Bacteriologist:


Correct. But you have completely gone off the rails here my friend.

I am neutral because:

"There is no current evidence for or against god"

IS DIFFERENT FROM

"I am neutral because it is impossible to provide evidence for or against god."

The latter is your initial position. Kindly stay on it and don't deflect to the former.

And FYI, there are gods that can be shown to not exist as a result of logical contradictions.

it's more like, I am neutral because ntheres no evidence for or against God and its impossible to know if God exist or not based on available evidence.

Workch:
it's more like, I am neutral because ntheres no evidence for or against God and its impossible to know if God exist or not based on available evidence.

Seems you are using the Monotheistic definition of god, which god then, yahweh?

Workch:
it's more like, I am neutral because ntheres no evidence for or against God and its impossible to know if God exist or not based on available evidence.

Like I said, there are gods that can be demonstrated to not exist based on logical inconsistencies.

But broadly speaking, I would agree. "Based on available evidence" is a valid caveat.

Bacteriologist:


Like I said, there are gods that can be demonstrated to not exist based on logical inconsistencies.

But broadly speaking, I would agree. "Based on available evidence" is a valid caveat.

all gods can be demonstrated not to exist except from certain concepts of deistic gods

Workch:
all gods can be demonstrated not to exist except from certain concepts of deistic gods

Your concept is rooted in Theism. All deists are theists, but not all theists are deists.
Deism from Deus.

Workch:
all gods can be demonstrated not to exist except from certain concepts of deistic gods

Deistic theos.
All the attributes you know about theos was given to him by his worshippers.
Your immediate thinking of a theos that has those attributes already points you as a theos worshipper(God is typically conceived as being omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent, as well as having an eternal and necessary existence.).Your argument is coming from a monotheistic point of view, why do you think this theos is that powerful to do that magic, why do you think it transcends time, why only one god why not 2 gods transcending time? Then just one god transcend space.
Think about it. Why do you think only one god did everything? Why am I attributing so much attributes and features to one theos?
Out of all the billions explanations i can get, why do i find “theos” interesting? Workch

Workch:
However, a deistic god is hard to disprove, because there is no attribute whatsoever to test. Hence I will conclude that I don't know if a creator exist or not based on that reason

You are making a lot of fallacies lol.
First off, your idea of god is gotten from other gods, the attributes you give to a god is gotten from it.
You saying that a creator exists or not, you’ve already confirmed that there can be creator or not.

Now why do you think the world should be “created”, you are using the word “created” because of our present knowledge in English and because you’ve read somewhere that there can be a creator.
We humans create things, that’s why we have creators, are you using the same concept for that god too?
Why do you think a god or a thing can be omnipresent, or why do you think a god can transcend time and space, there are so many things that can transcend that we don’t know of , it’s even our present knowledge Through science that we can know that there’s time and space.
Why do you think a god can be all this, how did you get the idea? Out of all explanations? Workch

Maynman:

Atheism means non belief in god or gods.
The capital G, is religion people trying to honor their various deities.

Agnosticism is saying they don’t know if god or gods exist. That’s understood.

If you look at the word “atheism”, it comes from “atheos” which means godless.
Theos refers to the Olympus gods, before it was use in the Christian text, New Testament was written in greek.
Atheists reject all gods.

I've read through the thread and I don't fully understand the disagreement between you workch.

Agnosticism and Atheistism are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

A statement like, I don't know if any deity(s) exist, but I don't believe in any because "insert reason here". Is possible.

As for the plausibility of the existence of a singular deistic god over multiple, I think this is more of a subject of individual bias.

workch is correct in his statement that it's not possible to invalidate the deistic god claim, as no disprovable or narratively contradictory attributes are assigned to it.
But this is a matter of the claim being made.
Someone could equally create a similar claim to the deistic god's, but just add the possiblity of there being multiple gods and that wouldn't be any less disprovable, as long as no narratives or attributes are assigned to them.

