The idea is that a world view is not subject to mathematical proofs. The relevance is to the distinction between deism and agnosticism. Deism and agnosticism are not logical conclusions that can be proved or disproved. They are more like collections of arguments and if one of the arguments can be shown to be weak it does not necessarily destroy the whole point of view.
The purpose of this thread is to discuss where you draw the line between agnosticism and deism. So here is my question for you: If someone believed in god simply because they found it intuitively obvious and subscribed to the most minimal deist position but never reasoned any farther than their reason could take them, could you call them agnostic? Let say that by the most minimal deist position, I mean that god caused the big bang (or whatever theory science may come up with in the future) and then did nothing. As an agnostic there are times when I believe I might eat a hamburger or that I should by some toilet paper; I have no problem with carrying beliefs in trivial things. This makes me wonder at what point might someones belief in god become so trivial that they could be considered agnostic. Or as the case may be, where is the logical break down in this line of thinking? |