Freedomain Radio

So, in this forum I'm SURE that this has been discussed more than once. But I've been looking through it (not extensively) and I've decided that I don't feel like searching through all the threads in order to find where my question is answered. 

I'd like to know WHAT is Stefan's views on this? I can't find it anywhere written (I'm new to the site though). I'd like to know his views and an explanation of this.

As far as I know for the same reason one can't prove that deity DOES exist one can't prove it DOESN'T. I'd love to be refuted, or directed to a thread that already covers this (since I'm sure that I'm not the first person with this question).

Consider starting here...

Whatever it is..it is not a god or a deity...

I assure you if this was the case the world would not be so upside down

God is evil my friend..god is a sadist and a masochist..that is why..man made god..

How do you KNOW there are no invisible banana-faced smoot-flang-hollers? 

How do you KNOW they don't own a condo on the multi-dimensional planet Groinoglootenfitzel?

GregG:

How do you KNOW there are no invisible banana-faced smoot-flang-hollers? 

How do you KNOW they don't own a condo on the multi-dimensional planet Groinoglootenfitzel?

My flandibulatorous-major was able to pick up the sub-q-tronic positronomoter emanations of the banana-faced smoot-flang-hollers and reconstruct the event of the original purchase of the condo, of course!

osirisadvocate:

 I've decided that I don't feel like searching through all the threads (podcasts, videos, books) in order to find where my question is answered. 

I've decided I don't feel like answering...

**others did a good job anyways**

God is a logical contradiction...but aside from that:

"How do you know there isn't a god?"

That is a self-eating knowlege statement:

How do you know there's not not a god?

It gets us nowhere.

Can you imagine what would happen if we applied the same backwards logic to law?

*throws someone in jail*

"Hey, I didn't do anything to belong in here!"

"Can you prove you didn't do anything wrong?"

...fuck

I watched the video above and the video on arguments against Agnosticism - in addition to the Wikipedia page on Ignosticism.

I wanted to double check to make sure my understanding is accurate or if it is way of the mark. Agnostics essentially argue that both God’s existence cannot be proven or proven - based on what humans currently know. And are blindly saying nothing is certain, which in itself is a logical contradiction: being certain about nothing is certain contradicts the statement nothing is certain.

In our universe, something both exists and is a part of reality - for example: mass, energy, and the effect of energy or does not exist and is not a part of reality. Also, if something has an effect on this universe, it can be measured empirically or examined scientifically. If it has no effect on this universe, it is functionally identical to non-existence, as it has no effect on this universe like something that does not exist. Therefore something that cannot be proven to exist is identical to something that does not exist. Thus God does not exist.

The part I am unsure of is: by saying that both God’s existence cannot be proven or proven is synonymous to saying God exists and does not exist simultaneously – which is contradictory because something cannot be exist and not exist simultaneously.

Am I mistaken?

thehawaiianlion:

I watched the video above and the video on arguments against Agnosticism - in addition to the Wikipedia page on Ignosticism.

I wanted to double check to make sure my understanding is accurate or if it is way of the mark. Agnostics essentially argue that both God’s existence cannot be proven or proven - based on what humans currently know. And are blindly saying nothing is certain, which in itself is a logical contradiction: being certain about nothing is certain contradicts the statement nothing is certain.

In our universe, something both exists and is a part of reality - for example: mass, energy, and the effect of energy or does not exist and is not a part of reality. Also, if something has an effect on this universe, it can be measured empirically or examined scientifically. If it has no effect on this universe, it is functionally identical to non-existence, as it has no effect on this universe like something that does not exist. Therefore something that cannot be proven to exist is identical to something that does not exist. Thus God does not exist.

The part I am unsure of is: by saying that both God’s existence cannot be proven or proven is synonymous to saying God exists and does not exist simultaneously – which is contradictory because something cannot be exist and not exist simultaneously.

Am I mistaken?

I haven't looked at the video or the wiki page on agnosticism. I would not say that the two are the same. One statement is self-contradictory ("A is A and is not A") and the other is not (these claims cannot be proven or disproven- there is no contradiction).

osirisadvocate:

So, in this forum I'm SURE that this has been discussed more than once. But I've been looking through it (not extensively) and I've decided that I don't feel like searching through all the threads in order to find where my question is answered. 

I'd like to know WHAT is Stefan's views on this? I can't find it anywhere written (I'm new to the site though). I'd like to know his views and an explanation of this.

As far as I know for the same reason one can't prove that deity DOES exist one can't prove it DOESN'T. I'd love to be refuted, or directed to a thread that already covers this (since I'm sure that I'm not the first person with this question).

How incredibly convenient for someone to start a thread like this and not respond afterward. Being able to "prove" the non-existence of something indicates that one is misunderstanding the point. Theists say "God exists. Here's why..." Atheists analyze the argument and point out how it's irrational in some way and because of that it justifies not accepting the theistic argument.

If I say Blorg is a square circle and is completely blue and completely not blue simultaneously, are you justified within reason to not accept my claim that Blorg exists? If I make the claim of the existence of Blorg, it is my responsibility to prove its existence or argue with reason the necessary existence of such a thing. It is not your responsibility to go out and prove that blorg is non-existent.

How do you KNOW there is no Myxlplyth the Galactic Overlord?

I do mean to answer. But I wasn't asking because I wanted a discussion really, I just was curious as to what Stefan believed about God. If you read my original post you will see that. However, I will answer, it's a long answer though and I only can work on it a little bit at a time. Anyway, thanks everyone for your answers!

Thanks for answering Phil.

I understand the argument that God cannot be simultaneously omnipotent and omniscient.

Ok so these claims cannot be proven or disproven is not a contradiction.

If so, I am confused about what - A is A and is not A - is referring to. Is it related to the nothing is certain argument?

"Being certain that nothing is certain? In agnosticism, any statement of certainty is considered irrational or premature because truth could equal error. A might be the opposite of A. Nothing is certain = a logical contradiction = invalid statement. Being certain about nothing is certain contradicts the statement nothing is certain. Saying we cannot state a truth because error might equal truth is wrong – as a truth statement, contradicts itself."

I am confused on what the part in quotations is refering to.

I think what's being said is that you say "It's true that you must be uncertain" to paraphrase the statement you are contradicting yourself and are therefore logically inconsistent.

If you say "it's uncertain whether you must be uncertain" then while logically consistent it's also useless.