated with how you guys word your logics. Each one seems to do it differently, and you've done it differently within the same posts.

I could put a blue strawberry in front of you, and if you didn't believe that evidence of blue strawberries could exist you would refuse to accept that it was indeed a blue strawberry. You might claim that it was actually an off-shade of purple, or that it was a deformed raspberry, or that it was some kind of magical solid hologram.

So in the end, there was/is no evidence. I don't see how that's relevant.

Evidence is evidence when viewed objectively, but you cannot make people recognise what they don't want to see, and you cannot make people be objective. Just as anyone can shut their eyes and not look at what's put in front of them, people can turn off their rationality and refuse to proceed through the logical conclusions of the observations they've made.

People make false claims all the times, yes. Sometimes they regard false claims as evidence without proving it is, yes. I don't see how relevant, my friend.

Religious people do this a lot.

I have reservations on using that word, but I think I know who you refer to so I won't argue this anymore.

An agnostic can be provided with objective, concrete evidence of gods, and all they have to do to maintain their faith is sit there going "nuh uh". It's not rational, but belief is not rational. It's internally logically consistent though, given the axioms of their faith nothing put in front of them could possibly be actual evidence of gods.

An agnostic is not in an objective position, they're not viewing this thing in front of them with a totally open mind. They know what it can't be before they've even sat down. This is the problem with many belief systems, there are some things that they just know. This is the difference with atheists, any aspect of what they think they know can be changed by the correct objective evidence.


Seriously, do what I asked and point out the flaw in the logic I posted. Here, I'll post it again.

That contradicts what you said earlier.


What you said earlier AKA ImariONE/Agnostic:
Gods may or may not exist.
Evidence of gods does not exist.
Therefore, if gods exist there is no evidence of them.

What you said now, AKA ImariTWO/Agnostic
Gods may or may not exist.
Evidence of gods does not exist. And never will.
Therefore, if gods exist there is no evidence of them.


The "and never will" part makes all the difference. I don't know how many times I can explain that. I'm ImariONE/Agnostic, but I'm not ImariTWO/Agnostic. Get it?



I think @Famine agrees with me on this. You may want to argue that with him.

How about you start responding to the substance of peoples' posts? Then maybe folks will be more inspired to respond to you.

You: I love that yellow fruit called strawberries. Do you?
Me: Strawberries are not yellow, what fruit are you talking about?
You: OH just start responding to the substance and tell me if you like it too or not or I'll put you on my ignore list.

 

[Imari]

That contradicts what you said earlier.


What you said earlier AKA ImariONE/Agnostic:
Gods may or may not exist.
Evidence of gods does not exist.
Therefore, if gods exist there is no evidence of them.

What you said now, AKA ImariTWO/Agnostic
Gods may or may not exist.
Evidence of gods does not exist. And never will.
Therefore, if gods exist there is no evidence of them.

Finally you do as I ask and explain your point clearly.

You're right, I shouldn't have changed what I first wrote which was:

Gods may or may not exist.
Evidence of gods cannot exist.
Therefore, if gods exist there is no evidence of them.

That's a better logical form of what my original description of an agnostic was, or at least I think it is. Is it still contradictory? You were pretty sure that the original plain English form was.

I don't write out logical propositions as a part of my everyday life, so I make apologies where I get something a bit wrong. It'd be nice if you'd just point it out so that I can correct it, rather than going on huge rants that I have to try and decipher to figure out whether it was something I wrote wrong or whether you're still just not understanding.

 

[BHRxRacer]

Finally you do as I ask and explain your point clearly.

You're right, I shouldn't have changed what I first wrote which was:

Gods may or may not exist.
Evidence of gods cannot exist.
Therefore, if gods exist there is no evidence of them.

That's a better logical form of what my original description of an agnostic was, or at least I think it is. Is it still contradictory? You were pretty sure that the original plain English form was.

I don't write out logical propositions as a part of my everyday life, so I make apologies where I get something a bit wrong. It'd be nice if you'd just point it out so that I can correct it, rather than going on huge rants that I have to try and decipher to figure out whether it was something I wrote wrong or whether you're still just not understanding.

Actually there are still two things inaccurate here.


Gods may or may not exist.
Evidence of gods cannot* will not exist.
Therefore, if** gods do not exist there is no evidence of them***.

* "Cannot" implies that you're able to demonstrate why they will never exist. Which implies you have evidence of them not existing, rather than just believing they don't exist because of lack of evidence.

** "If" implies there's still a possibility of gods existing, which would negate the previous line.

*** removed for redundancy.

So we end up with this:

Gods may or may not exist.
Evidence of gods will not exist.
Therefore, gods do not exist.

Is that what an Agnostic is to you?

edit

IGNORE THIS POST, missed a vital part of the sentence.

 

[Imari]

Actually there are still two things inaccurate here.


Gods may or may not exist.
Evidence of gods cannot* will not exist.
Therefore, if** gods do not exist there is no evidence of them***.