A statement like "multiple beings with power and knowledge beyond what any human brain could ever grasp, were responsible for constructing our reality"
This to me would be indistinguishable from the deistic god claim, and is equal plausible and undisprovable.

IMAliyu:


I've read through the thread and I don't fully understand the disagreement between you workch.

Agnosticism and Atheistism are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

A statement like, I don't know if any deity(s) exist, but I don't believe in any because "insert reason here". Is possible.

As for the plausibility of the existence of a singular deistic god over multiple, I think this is more of a subject of individual bias.

workch is correct in his statement that it's not possible to invalidate the deistic god claim, as no disprovable or narratively contradictory attributes are assigned to it.
But this is a matter of the claim being made.
Someone could equally create a similar claim to the deistic god's, but just add the possiblity of there being multiple gods and that wouldn't be any less disprovable, as long as no narratives or attributes are assigned to them.

A statement like "multiple beings with power and knowledge beyond what any human brain could ever grasp, were responsible for constructing our reality"
This to me would be indistinguishable from the deistic god claim, and is equal plausible and undisprovable.

I am tired of arguing with him.

It's not gonna end, he likes long unending arguments

IMAliyu:


I've read through the thread and I don't fully understand the disagreement between you workch.

Agnosticism and Atheistism are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

A statement like, I don't know if any deity(s) exist, but I don't believe in any because "insert reason here". Is possible.

As for the plausibility of the existence of a singular deistic god over multiple, I think this is more of a subject of individual bias.

workch is correct in his statement that it's not possible to invalidate the deistic god claim, as no disprovable or narratively contradictory attributes are assigned to it.
But this is a matter of the claim being made.
Someone could equally create a similar claim to the deistic god's, but just add the possiblity of there being multiple gods and that wouldn't be any less disprovable, as long as no narratives or attributes are assigned to them.

A statement like "multiple beings with power and knowledge beyond what any human brain could ever grasp, were responsible for constructing our reality"
This to me would be indistinguishable from the deistic god claim, and is equal plausible and undisprovable.

You are making a lot of fallacies lol.
First off, your idea of god is gotten from other gods, the attributes you give to a god is gotten from it.
You saying that a creator exists or not, you’ve already confirmed that there can be creator or not.

Now why do you think the world should be “created”, you are using the word “created” because of our present knowledge in English and because you’ve read somewhere that there can be a creator.
We humans create things, that’s why we have creators, are you using the same concept for that god too?
Why do you think a god or a thing can be omnipresent, or why do you think a god can transcend time and space, there are so many things that can transcend that we don’t know of , it’s even our present knowledge Through science that we can know that there’s time and space.
Why do you think a god can be all this, how did you get the idea? Out of all explanations?

Workch:
I am tired of arguing with him.

It's not gonna end, he likes long unending arguments

For you to say you don’t know if a god exist or not, you’ve already ascertain that a god can exist.
All the concepts and attributes you know about “god” is gotten from theists, theists honor their gods and call them those sweet names, why do you think a thing or a god can be omnipresent? Or powerful to create a mountain, now why do you think the world can be “created” or there will be a “creator”. The only reason you think something can be created is because we humans create things, are you not using the same concept for this god?

Workch:
okay, i thought you were an atheist

An agnostic atheist. Though these days I can't help but feel like an igtheist.

LordReed:


An agnostic atheist. Though these days I can't help but feel like an igtheist.

okay, great

Maynman:

You are making a lot of fallacies lol.
First off, your idea of god is gotten from other gods, the attributes you give to a god is gotten from it.

Which fallacies?

Yes this would be correct.
Is it possible to have an idea of a god that's somehow no tied to previous and existing ideas of god(s)?

You saying that a creator exists or not, you’ve already confirmed that there can be creator or not.

Yes, I have no reason to discount either possibility.

However I just have no solid position for either one.

Now why do you think the world should be “created”, you are using the word “created” because of our present knowledge in English and because you’ve read somewhere that there can be a creator.
We humans create things, that’s why we have creators, are you using the same concept for that god too?

