Indeed sir, Pascal’s wager does it for the gain. I did not wish to get involved in that as a loving diety would not cause his creatures and doom them to non existence even if they were atheist hence me trying to avoid the wager. — Deus

I thought belief was key to salvation. That raises an important question in ethics :point: Belief In God Necessary For Being Good. The related issues are that of Original Sin and Divine Grace. All this implying the God Pascal's wager's about is the Christian God. Nevertheless, I don't think any God, Christian or not, would give us free access to heaven - we need to pay for the ticket and the accepted form of payment in all religions seems to be virtuous thoughts/words/deeds and for that, luckily or not, one might need to...believe.

On a more serious note, i think you will agree that "not-knowing" cannot be claimed by any TDH, as it requires one to exhaust the entire field and go beyond the frontiers by one's own effort. So it isn't a cheap and weak claim like "oh i am ok with not-knowing". Only someone that has exhausted the limits of knowing can make that claim, right? — Deus

Correct, however, Pascal's wager takes that - limits of knowing - into account. Hence, it's a probability argument, the very essence of this branch of math being about ignorance and how to tackle it in a rational way. If I claim I don't know if God exists or not, I mean that, mathematically speaking, the probability that God exists = the probability that God doesn't exist = 50%. Once we have a number, plug it into a formula and out pops the relevant result (see my previous post)!

Well this is what’s interesting about it our predecessor, God, who existed before we did. We sure as hell did not pop into existence by accident some God had a hand in all of this can assure you of that. — Deus

I thought that us suddenly popping into existence :sparkle: was your sort of thing?
Well, who says we did anyway?

1. we already know that more complex can come about from simpler
(implicit here is some notion of ours of simple and complex)
2. complex coming about from more complex leads to an infinite regress, apparently a vicious rather than benign one
3. say, life from non-life, for example, is rational enough

People might have different attitudes towards, say, Sunnism and unassuming deism:

There's a worthwhile distinction to make here.

Stories: Here gods/God are various narrated characters, found in religious texts and such. These are more elaborate (and often include divine intervention), and adherents go by rituals, commands/rules, impositions, fate designations, they have public aspects (and advertising), etc.

Definitions: Here gods/God are defined by apologists, and definitions may vary. Some are results of apologetic arguments. Some do not differentiate, say, theism and deism, and some are more panpsychist or Spinozist (or whatever) than others.

The distinction matters because people have different attitudes towards the two.
Additionally, the former category is typically where we see social impacts, be it in politics or interfering in people's lives or some such, so these warrant more attention.
Also, you cannot derive the former from the latter.

I'd suggest setting out what's meant so as to anchor goalposts and minimize ambiguities. — https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/554551

Not sure why you are tagging me on a post which was clearly on a different context, and addressed to the OP, And also why you are asking me to see your previous post. Are you seeking a discussion. Because last time you tried that, i am guessing it didn't go well for you.

Pascal’s wager does it for the gain — Deus

Who doesn't? Everyone is in it for something - a prayer answered, improving the circumstances of one's future reincarnation, a heavenly slot, improvement of one's social standing, reciprocation of love, etc.! Right?!

Not sure why you are tagging me on a post which was clearly on different context, and addressed to the OP, And also why you are asking me to see your previous post. Are you seeking a discussion. Because last time you tried that, i am guessing it didn't go well for you. — skyblack

Neo: Whoa, deja vu.

Trinity: What did you just say?

Neo: Nothing, I just had a little deja vu.
.
.
.
Trinity: Deja vu is usually a glitch in the Matrix. It happens when they change something.

Go back to what you are good at, i.e, posting videos about "enough talk, let's fight". Get a seat in the peanut gallery and watch the big boys.

Go back to what you are good at, i.e, posting videos about "enough talk, let's fight". Get a seat in the peanut gallery and watch the big boys. — skyblack

:ok: You seem to be in a not-so-good mood. I'll leave you to cool off, if that's even possible. I'm pleasantly surprised that I'm on your radar but don't waste your time on people like me. I'm sure you have better things to do than that! Right?