* "Cannot" implies that you're able to demonstrate why they will never exist. Which implies you have evidence of them not existing, rather than just believing they don't exist because of lack of evidence.

** "If" implies there's still a possibility of gods existing, which would negate the previous line.

*** removed for redundancy.

No, cannot is the belief of the agnostic. They believe that it is not possible. Will not implies that it is possible, but won't happen. Cannot is what I mean. An agnostic believes that it is not possible for evidence of gods to exist.

"If" does not negate the previous line. The first two lines are simple statements. The third links the two, in a standard if x then y format. If gods exist, what does that imply given the previous two statements? It implies that evidence of gods cannot exist. This is a trivial statement within the logic system, but it's worthy of stating because it's contrary to what one might commonly think.

There is no basis for what you've done with your "removed for redundancy". You can't just break the if/then because you feel like it.

Do it yourself. Give me the first two statements. They're axioms, I'm not justifying them, they just are. Complete the if yourself. If gods exist, then the evidence for them [does/does not] exist. You can do If gods don't exist... too if you like, but it's the same answer because the existence of evidence is not dependent on the existence of gods.

So we end up with this:

Gods may or may not exist.
Evidence of gods will not exist.
Therefore, gods do not exist.

This is neither logically sound, nor is it what I wrote, nor is it what I meant.

 

[BHRxRacer]

No, cannot is the belief of the agnostic. They believe that it is not possible. Will not implies that it is possible, but won't happen. Cannot is what I mean. An agnostic believes that it is not possible for evidence of gods to exist.

"If" does not negate the previous line. The first two lines are simple statements. The third links the two, in a standard if x then y format. If gods exist, what does that imply given the previous two statements? It implies that evidence of gods cannot exist. This is a trivial statement within the logic system, but it's worthy of stating because it's contrary to what one might commonly think.

There is no basis for what you've done with your "removed for redundancy". You can't just break the if/then because you feel like it.

Do it yourself. Give me the first two statements. They're axioms, I'm not justifying them, they just are. Complete the if yourself. If gods exist, then the evidence for them [does/does not] exist. You can do If gods don't exist... too if you like, but it's the same answer because the existence of evidence is not dependent on the existence of gods.



This is neither logically sound, nor is it what I wrote, nor is it what I meant.

Ah yes, you're right. Completely forgot to read the first part saying "may or may not". My bad. 6:24AM here and haven't slept yet.

TBC

@niky, start trembling.

 

[niky]

Meh. Don't care.

I don't believe that we have evidence of Gods, but I am open to the idea that some form of intelligence may exist outside our understanding.

I don't beat myself up at night thinking about it.

 

[mustang fanatic]

I was born into the catholic religion, and I personally do believe in God, although I am certainly not religious.

 

[Sixflags48]

I am having a hard time knowing what kind of atheist I am now. I was pretty sure I was an agnostic atheist, basing my belief on what there was in the physical, seeing as there is no proof in a god other than a book, which I am unsure if it is true or not. As far as I know, I have the lack of a belief in a god, but am unsure as to if there is one or not. Definitions I looked up would leave me to believe that I am an agnostic atheist.

 

[BHRxRacer]

No, cannot is the belief of the agnostic. They believe that it is not possible. Will not implies that it is possible, but won't happen. Cannot is what I mean. An agnostic believes that it is not possible for evidence of gods to exist.

"If" does not negate the previous line. The first two lines are simple statements. The third links the two, in a standard if x then y format. If gods exist, what does that imply given the previous two statements? It implies that evidence of gods cannot exist. This is a trivial statement within the logic system, but it's worthy of stating because it's contrary to what one might commonly think.

There is no basis for what you've done with your "removed for redundancy". You can't just break the if/then because you feel like it.

Do it yourself. Give me the first two statements. They're axioms, I'm not justifying them, they just are. Complete the if yourself. If gods exist, then the evidence for them [does/does not] exist. You can do If gods don't exist... too if you like, but it's the same answer because the existence of evidence is not dependent on the existence of gods.



This is neither logically sound, nor is it what I wrote, nor is it what I meant.

Your lucky day, sun's too bright and I have a headache that won't let me sleep. Let's rewind.


Gods may or may not exist.
Evidence of gods cannot exist.
Therefore, if gods exist there is no evidence of them.

This is still inaccurate. If you say "may or may not" exists, it means you're open to a probability. Then you say, evidence of gods cannot exist, meaning impossibility (probability = 0). I think I told you this several pages ago, they're mutually exclusive.

Either:
Gods may or may not exist.
Evidence of gods cannot may exist.
Therefore, if gods exist there is no evidence of them. YET

Or:
Gods may or may do not exist.
Evidence of gods cannot exist.
Therefore, if gods exist there is no evidence of them.

Which one is Imari/Agnostic?

edit

I was born into the catholic religion, and I personally do believe in God, although I am certainly not religious.

@Famine , is that accurate in your view?

 

[mustang fanatic]

@Famine , is that accurate in your view?

It better be. I'm not going to let someone tell me my opinion is wrong.

