Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!israel From: israel@umcp-cs.UUCP Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: I think I know I can know, you know? Message-ID: <6278@umcp-cs.UUCP> Date: Fri, 30-Mar-84 02:36:30 EST Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.6278 Posted: Fri Mar 30 02:36:30 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 31-Mar-84 07:23:19 EST References: <598@ihuxn.UUCP> Organization: Univ. of Maryland, Computer Science Dept. Lines: 100 From: arndt@smurf.UUCP 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! Given the definitions here, I agree. However, first, you can extend this argument further with the definition: "The Theist says there is a god", so the argument applies to the theist as well. Secondly, there may be (and probably are) A & A's [are they anything like M & M's :-) ] to whom these statements apply, but I don't think of them as blanket definitions of the terms. My definitions are more like: An Atheist says that he believes there is no God. An Agnostic says he doesn't know if there is a God or not, and has made no judgements on the subject either way. A Theist says that he believes that there is a God. Given these definitions, this argument doesn't apply at all. Now, a little discussion about the applicability of these. First, the atheist definition: they are pretty similar, but I've just generalized a little since if you ask an atheist to prove that the statement "there is no God" is a fact as opposed to his belief, he cannot (for proof of this statement, just read net.religion for about a week). Anyway, I can really accept either position. However, I cannot accept your definition of the Agnostic position in the slightest! The Agnostic position is a middle of the road position, saying "I don't have enough information YET, to make an intelligent decision on whether to believe there is a God or not", but not saying that there will never exist that information. 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. That is not the only positions available. For example, take the following lines (preceded by an '='), which are all the above lines of your message, with just one minor modification. See if you can pick out that modification. :-) = The Abunnyist says there is no Easter Bunny. = = The Aghareistic 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 Easter Bunny 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. What is the difference between this argument and yours? Can you prove to me that the Easter bunny doesn't really exist? Should we then all either a) believe in the Easter bunny, b) be actively looking for the Easter bunny, or c) have decided to paint our own eggs this year? 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. No, I can't give you reasons why God doesn't exist, but then I can't give you any reasons why he does either. Everything I've seen and experienced in this world has or can have a natural explanation without resorting to a supernatural being, I tend to try to use the principle of parsimony (Occam's razor) for explanations such as this. You see, my whole problem with this line of argument (that being, you should believe it because you can't prove it ain't so) is that, if it can be applied to the issue of the existence or non-existence of a Deity, why can't it be applied to other things as well? I cannot prove that I am NOT the only thing in the universe, and everything else just a figment of my imagination. So maybe I should believe that I am the only thing in the universe. Or, I also cannot prove that you, Ken Arndt, are not really God in disguise (or maybe you are just Obi-wan Kenobi :-)). So then, I guess I should start praying to you and worshiping you (and it doesn't matter what you say contrary to that, since If you are really God in disguise, you would protest that you weren't anyway). Well, enough for now. This is getting long and I'm getting tired. I'll be awaiting any replies. -- Bruce Israel University of Maryland, Computer Science {rlgvax,seismo}!umcp-cs!israel (Usenet) israel.umcp-cs@CSNet-Relay (Arpanet)