ARGUMENT 4
(A view from an Agnostic, along w/ my comments)
Hi Jon,
First, thank you very much for your response!
It speaks volumes when a person actually takes the time to read such a lengthy writing as the one I presented…..regardless if they believe or not.
I'll go ahead and respond to your comments, but I'll be honest in stating that I am a little confused on who exactly you're responding to with some of it….either Nik or myself.
So bare w/ me if I respond to something that wasn't meant for me.
:)
"First and foremost, I have to admit, that I hadn't even heard of agnatheism until I saw your post."
Truth is, 'Agnatheism' is a term I coined (or made up). It seemed to accurately describe where I stand on religion, etc.
"But, I have to say that it does seem to describe my views in this area. I had previously called myself an agnostic/atheist, ie that I was uncertain as to proof in either the existence or non-existence of a god, always willing to change my mind in the light of new evidence, but choosing to live my life as an atheist. Because, the lack of evidence for a thing does tend to implicate that such a thing does not exist."
Actually, I really don't live my life under either title; I truly do fall under a little/lot of both. My 'Agnosticism side' isn't related to the questioning of whether or not a god-like being exists….I'm pretty set in my view on that, which may seem narrowminded, but actually isn't when you get down to the essence and reasoning behind it. Also, I don't feel a person 'chooses' to live their life as an Atheist, because I don't feel it's a 'choice'. Drawing from my experiences, I found that Atheism comes from the realization of many factors, all of which point out that a god (or supreme being) simply cannot exist. Honestly, as ridiculous as this may sound, I believe I don't have a choice ever since I came to the realizations that I did many years ago.
However, if I were an Agnostic, I WOULD have a choice simply due to my uncertainty one way or another. I would analyze 'facts' or views from both sides and then a decision that seems more plausible to me.
In the case of me personally, it didn't happen like that. Again, I came to realizations that clearly crossed out any chance of there existing a god-like, supreme being.
Can I prove this? Probably not. At the least, it would take several hours to explain it to someone and they would need an uncanny understanding of philosophy…..and be able to follow my reasoning and theories. I apologize if that sounds arrogant or conceited in any way.
"However, there are a few things I'd like to disagree with/add to your argument, if I may.
First, I have to agree with Nik on the definitions front, but you seem to have addressed that already, so I won't dwell on that any longer.
'According to this concept God has 8 defining characteristics. He is (1) a person, (2) supremely powerful, (3) morally perfect, (4) all-knowing & loving, (5) the uncreated creator of the universe, (6) specifically concerned with human beings, (7) the only deity, and (8) essentially immaterial or non-physical......."
I find that points (1) and (8) contradict each other. Perhaps I have mis-understood your definition of one or maybe even both of them, but I fail to see how person can be immaterial or non-physical. No matter, I am just splitting hairs here."
I completely agree with you…..#1 and 8 DO contradict one another. And I don't feel you are splitting hairs. I appreciate your noticing of the contradiction. Most people cannot or will not.
"His essence is, according to the tradition itself, ungraspable and fully beyond the comprehension of finite human minds. And yet belief in this incomprehensible being is supposed to make the present state of the world more intelligible."
I think you might be wrong here. God DOES make things a lot simpler, while understanding God may be difficult, or perhaps impossible, who here can actually understand the concept of infinity?"
To this I argue that if god is 'ungraspable and fully beyond the comprehension of finite human minds', then doesn't that contradict anything we may say or believe in a god? Apparently we are unable to.
"I do believe that if you just accept the idea of there being a god which fits the description you outlined at the start of the argument, certain things become a lot simpler.
"Why am I here?"
Theist "God put me here"
Atheist "Urm…."
And that supports one of my arguments for the reason that people choose to accept a god……its easy and simple. I find it funny how we are willing to accept a god that we claim to be 'ungraspable and fully beyond the comprehension of finite human minds'.
In a nutshell, he humans, by nature, insist on having answers to everything; to labling everything.
I feel we do this for many reasons, most visible is for 'peace of mind'.
In the end, we humans fear death….it terrifies us. Therefore, we have a difficult time accepting that we may live these wondeful and fulfilling lives only to have it all end in death….or THE END.
We (most of us) cannot handle that concept, and though I am not suggesting that is what happens when we die (thus the Agnostic side of me), I also truly believe that a god in heaven or devil in hell is NOT awaiting us after death.
"As regards the problem of evil, I have something to add to what you have said. Have you never heard the argument that God is testing you, when he makes you suffer? I find this fascinating. Under the definition (and I think the definition is widely regarded as the 'right' one), God is omniscient, why would he NEED, never mind want, why would he need to test you, surely he knows the answer already?"
Wonderfully put.
"On the subject of proof of God by scriptures, I see the point you are making, but believe that you have left out an important point. Well, I do not believe that you have explained how the scriptures 'beg the question' sufficiently. I would just add that the proof that the scriptures are true is that God wrote them/God appeared to the people who wrote them and hence God exists and the proof of God existing is the scriptures, hence a circular argument. One requires the other to be true in order to prove that the other is true. I know that's what you meant when you said that it 'begged the question', however I assumed that you meant this argument to explain your views to people who have not come across these terms before, am I correct? Well, just a thought."
Thoroughly enjoying you points.
:)
"With respect to the Cosmological Argument, I think you left out the most important point! That is, what is the cause of God? If everything must have a cause/effect relationship, what is the cause whose effect is God? Of course the theist argues that God is a special case, God needs no cause, but then why can the Big Bang not be the ultimate cause? They will reply that God is that which is the first cause, to which you can reply, well you've just changed the definition of God. The Big Bang will henceforth be known as God! Actually, come to think of it, you have mentioned the bit about"
I have a problem w/ how believers use the whole 'cause and effect' argument. If anything, it proves their thinking to be incorrect. I do agree with your comments here…..how can believers suggest that god was the beginning when they also state that everything falls under 'cause and effect? Lovely contradiction, eh?