News:

Unnecessarily argumentative

Main Menu

Hard Agnosticism; How does one know what's unknowable?

Started by Byronazriel, December 12, 2010, 05:42:33 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Byronazriel

I've thought about this for a while, and it's been bothering me. I myself am a weak agnostic, I can't make any solid claims regarding the existence of deities. Really, I'm on the fence about the issue. I certainly believe that something in this vast universe exists that might be called a god, but I wouldn't know as I haven't met that being yet. I do however believe strongly in probability, and given an infinite universe damn near anything can happen.

Anyway, back to the point I was making: I can understand saying that gods cannot be known at this time, but how is it that they can never be known?

In order to make this less confusing I would like to first explain what I mean by "know" and "god" beforehand. I for one define "know" as: To have awareness based on observation and/or verifiable information.

"God" is any being who is in control of some part of the universe, or is the personification of a force/idea.

Under my definition Mister Impossible is a god, and if he was to appear before me and show me his power I would know that he is a god. This might not be true, but knowledge and truth are two different things. However, I would then need to verify that my little Popuppian friend lives in the real world independent of my perceptions. Only then could I say whether he "exists" or not.
"You are trying to understand madness with logic. This is not unlike searching for darkness with a torch." -Jervis Tetch

Stevil

I agree with you with regards to not knowing how anyone can be Hard Agnostic

However I really do feel your definition of a God needs further development.

Quote from: "Byronazriel""God" is any being who is in control of some part of the universe, or is the personification of a force/idea
By this definition, I am a God. I have control of some of my body parts which are definatley some part of the Universe. I am the personification of my own ideas and I have the ability to excert force on some objects in my immediate vacinity.

BTW, I don't think the Universe is infinte. It's volume is limited by the speed of light limitation X the amount of time passed since the Big Bang, It's mass and total energy has a limitation as well as it appears to be pretty much constant.

Byronazriel

First off, you do not need to capitalize the word "god" every time you use it, only when it is being used as a name. Secondly the universe I was referring to is the totality of everything that exists, has existed and will exist, as well as everything that does not exist, has never existed and will never exist.

The universe you are referring to is the observable universe, and there's a slight difference in scale and magnitude.

I am willing to accept your notion of being god of your own domain, that's your business. However I wouldn't rank you very high on any pantheon, and I have no real proof that you exist.
"You are trying to understand madness with logic. This is not unlike searching for darkness with a torch." -Jervis Tetch

Stevil

Quote from: "Byronazriel"First off, you do not need to capitalize the word "god" every time you use it, only when it is being used as a name. Secondly the universe I was referring to is the totality of everything that exists, has existed and will exist, as well as everything that does not exist, has never existed and will never exist.

The universe you are referring to is the observable universe, and there's a slight difference in scale and magnitude.

I am willing to accept your notion of being god of your own domain, that's your business. However I wouldn't rank you very high on any pantheon, and I have no real proof that you exist.
That's cool, many people have a different definition of the term Universe. Thanks for pulling me up on that capitalisation error.

Your definition didn't include a ranking system, I personally don't think I am a god but by your definition...

Anyway, I would be very keen to hear your ideas about how I have responded on this forum to two of your posts and to other peoples posts in various threads if in fact I don't exist

Byronazriel

I could very well have just made you up, it is entirely possible that you are merely me sock puppeting. Prove that you are you, and not me.
"You are trying to understand madness with logic. This is not unlike searching for darkness with a torch." -Jervis Tetch

Wilson

Byronazriel, you had the answer in your initial post: probabilities.  We can't prove ANYTHING absolutely - including that the Earth rotates around the Sun.  (Have you watched that yourself from outer space, or are you relying on books and news reports and cosmology experts?)  Each of us puts an approximate likelihood on the existence of God.  In my case, it certainly depends on the definition.  I would suggest that unless God can affect you personally - either by intervening on your behalf on Earth (or the opposite) or by allowing some of us eternal life - then it's immaterial whether he exists and hardly worth talking about.  For me, then, I put the odds of a personal god existing at much less than 1% - but not zero.  I put the odds of a deist god - an intelligent being who created the universe and set it in motion but does not intervene - at somewhere between 1% and 3% - but the existence or non-existence of such a god wouldn't be important to me or you.  Those numbers are simply approximations of what I think.  Your odds - your probabilities - will be different.

