Gettin' In Tune

I guessed I asked a loaded question. 'Agnosticism: what we did not know, we proved' would be the motto on the T-shirts.

pseudonous

I don't think deism or agnosticism are really things to be proved anyway;they are world views and not statements. The real test of a world view is for internal consistency. Perhaps world view is not the best word but I think it gets my point across. Asking an agnostic to prove he doesn't know if a god exists or a deist to prove that he finds the existence of god to be intuitively obvious would be silly. However, if a deist claims to have proof for the existence of god that is a different matter. Also, if an agnostic claims that god is inherently unknowable then he should be expected to prove it. This follows from the agnostic position that you should only believe things that can be demonstrated.

In any event, if you are looking for philosophers that apply mathematical reasoning, I would suggest skimming through some introductory philosophy texts. You may even want to check a multi-volume encyclopedia of philosophy in a library. It contains a thorough but brief discussion of the entire history of logic dating back to ancient times. Wikipedia even has a decent discussion on predicate or modal logic.

Jayhawker Soule

What does that mean? The KKK has an internally consistent world view.

jaej

I'm not sure what that means either. Well, I get it but I'm not sure of it's relevance.

__________________
Μολὼν Λαβέ

Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate

pseudonous

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?

jaej

I see no practical distinction between someone who believes god created the big bang (or whatever) and then just sat on his ass and an agnostic. The person who believes god just sits up there really isn't a theist, although I don't really know what a deist is so I'm sort of making this up as I go along.

__________________
Μολὼν Λαβέ

Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate

Gettin' In Tune

I do not think so, but I think the differences are trivial. An agnostic begins the discovery process of god from an unbiased perspective, so they do not assume god exists in the first place. The deist (even the minimal deist) begins the discovery process of finding god with the assumption that god exists. Perhaps, this is where ‘synthetic a priori’ knowledge comes into play, because the agnostic is neutral and a deist is not. ….I am still working on this concept. Why is one neutral and the other not?

What makes something intuitively obvious?

The Big Bang model, which deserves our provisional acceptance, violates the first two laws of thermodynamics and begs a few questions: 1. Why is there something rather than nothing? 2. Where did this something come from? I believe that this is another possible point of departure between the agnostic and (minimal) deist. The agnostic will claim there is not enough evidence to prove/disprove god. While the deist will strengthen their presupposition that god exists by use of reason and deduction and the fact that the creation of the universe transcends (or violates) natural laws. I cannot see how a deist can lay claim to the characteristic of god. Even if god created the universe, there is no evidence to prove/disprove god’s intelligence or any other characteristics.

There is a slight flaw in your line of thought about having a belief in eating a hamburger or buying toilet paper. Perhaps, I am just reading too much into this and missing your main point. Your belief does rest on the fact that hamburgers and toilet paper exist. Your trivial belief that you may eat a hamburger today is based on reason and experience. One can have a reasonable belief in a concept of god based on reason and nature, but not on experience. Any belief in god based on experience is flawed.

This discussion has led me to another tangent. Perhaps, I need to discuss this in a deist forum or agnostics can share their thoughts. Does deism subscribe to the god of the gaps view?

Gettin' In Tune

I am new to both agnosticism and deism. Perhaps you are right jaej, there is little ‘practical’ distinction beyond a metaphysical debate between deism and agnosticism. I am just curious and want a better understanding of agnosticism and deism. Currently, I value both highly and just want to learn their subtle differences and why they have their differences. It is to help me have a better understanding of my world while cultivating my belief system.
(It also entertains me while keeping me off the streets )

pseudonous

I think jaej is right. Someone who has a belief in god as I defined it would be an agnostic. You were missing my point a bit on having a belief that I will eat a hamburger today. What I meant to imply is that you could have a belief in a god that didn't impact your life in any significant way such that you would think or behave differently than someone who does not believe in a god. I find this line of thinking interesting, because is shows my previous statement that the difference between an agnostic and a deist is that one believes in god and the other does not believe in god is too simplistic. Given that everyone has there own unique point of view, I bet there is someone out there that sees it that way.

Your right, of course, there seems to be a different motive and/or method for a deist than an agnostic. The most minimal form of deism must include more than god causing the universe and then laying back.

As far as what makes something intuitively obvious, I don't know but I'll hazard a guess that anything that adds strength to your world view without raising to many more questions would fall into the intuitively obvious category. It is completely subjective.

I think you might of hit the nail on the head with this one. Since or knowledge of the world is finite but increasing, we all like to think about it's limitations or border. The difference between a deist and agnostic is that a deist prefers to approach the problem by stepping out of the bound and work his way back in, while an agnostic prefers to work from within the system to expand the boarder outward. I can't really think of a clear way to express this so I am reduced to using an analogy. I think I would need to visit a deist forum myself, if I wanted to develop a more clear understanding of their perceptions.

Gettin' In Tune

My rights have been questioned