I personally have no reason to think the world should have been created.
I just haven't discounted it as a possibility.

And by created I mean the cause of the origin of our world/universe/reality, and not necessarily a deliberate action by something or someone.
It's just pure speculation born out of a limited information and imagination.

Why do you think a god or a thing can be omnipresent, or why do you think a god can transcend time and space, there are so many things that can transcend that we don’t know of , it’s even our present knowledge Through science that we can know that there’s time and space.
Why do you think a god can be all this, how did you get the idea? Out of all explanations?

I think there is some miscommunication somewhere if you're replying to this part of what I wrote
"A statement like "multiple beings with power and knowledge beyond what any human brain could ever grasp, were responsible for constructing our reality"
This to me would be indistinguishable from the deistic god claim, and is equally plausible and undisprovable."

I am making a case on the unfalsifiability of such a statement, on the deist god and there being no reason someone would assume only a singular god is possible, if they're coming from an agnostic position.
It was not a statement of my beliefs.

IMAliyu:

Which fallacies?

Yes this would be correct.
Is it possible to have an idea of a god that's somehow no tied to previous and existing ideas of god(s)?


Yes, I have no reason to discount either possibility.

However I just have no solid position for either one.


I personally have no reason to think the world should have been created.
I just haven't discounted it as a possibility.

And by created I mean the cause of the origin of our world/universe/reality, and not necessarily a deliberate action by something or someone.
It's just pure speculation born out of a limited information and imagination.


I think there is some miscommunication somewhere if you're replying to this part of what I wrote
"A statement like "multiple beings with power and knowledge beyond what any human brain could ever grasp, were responsible for constructing our reality"
This to me would be indistinguishable from the deistic god claim, and is equally plausible and undisprovable."

I am making a case on the unfalsifiability of such a statement, on the deist god and there being no reason someone would assume only a singular god is possible, if they're coming from an agnostic position.
It was not a statement of my beliefs.

Your concept of a god is gotten from theism.
The concept that a thing can be this and that is gotten from theism.

Maynman:

Your concept of a god is gotten from theism.

Yes this is correct.
Theism does sort of have a monopoly on the concept of god unfortunately.

IMAliyu:

Yes this is correct.
Theism does sort of have a monopoly on the concept of god unfortunately.

But why do you think a thing can be this and that?
Theism is broad, maybe you meant monotheism.

All the attributes you know of this thing was given to it by worshippers of different deities(God is typically conceived as being omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent, as well as having an eternal and necessary existence.)
They keep giving their it ridiculous claim to revere there favorite deities, monotheists does this.

LordReed:


What is time?

Scientific time is a dimension of motion. A thing moves, and time exists.
Real Time, which I am preaching to you, exists regardless if anything moves or not.

DeepSight:


Scientific time is a dimension of motion. A thing moves, and time exists.
Real Time, which I am preaching to you, exists regardless if anything moves or not.

Well some scientists conceive of time the same way and I do agree, time has to be independent of motion or else any motionless system would also be timeless.

DeepSight:


Scientific time is a dimension of motion. A thing moves, and time exists.
Real Time, which I am preaching to you, exists regardless if anything moves or not.

I think you should give us a complete definition of “god”, you talk about time and space but that’s the only thing scientists can observe now, in the next hundred years there may be other thing apart from time and space, and time and space may just be the least phenomenon.
But if you’ve limited your definition of a god to “time and space”, I hope you’ll be able to be consistent with it and not change those definitions.

Deepsight, why do you think a “god” has the ability to exist?

Agnostics are monotheist that are afraid of religion.

Maynman:


I think you should give us a complete definition of “god”, you talk about time and space but that’s the only thing scientists can observe now, in the next hundred years there may be other thing apart from time and space, and time and space may just be the least phenomenon.
But if you’ve limited your definition of a god to “time and space”, I hope you’ll be able to be consistent with it and not change those definitions.

Deepsight, why do you think a “god” has the ability to exist?

Agnostics are monotheist that are afraid of religion.

