Agnostic Forums - View Single Post

john76 · 03-19-2008, 06:53 AM

Hi Skepticologist.

Atheism and theism are both wrong. The 'God' issue cannot be answered either way. Any question concerning God as a cause of anything just as easily admits to a natural explanation, in the same way that any natural phenomenon that is explained through science could just as easily be reduced to a supernatural explnation. It is little more than prejudice, habit, and pragmatics that chooses one over the other. (If you would like to see a good example of atheist propaganda, read Biologist Richard Dawkins' 'The God Delusion.' This book uses such ridiculously poor leaps of logic that I would not suggest that anyone waste their time reading it. It is poorly written, contains pseudo-arguments that are completely groundless, and amounts to little more than a theological treatise in reverse).

Theism makes the claim that some kind of supernatural entity is responsible for the natural universe. This entity may or may not be involved in the things in the universe to one degree or another. Atheism, on the other hand, says that the natural universe is a closed system that admits to no supernatural causation or interference. Now, there is nothing in the idea of a 'natural phenomenon' that requires that external supernatural causation or intervention needs to be included with it. In this way, it is possible that a God or gods is (are) responsible and involved with existence, but there is no reason to think so because we could just as easily imagine that this is not the case. In the same way, there is nothing in the idea of 'natural phenomenon' that requires external supernatural causation or intervention needs to be excluded from it. In this way, it is possible that a God or gods is (are) 'not' responsible for and involved with with existence, but there is no reason to think so, because they certainly could be.

Any natural explanation can be perfectly substituted with a supernatural explanation (and vice versa), without remainder of probability on either side. Atheists usually make the logical mistake that if something sounds silly to them, or is not needed in order to make an explanation, it also makes the supernatural explanation less probable. Take this example: Science says that at normal room temperature and pressure, water boils when heated to 100 degrees celcius. Now, imagine a religious mystic that says water bubbles when just the proper holy conditions are set in place and the Goddess of Steam avatars the water and creates a miracle. On the one hand, the scientist's explanation makes perfectly good sense and requires no supernatural intervention. On the other hand, the mystic's explanation sounds silly. This, however, doesn't mean that the mystic is wrong. Moreover, another religious person could just as easily accept the scientist's explanation but say a god was required to set up the laws of physics or even to maintain them. The point is that the scientist and the Steam Mystic and the religious person all have an explanation of the event, any of which might be the case. You can't pick a natural explanation over a supernatural one just because you don't need to use a supernatural explanation. That would be choosing the natural by default, which begs the question. Another error is when atheists attribute criteria of choice used in the natural realm to the supernatural realm. While it is true that one natural explanation of an entity or event can be better than another natural explanation of an entity of event, this doesn't mean that that the categories of 'better' and 'worse' also apply to comparing natural explanations with supernatural explanations.

On the other hand, theists often make the mistake of assuming that if there is a God, it conforms to their idea of it. It is completely possible that there is a God just like religious people say there is, but it could be that all their actions are really pissing it off because it is really a God that values things like lying and killing because they demonstrate power.

Anyway, agnosticism is correct because atheism and theism are no more or less probable than each other and are mutually exclusive. If there is a God, there can't not be a God. If there is not a God, there can't be a God. If they can't both be right, and there is absolutely no reason to choose one over the other, judgements for or against the existence of God or gods are completely meaningless insofar as people try to apply them to reality.

03-19-2008, 06:53 AM	#13 (permalink)
john76 Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 92	Hi Skepticologist. Atheism and theism are both wrong. The 'God' issue cannot be answered either way. Any question concerning God as a cause of anything just as easily admits to a natural explanation, in the same way that any natural phenomenon that is explained through science could just as easily be reduced to a supernatural explnation. It is little more than prejudice, habit, and pragmatics that chooses one over the other. (If you would like to see a good example of atheist propaganda, read Biologist Richard Dawkins' 'The God Delusion.' This book uses such ridiculously poor leaps of logic that I would not suggest that anyone waste their time reading it. It is poorly written, contains pseudo-arguments that are completely groundless, and amounts to little more than a theological treatise in reverse). Theism makes the claim that some kind of supernatural entity is responsible for the natural universe. This entity may or may not be involved in the things in the universe to one degree or another. Atheism, on the other hand, says that the natural universe is a closed system that admits to no supernatural causation or interference. Now, there is nothing in the idea of a 'natural phenomenon' that requires that external supernatural causation or intervention needs to be included with it. In this way, it is possible that a God or gods is (are) responsible and involved with existence, but there is no reason to think so because we could just as easily imagine that this is not the case. In the same way, there is nothing in the idea of 'natural phenomenon' that requires external supernatural causation or intervention needs to be excluded from it. In this way, it is possible that a God or gods is (are) 'not' responsible for and involved with with existence, but there is no reason to think so, because they certainly could be. Any natural explanation can be perfectly substituted with a supernatural explanation (and vice versa), without remainder of probability on either side. Atheists usually make the logical mistake that if something sounds silly to them, or is not needed in order to make an explanation, it also makes the supernatural explanation less probable. Take this example: Science says that at normal room temperature and pressure, water boils when heated to 100 degrees celcius. Now, imagine a religious mystic that says water bubbles when just the proper holy conditions are set in place and the Goddess of Steam avatars the water and creates a miracle. On the one hand, the scientist's explanation makes perfectly good sense and requires no supernatural intervention. On the other hand, the mystic's explanation sounds silly. This, however, doesn't mean that the mystic is wrong. Moreover, another religious person could just as easily accept the scientist's explanation but say a god was required to set up the laws of physics or even to maintain them. The point is that the scientist and the Steam Mystic and the religious person all have an explanation of the event, any of which might be the case. You can't pick a natural explanation over a supernatural one just because you don't need to use a supernatural explanation. That would be choosing the natural by default, which begs the question. Another error is when atheists attribute criteria of choice used in the natural realm to the supernatural realm. While it is true that one natural explanation of an entity or event can be better than another natural explanation of an entity of event, this doesn't mean that that the categories of 'better' and 'worse' also apply to comparing natural explanations with supernatural explanations. On the other hand, theists often make the mistake of assuming that if there is a God, it conforms to their idea of it. It is completely possible that there is a God just like religious people say there is, but it could be that all their actions are really pissing it off because it is really a God that values things like lying and killing because they demonstrate power. Anyway, agnosticism is correct because atheism and theism are no more or less probable than each other and are mutually exclusive. If there is a God, there can't not be a God. If there is not a God, there can't be a God. If they can't both be right, and there is absolutely no reason to choose one over the other, judgements for or against the existence of God or gods are completely meaningless insofar as people try to apply them to reality.