Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!decvax!decwrl!rhea!smurf!arndt
From: arndt@smurf.DEC
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: I think I know I can know, you know?
Message-ID: <6562@decwrl.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 28-Mar-84 15:54:15 EST
Article-I.D.: decwrl.6562
Posted: Wed Mar 28 15:54:15 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 30-Mar-84 00:38:56 EST
Organization: DEC Engineering Network
Lines: 69

A word more about belief.

The Atheist says there is no God.

The Agnostic says he doesn't think we can know.
                               
Both positions are unreasonable because they claim to have more knowledge
about the topic than is humanly possible!

Have they looked EVERYWHERE?  How do they know that God is not out of town
right now, or hiding from them?

The only three positions that are reasonable are, "still looking" or "found
him" or "given up looking" with the last from lack of interest or too tired.

Remember the "black" Theater of the Absurd a while ago?  Their statement was
that life had no meaning.  Of course that involves making a meaningful
statement about life!  They were driven to the logic of their position
by saying less and less until finally all they had to offer was silence
and the audience drifted away.

The atheist and agnostic positions fall on the floor just so.  A little kid
on the edge of the crowd calls out, "How do you know he doesn't exist or we
can never know if he does?"  There's an embarrassed silence and the crowd
drifts away.

Unless of course you A & A's out there think you can give reasons why God
doesn't exist or why we can never know if he does!

Let's hear them.


You see the whole problem of how we know what we know is wrapped up in the
proposition that we appear not to be able to know ANYTHING with certainty.

Now does that mean that we can't know ANYTHING?  Or does it only mean that
we can only know with degrees of certainty, you know, weights of evidence.
                                                     
If I say "Please pass the bread"  you don't hand me a stone.  SOMETHING
was understood between us.  

So it would appear that we CAN know something.  But not exhaustively                      
about anything!  

We don't insist on knowing all there is to know about any other topic
I think, why should we insist on knowing all there is to know about God?
Why isn't that just as silly a notion as about another topic?

All we really need to field in this discussion is weights of evidence.
But, and it is a big but, we MUST start from a common ground of agreement.

If I appeal to "A" and you appeal to "B", who cares, we pass like ships in
the night and are not really talking to each other.

I suggest reason and things like the Anthropic Cosmological Argument I
mentioned in my last posting.  Later we can get to personal experience
and historical documents, etc.

An atheist may not FEEL that there is life after death, but I don't care
how he feels, what are his reasons for that belief?

Enough!

Let's hear some feedback.  And don't start calling me names.  Speak to the
ideas please.

Regards,

Ken Arndt