And whoever said we are not entitled to our own opinion, well that's bull****.

 

[Imari]

Your lucky day, sun's too bright and I have a headache that won't let me sleep. Let's rewind.


Gods may or may not exist.
Evidence of gods cannot exist.
Therefore, if gods exist there is no evidence of them.

This is still inaccurate. If you say "may or may not" exists, it means you're open to a probability. Then you say, evidence of gods cannot exist, meaning impossibility (probability = 0). I think I told you this several pages ago, they're mutually exclusive.

Either:
Gods may or may not exist.
Evidence of gods cannot may exist.
Therefore, if gods exist there is no evidence of them. YET

Or:
Gods may or may do not exist.
Evidence of gods cannot exist.
Therefore, if gods exist there is no evidence of them.

Which one is Imari/Agnostic?

Tell me why a god existing necessarily means that evidence of a god may exist. That's an additional postulate, one that I specifically haven't put in. In fact, I explained it earlier.

To an Imari/agnostic:
Gods may or may not exist.
Evidence of gods cannot exist.
Therefore, if gods exist there is no evidence of them.

These things are not contradictory. As you can see, there is no logical contradiction in those three statements. They are contradictory to a layman because of an additional statement that Imari/agnostics do not recognise.

To a layman:
Gods may or may not exist.
If X exists, then it is always possible to find evidence for X.
Therefore, if gods exist it is always possible to find evidence of gods.

Imari/Agnostics don't believe that there is a necessary connection between the existence of a god, and the existence of evidence for a god. Given that we're talking about a potentially omnipotent being with unknown control over the universe and any number of other things, that's not illogical. It's contrary to what we know of the universe so far, but there's no rule that says that a god has to behave by the rules of the universe. If he's the creator of the universe, he's outside of those rules more or less by definition.

That's why, if an Imari/agnostic were to be presented with evidence for the existence of god, then within their worldview that evidence cannot be real. It must be false evidence (and by our previous reasoning, not evidence at all), or they must deny one of the axioms of their belief.

An Imari/agnostic would thus deem any evidence of god to be false evidence. Anyone who would accept that evidence would not be an Imari/agnostic as they would be violating the axioms of Imari/agnosticism. They would be something else, probably an Imari/atheist.

You're trying to link the two axioms to say what you want them to say, and the fact that they don't is entirely the point. Given those two axioms, you end up with the conclusion. That is logic.

I'll agree that it's a pretty daffy way of looking at things, but not more so than many others. There is nothing inherently illogical about what I've stated, or at least I don't think there is. I'm all for trying to pick holes in it, either I learn what's wrong so that I can consider it further and improve, or I gain further confidence that it is in fact logically sound.

 

[orimarc]

And whoever said we are not entitled to our own opinion, well that's bull****.

I think you misunderstood. Not being "entitled to your own opinion" means you can't just go "IT'S MY OPINION SO SHUT UP!", you should be able to argue in its favour; in other words, you should have convincing reasons as to WHY have that opinion.

There are opinions you can't argue for (liking strawberry ice cream instead of chocolate), but those are basically subjective taste things.

 

[BHRxRacer]

It better be. I'm not going to let someone tell me my opinion is wrong.

And whoever said we are not entitled to our own opinion, well that's bull****.

That was also @Famine that said that.

Tell me why a god existing necessarily means that evidence of a god may exist. That's an additional postulate, one that I specifically haven't put in.

Existing is evidence of its own. If you exist, you have evidence that you exist, do you not?

The simplest piece of evidence would be "look at him/her/it, there's god".

 

[mustang fanatic]

I think you misunderstood. Not being "entitled to your own opinion" means you can't just go "IT'S MY OPINION SO SHUT UP", you should be able to argue in its favour. There are opinions you can't argue for (liking strawberry ice cream instead of chocolate), but those are basically subjective taste things.

Well I didn't say anything like that, so...

As for my reasoning, I really do believe there is a God. Without one, we wouldn't be here. It's not like we could just appear on the Earth. Someone put us here. Also, I know people who have had experiences with God, and with heaven, but that's not something I'm getting into.

That was also @Famine that said that.

Uh. Yes. I know. I read the last page...

 

[BHRxRacer]

Well I didn't say anything like that, so...

As for my reasoning, I really do believe there is a God. Without one, we wouldn't be here. It's not like we could just appear on the Earth. Someone put us here. Also, I know people who have had experiences with God, and with heaven, but that's not something I'm getting into.

I'm not trying to ridicule you like the others are probably going to, but I must ask. How does one human have an experience with heaven? You are free not to answer that question, of course.

 

[mustang fanatic]

I'm not trying to ridicule you like the others are probably going to, but I must ask. How does one human have an experience with heaven? You are free not to answer that question, of course.

Well, I don't really know myself, as I am not them, but I do know someone who was basically contacted by a person who had passed away. Whether it was heaven or not, I have no idea. As ridiculous as it may sound, I truly believe there is a heaven, and a God. I'm not forcing my opinion on anyone, but that's just my personal opinion.