I do believe that an infinite number of angels can dance on the head of a pin. And Adam did have a navel since he was descended from more primitive but still mamallian primates.
Put it this way
you’ve taken the position (and it is one shared by many people)that because something is not seen and does not submit to scientific proof, it cannot be.
I’ve given you some examples of crazy, unbelievable things that happen around us daily but are not seen. Though their existence has actually been proven by science no less. just not explained.
Does that open up the possibility that God can exist?
I know you said you would believe if he/she showed up at your door one day.
Well isn’t that just what people throughout the ages have said happened to them?
In fact, isn’t it what the majority of humanity has said?
You are left with two possibilities,
That your experience is not in line with the majority through history
or
A possibility is just that, and does not necessarily negate your own view of reality but that reality is in fact a subjective experience.
And if you are saying that nothing that you do not perceive exists then France and gluons and the planet Neptune do not exist any more than anything else you might not be directly perceiving at the moment.
The standard definition of atheist is one who denies or disblieves the existence of God or gods. Agnostic is basically someone who is uncertain & who doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge.
All this casuistry is just that.
I think that entire premise is false. If you lived in the year 1500 would radio waves not be part of your “reality” just because you could not perceive them and were unaware of their existence? How do you know God does not exist beyond your current perception? Saying you believe in “reality” in the way you have articulated it is just another way of saying you only believe that what you perceive exists and nothing that you don’t perceive exists. But then you go on to say if you do perceive it someday then it does exist, which is contradictory unless you are in fact saying that your premise is that your subjective perception defines the bounds of existence (which is fine if that’s what you’re saying, but it’s not coming out clearly).
Or, perhaps I could say: What everyone thinks of as gods, I think is hooey. I still accept that there are facts yet to be discovered, but I don’t agree that the word is arbitrarily controlled by omnipowerful beings.
Ugh. It’s not agnosticism, though perhaps I could have phrased it better.
I’m saying that “god” = “magical omnipowerful being outside the rules of reality”.
I think that’s hooey. I believe in reality, and if a ‘god’ shows up on my doorstep, that puts him/her/it within reality. Much as the iphone would freak out someone in the 17th century, and yet it is still real. In the sci-fi model, where there are extra-dimensional creatures who behave according to laws of physics we aren’t yet familiar with, they’re still not gods. Badasses, sure. But not gods. Haven’t you watched Stargate SG-1?
Sometimes I’ve believed 6 impossible things before breakfast!
Chas. Dodgson.
I do believe that an infinite number of angels can dance on the head of a pin. And Adam did have a navel since he was descended from more primitive but still mamallian primates.
bfarwell,
Put it this way
you’ve taken the position (and it is one shared by many people)that because something is not seen and does not submit to scientific proof, it cannot be.
I’ve given you some examples of crazy, unbelievable things that happen around us daily but are not seen. Though their existence has actually been proven by science no less. just not explained.
Does that open up the possibility that God can exist?
I know you said you would believe if he/she showed up at your door one day.
Well isn’t that just what people throughout the ages have said happened to them?
In fact, isn’t it what the majority of humanity has said?
You are left with two possibilities,
That your experience is not in line with the majority through history
or
A possibility is just that, and does not necessarily negate your own view of reality but that reality is in fact a subjective experience.
And if you are saying that nothing that you do not perceive exists then France and gluons and the planet Neptune do not exist any more than anything else you might not be directly perceiving at the moment.
You’re an agnostic.
The standard definition of atheist is one who denies or disblieves the existence of God or gods. Agnostic is basically someone who is uncertain & who doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge.
All this casuistry is just that.
I think that entire premise is false. If you lived in the year 1500 would radio waves not be part of your “reality” just because you could not perceive them and were unaware of their existence? How do you know God does not exist beyond your current perception? Saying you believe in “reality” in the way you have articulated it is just another way of saying you only believe that what you perceive exists and nothing that you don’t perceive exists. But then you go on to say if you do perceive it someday then it does exist, which is contradictory unless you are in fact saying that your premise is that your subjective perception defines the bounds of existence (which is fine if that’s what you’re saying, but it’s not coming out clearly).
And if you haven’t watched Stargate SG-1 (original), omg. SO great. Some of the worst writing and best entertainment out there.
Or, perhaps I could say: What everyone thinks of as gods, I think is hooey. I still accept that there are facts yet to be discovered, but I don’t agree that the word is arbitrarily controlled by omnipowerful beings.
Ugh. It’s not agnosticism, though perhaps I could have phrased it better.
I’m saying that “god” = “magical omnipowerful being outside the rules of reality”.
I think that’s hooey. I believe in reality, and if a ‘god’ shows up on my doorstep, that puts him/her/it within reality. Much as the iphone would freak out someone in the 17th century, and yet it is still real. In the sci-fi model, where there are extra-dimensional creatures who behave according to laws of physics we aren’t yet familiar with, they’re still not gods. Badasses, sure. But not gods. Haven’t you watched Stargate SG-1?