:ok: You seem to be in a not-so-good mood. I'll leave you to cool off, if that's even possible. I'm pleasantly surprised that I'm on your radar but don't waste your time on people like me. I'm sure you have better things to do than that! Right? — TheMadFool

Now that you put it that way, it's likely you have seen me share my thoughts on the subject matter of present discussion. It's few comments back, probably in the previous page.

@TheMadFool

As to using mathematics, i am not sure we have to be an educated idiot when we can use simple ways like observation and common sense to arrive at the same determinations. But it's just my take. Doesn't have to be anyone else's.

Now that you put it that way, it's likely you have seen me share my thoughts on the subject matter of present discussion. It's few comments back, probably in the previous page. — skyblack

I'll go read your posts and will get back to you if I can pick up anything that might interest you.

As to using mathematics, i am not sure we have to be an educated idiot when we can use simple ways like observation and common sense to arrive at the same determinations. But it's just my take. Doesn't have to be anyone else's. — skyblack

Observation & common sense - killing combination, Sherlock!

@TheMadFool

Observation & common sense - killing combination, Sherlock! — TheMadFool

Isn't it? Purely elementary! Something educated idiots can learn about.

BTW sarcasm and wit, which yours truly can use if the need be, isn't a quality he cherishes or cares for. As it has the stench of subtle violence. Let's see if we can put that aside.

Let the sissies with the hissies use it, eh

To say 'God did it' has no explanatory power. It's using a mystery to explain a mystery. Might as well say the Magic Man did it. Or aliens... — Tom Storm

:100:

And the strongest argument from a logical standpoint? — frank

There definitely does not exist anything that should reasonably count as God, and most of those things could not possibly exist, although there definitely do or probably could (in different cases) exist a few different things some people might count as God anyway.

I think that agnosticism is a better and more prudent position when it comes to the existence of God or a Diety then Atheism as per the above definition. The agnostic does not rule out the existence of God whereas the Atheist does. What are your thoughts ? — Deus

This doesn't tell us why you think agnosticism is better than atheism. If the underlined sentence is your reason, then I disagree. Depending on your epistemic situation (and I am not necessarily talking about gods here), it can be more reasonable to take a position, however tentatively, than to abstain from taking a position, or even renounce the possibility of any knowledge, as your suggested definition of agnosticism states.

If, while sitting in a chair, you announce that you have no idea whether there is a chair under you, and that moreover you cannot possibly know such a thing, anyone would think that you are out of your mind.

Isn't it? Purely elementary! Something educated idiots can learn about.

BTW sarcasm and wit, which yours truly can use if the need be, isn't a quality he cherishes or cares for. As it has the stench of subtle violence. Let's see if we can put that aside. — skyblack

:ok:

It's not cool, manly, or macho to call people out for with subtle violence in your back pocket in discussions on a public philosophy board unless the other person is literally using this at you

Of course. And most likely that could be because of the historical accounts associated with Christianity, as Jesus was recorded in same. Just like many history books we read about someone, one can easily conceive of that existence pretty readily...

Some start with God as the default position and think that the opinions are either accept or rule it out.
Others simply find no compelling reason to rule it in.

Atheism
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Agnosticism
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God

I think that agnosticism is a better and more prudent position when it comes to the existence of God or a Diety then Atheism as per the above definition. The agnostic does not rule out the existence of God whereas the Atheist does. What are your thoughts ? — Deus

Based off these definitions, holding agnosticism as a position, especially one that is 'better' just seems like virtue signaling and pseudo-intellectual circle-jerk to get people off the hook from thinking further.

If the claim is "God" (and it's existence) is not known or can be known holding agnosticism as a interesting position seems more so a superficial getcha-back statement of some kind in response to atheists and theists, less a position communicating an intellectually interesting stance.

I question agnostics like this why they don't claim Ignoticism instead. What exactly are you 'questioning' that isn't self-defeatist [or superficial] if agnosticism is the position that 'X cannot be known, is not known, or unknowable' is known itself ... knowledge of X is unknown and unknownable, so?