You're the confused one. Your signature says "Divine Light". Mr religionist, can you explain what's divine about the light? Have you seen anything divine and what makes it divine?

Provide concrete proofs. The agnostic position is clear and the monotheistic position is also clear.

If you call one the other, it just shows you don't know what you're arguing about.

A001:

You're the confused one. Your signature says "Divine Light". Mr religionist, can you explain what's divine about the light? Have you seen anything divine and what makes it divine?

Provide concrete proofs. The agnostic position is clear and the monotheistic position is also clear.

If you call one the other, it just shows you don't know what you're arguing about.

It’s a metaphor, the word divine comes from divus, in a mythology book.
Did i make any claim that this “divine light” created anything?
Did i say this divine light is omnipresent?

The agnostic position is borrowed from monotheism.
You and your other agnostics are monotheists hiding from religion.
You take the attributes of a monotheistic god, but you won’t tell us the name of the god? Is it yahweh?

Maynman:

It’s a metaphor, the word divine comes from divus, in a mythology book.
Did i make any claim that this “divine light” created anything?
Did i say this divine light is omnipresent?

The agnostic position is borrowed from monotheism.
You and your other agnostics are monotheists.

How is agnosticism borrowed from monotheism? What are the rationale behind this notion and the proof?

Is atheism also borrowed from theism?

Agnosticism comes from the Greek word "agnōstos" meaning “unknowable”.

A001:

How is agnosticism borrowed from monotheism? What are the rationale behind this notion and the proof?

Is atheism also borrowed from theism?

Agnosticism comes from the Greek word "agnōstos" meaning “unknowable”.

Agnostics claim they don’t know if god exist or not?
How did come up with the word “god”?
This agnostics still went further and say god is a creator, this are attributes of a monotheistic god.
Atheism is the opposite of theism.
The moment you have anything to do with god(theos) you are already a theist.

If something is unknowable, how did you know it is called “god” and it’s a “creator”?

Maynman:


Agnostics claim they don’t know if god exist or not?
How did come up with the word “god”?
This agnostics still went further and say god is a creator, this are attributes of a monotheistic god.
Atheism is the opposite of theism.
The moment you have anything to do with god(theos) you are already a theist.

If something is unknowable, how did you know it is called “god” and it’s a “creator”?

Your point doesn't make sense at all. Think before you type, not after.

Atheists are also theists then because they also have something to do with a god. If you don't know who or what a god is, how then are you sure he/she/it doesn't exist.

You're just confusing yourself unnecessarily. Religious people have defined what a god is, and the agnostic position simply says that god, as defined by religious people, is unknown based on the natural limitations to the human knowledge.

A001:

Your point doesn't make sense at all. Think before you type, not after.

Atheists are also theists then because they also have something to do with a god. If you don't know who or what a god is, how then are you sure he/she/it doesn't exist.

You're just confusing yourself unnecessarily. Religious people have defined what a god is, and the agnostic position simply says that god, as defined by religious people, is unknown based on the natural limitations to the human knowledge.

A god is a deity.
Each religion has his own deity.
Is it yahweh, allah, or the other 1000000 gods.
Atheist rejects all and any gods.

Religion people have different definition of their deities and qualities.
The moment you say god is a creator, that’s a monotheistic definition, then tell us which god? Is it yahweh?

Maynman:

A god is a deity.
Each religion has his own deity.
Is it yahweh, allah, or the other 1000000 gods.
Atheist rejects all and any gods.

Religion people have different definition of their deities and qualities.
The moment you say god is a creator, that’s a monotheistic definition, then tell us which god? Is it yahweh?

Give me a reference where agnostics unanimously tell you a "god" means a creator. Religious people define "god" in various ways, and "a creator" is one of them.

The agnostic position is a response to the "god" position or claim by theists or religious people, based on their various definitions of a "god".

You don't know what agnosticism is, and if you call agnostics monotheists (as silly as that sounds), that makes atheists theists also.

As an agnostic why do you think a god like zeus has the ability to exist?