Byronazriel

I put something similar to this Deistic god in one of my rpg settings, it was called the Architect and it was the being that created the universes from a cauldron and hung the orbs around its house like baubles. It was based on a dream I had, except it was a baker who made doughnuts that each held a creamy universe centre. It was rather odd in that he was a pirate who had his parrot speak for him. The parrot wore a top hat and had a tiny waistcoat. He spoke Iambic pentameter, like the dapper chap he was.
"You are trying to understand madness with logic. This is not unlike searching for darkness with a torch." -Jervis Tetch

Stevil

Quote from: "Byronazriel"I could very well have just made you up, it is entirely possible that you are merely me sock puppeting. Prove that you are you, and not me.

Do you remember having made me up?  :hmm:

Byronazriel

I don't even rember what I did yesterday, I could have wrote a computer programme that posts certain phrases at certain times. Though, to be honest that doesn't really sound like something I'd do.
"You are trying to understand madness with logic. This is not unlike searching for darkness with a torch." -Jervis Tetch

Stevil

I am certainly impressed by how good a programmer you might be and to be able to do it all with such a poor memory. I mean to be able to get a computer to pull such an understanding out of posts and to post seemingly appropriate or at least understandable responses. It's pretty good AI technology. All I can say is that if I can't prove to you that I am not you or your creation, then I doubt I can prove anything to you about anything. It's a bit similar to another discussion I was having with a pretty intelligent Theist on another thread. It took me days to realise we weren't going to get anywhere. At least I worked it out within minutes with you.

Byronazriel

If you can't prove to me (a person who admits to believing in ghosts and magic) that you are you and not me, then how could a god prove that they are a god thus giving people knowledge of the existence of gods?

You give up too easily boyo, I was almost convinced that you were a real person.
"You are trying to understand madness with logic. This is not unlike searching for darkness with a torch." -Jervis Tetch

Inevitable Droid

Quote from: "Byronazriel"I for one define "know" as: To have awareness based on observation and/or verifiable information.

OK.  So far so good.

Quote"God" is any being who is in control of some part of the universe, or is the personification of a force/idea.

Like Stevil, I think the first part of your definition is too broad, and for precisely the reason he states; I.e., I'm in control of my own motor functions.  But the second part of your definition is more interesting, and demonstrates why it's nice to have a pagan on this message board, since a Christian would never have offered anything like what you've offered.

Athena personifies wisdom.  She either exists or doesn't exist.  If she exists, she is either knowable or unknowable.  For her to be knowable, by the definition above, she must either be made of matter or energy, in order to be available to biological senses or technological instruments, or else she must be logically necessary, given some phenomena.  I don't see how she's logically necessary, and I doubt she's made of matter or energy, since I think we would have found her by now if she were, so I conclude she's unknowable.

Your definition of knowledge precludes us from claiming knowledge based on dreams or mystic visions.  If it didn't I would have disputed your definition, since dreams and mystic visions can represent, at most, intuition.  Knowledge must come from logical empiricism.  Intuiition can pose important questions but can't provide answers.

Athena could appear in my dreams or mystic visions, and I might choose to believe she objectively exists, but that belief wouldn't be based on logical empiricism, and thus could never be knowledge.

However, as a psychological archetype, Athena certainly exists.  I myself could engage in the sort of paganism that postulates nothing more than the existence and relevance of psychological archetypes, and them employs those archetypes in ritual and myth for purposes of tribal and personal idealism.  For example, a pagan community might want to center itself on a tribal and personal ideal of wisdom, and might therefore take Athena as its patron goddess.  This could be fun and quite meaningful.

But as a personification of wisdom, objectively existing, Athena is unknowable.
 
QuoteUnder my definition Mister Impossible is a god, and if he was to appear before me and show me his power I would know that he is a god. This might not be true, but knowledge and truth are two different things. However, I would then need to verify that my little Popuppian friend lives in the real world independent of my perceptions. Only then could I say whether he "exists" or not.

I just want to say that the mere fact you can name both Mister Impossible and Popup makes you cool in my eyes. :cool:
Oppose Abraham.

[Missing image]

In the face of mystery, do science, not theology.

Byronazriel

First: Just being made of matter and/or energy doesn't mean that we necessarily have to have come across them by now. We're still finding new animals and plants all the time. It isn't out of the ream of possibility to suggest that a few beings, who may or may not be gods, slipped through the cracks.

Second: I meant to say Impossible Man, I was half asleep and must have blended him with Mister Fantastic one of his special pals.
"You are trying to understand madness with logic. This is not unlike searching for darkness with a torch." -Jervis Tetch