I'm an agnostic atheist.

I don't believe any posed gods exist but I can't know that no gods exist with maximal certainty.

Gnosticism speaks to knowledge.

Well, there are agnostic theists. Further you might believe without thinking that the existence of God can be known. IOW, as an example, you participate in a religion. You have experiences that are predicted - perhaps stages of growth in a specific hindu subgroup. These experiences you have cannot be used to demonstrate to others that God exists, but you find yourself believing more and more in God. One could say that it works for you to believe, not that you necessarily take a pragmatic epistemological view of truth. But hey, you find you believe.

But you do not think this can be demonstrated to others inductively or deductively (that there is a God). And you do not consider yourself completely free of doubt.

And in real life we have many such beliefs. All sorts of conclusions around other people, from employees to friends to romantic relations. We believe that Joe is less trustworthy than Mary, but we cannot demonstrate this (yes, in some cases we have evidence, but some we don't. And also the way we use evidence, often, is based on intuition. But then sometimes it comes down to vibe or other intangibles ((which by the way one can better at noticing than other people))). Yet, nevertheless we allow such conclusions to guide decisions and how we relate to people. IOW these beliefs that we do not, at this time, or sometimes ever, think can/will be demonstrated to be the case or even statistically more likely to be true
have real world effects.

I think sometimes in these discussions - not responding here to you - there can be this, often implicit idea, that one should never believe something that cannot be demonstrated to others. But then, we all have these beliefs. Most atheists and agnostics, at least those identifying as such and engaging in discussions would tend to, when waxing epistemological anyway, focus on science, and good deduction from generally accepted secular truths, etc. There can be an attendant illusion that they themselves do not believe things that actually do not meet their own posited epistemology. But, so far, I haven't met anyone who bases all their beliefs, including important ones like political ones, social and professional life beliefs, where in fact it is values, intuition, guesswork are actually at work.

Another way to put this is I think people are epistemologically eclectic. Which is fine, but it needs to be recognized.

there are agnostic theists. — Bylaw

Indeed, folk believe all sorts of inconsistent things.

If we take agnosticism as one cannot in any way experience a deity if there was one then it would be extremely odd to be an agnostic theist. If however the agnosticism is based on the idea that one cannot know, it is not so odd. And, as I said, and gave examples, believing in things that cannot be demonstrated to others is not only endemic, but even in many cases, useful. We can have useful beliefs that are not knowledge, as knowledge is generally defined in the secular modern world.

I think that agnosticism is a better and more prudent position when it comes to the existence of God or a Diety then Atheism as per the above definition. — Deus

If these beliefs affect one's psychological state and decisions and action foundation, then agnosticism wouldn't be better or more prudent, as it would give more confusions hesitations and uncertain feelings in his life? Whereas it would be simpler and more consistent and certain on one's daily life when one has strong beliefs on either God exists or not?

It would depend on the fact that whether it affects your dispositions, feelings and the way of living, or the beliefs are taken just as on the theoretical level, I would imagine.

Also, these beliefs are suppose to change through time depending on the individuals' life experiences.

We should recognize the difference between knowledge and belief, but this does not settle the matter. For some, like Kant, lack of knowledge leaves room for faith. The problem here is that some mistake faith for knowledge. For others, lack of knowledge means that belief must have some other basis, something that compels or leads to belief. If one finds nothing to compel belief then there is no reason to believe. The problem here is that some mistake lack of belief for knowledge.

I think the Atheist has specific reasons for disbelieving in god. Probably some deep psychological trauma where they feel they were let down and abandoned.

From a purely pragmatic perspective of course, you are correct: agnosticism - in the sense of withholding or suspending judgment - is eminently the more sensible position.

You sound like someone who can help me unravel this ball of yarn. :up:

Tell me what I'm missing, where my thinking goes wrong:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/562314 (re: whence agnosticism?)

Ok, but I won't be able to give this my full attention during work hours. I'll read it more thoroughly and get back to you later in the day.