A001:

Give me a reference where agnostics unanimously tell you a "god" means a creator. Religious people define "god" in various ways, and "a creator" is one of them.

The agnostic position is a response to the "god" position or claim by theists or religious people, based on their various definitions of a "god".

You don't know what agnosticism is, and if you call agnostics monotheists (as silly as that sounds), that makes atheists theists also.

Theist don’t claim “god”, they claim different deities. and a deity by definition is a supreme being e.g allah, yahweh, marduk, ogun etc.
Then agnostics should say they don’t know if gods exist or not.
They should also say they don’t know if thanos or any marvel characters exist or not.
Allah and thanos are the same concept.

The reason an agnostics has his position is because of theism.

Maynman:
As an agnostic why do you think a god like zeus has the ability to exist?


Theist don’t claim “god”, they claim different deities. and a deity by definition is a supreme being e.g allah, yahweh, marduk, ogun etc.
Then agnostics should say they don’t know if gods exist or not.
They should also say they don’t know if thanos or any marvel characters exist or not.
Allah and thanos are the same concept.

The reason an agnostics has his position is because of theism.

This is a silly argument. It seems you've reached your limit intellectually because you're not making any sense at all.

You're sounding dumb like religious people.

Agnosticism, atheism, apatheism, and similar positions all exist because of theism.

A001:

This is a silly argument. It seems you've reached your limit intellectually because you're not making any sense at all.

You're sounding dumb like religious people.

Agnosticism, atheism, apatheism, and similar positions all exist because of theism.

You are ignorant of your position.
god is a title not a person or a thing. A stone can be revered and called a god, the worshippers will claim absurd qualities of it like it existing etc.

You’re sounding dumb because you lack knowledge on your title”agnostic”.

Theism means believing in god or gods.
Atheism is rejecting any god or gods.

As an agnostic, Why do you think a god like zeus can exist or not?

Maynman:

As an agnostic, Why do you think a god like zeus can exist or not?

You asking me this silly question shows you don't know what's called agnosticism.

The earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old, and recorded history doesn't account for even 5% of the planet's age.

There are billions of galaxies and hundreds of billions of planets in the Universe, which is unimaginably big, and scientists haven't explored even 1% of the Universe.

There are natural limits of our abilities as a human; for instance, we can only hear within a narrow range of sound frequencies and see only within a narrow range of frequencies.

There's a vast amount of information and data in our immediate surrounding we're not able to detect and know, just like we're starkly ignorant of things happening in the extrasolar or extraterrestrial worlds.

As a result of these, what the average human know pales in comparison with what they don't know; hence, agnosticism.

A god can exist or not exist; we may never really know for sure due to our limited knowledge of our nature, of our planet, and of the Universe.

That's the agnostic position in simple terms, which is more reasonable than saying with certainty that a god exists (yet the claimant can't provide a concrete proof for such a claim) or doesn't exist.

A001:

You asking me this silly question shows you don't know what's called agnosticism.

The earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old, and recorded history doesn't account for even 5% of the planet's age.

There are billions of galaxies and hundreds of billions of planets in the Universe, which is unimaginably big, and scientists haven't explored even 1% of the Universe.

There are natural limits of our abilities as a human; for instance, we can only hear within a narrow range of sound frequencies and see only within a narrow range of frequencies.

There's a vast amount of information and data in our immediate surrounding we're not able to detect and know, just like we're starkly ignorant of things happening in the extrasolar or extraterrestrial worlds.

As a result of these, what the average human know pales in comparison with what they don't know; hence, agnosticism.

A god can exist or not exist; we may never really know for sure due to our limited knowledge of our nature, of our planet, and of of the Universe.

That's the agnostic position in simple terms, which is more reasonable than saying with certainty that a god exists (yet the claimant can't provide a concrete proof for such a claim) or doesn't exist.

A god is a deity. Yahweh, allah, ogun, zeus are all gods.
As an agnostic, Why do you think a god like zeus or allah has the ability to exist or not?