Analysis of Christopher Hitchen's argument against God

"A thought filled agnostic can simple say, he has reviewed some thoughts and some ideas that the universe could have been created and is waiting for more proof one way or the other."

This gets down to hard part for most simplistic thinkers to digest.

Waiting for more proof...what would constitute proof? A concept of existence or an existence comes first, then a request/demand/requirement for proof that the proposed concept is "reality."

Existence or an existence is not a property of proof, any existence is independently existing without proof.

What atheists demand is a proof for God, and simultaneously they claim to have no concept of God. It is lunacy of course, but that's the way it is.

It is much stickier than you are making it sound, as very deep thinkers have struggled with this for ages...

It starts with a concept of God, then a proof for that concept, but without experience of God or ultimately reality first, how can one have a concept of God?

No, it is not as easy as you are making it sound...

Quote from jem:

I thought the first three or four paragraphs of the article were a bit simplistic.

And must contain a mis application of what Kant was really explaining or else I have to go back an re read Kant.

A thought filled agnostic can simple say, he has reviewed some thoughts and some ideas that the universe could have been created and is waiting for more proof one way or the other.

It is a perfectly rational position.

Only a fool would say they know there is no God.

And a person who says they know their is a God, is probably really saying they have faith there is a God.
More...
 
actually your author was playing games when he tried to divide skeptics from agnostics.

Kant said we cant know the answer to metaphysical questions... sure.

And an agnostic might agree... a believer might agree... but an agnostic does have to say we can not know God... not by todays definition.

the article had a quote from Ingersoll who got the agnostic position correct.

Is there a God? an agnostic does not know.
It is that simple. The rest of the article was just a guy filling space. Trying to turn agnosticism into "Kantism".
 
Quote from OPTIONAL777:

You think it is easy to carefully and fully logically analyze all the arguments for and against the existence of God, taking into account all the different world philosophies and world religions throughout history and their concepts of God, their logical constructs, and then come to a purely informed and logical situation of holding the concept that all concepts of God are beyond your own logical ability to hold any concept of God to be true or false...you think that task is easy work?

Do you truly believe that is an easy task?

If so, I don't think you have achieved the fully enlightened ignorance of a real agnostic, but ignorantly think you have done so because of sheer hubris bound ignorance.

There is the humility that comes from humiliation by others...and then there is something quite different...the humility that comes from a full and complete self examined enlightened intellect.

A man stays in one spot and looks forward, never having traveled and has a view of the ocean before him.

Another man traveled the entire world, saw all there was to see in the world and arrived at the exact same spot as the previous man who never traveled...and has the view of the same ocean before him...and you think they have the same point of view of the ocean?
More...

You act like there are millions of arguments spread throughout the world. There really aren't that many arguments. After analyzing the relatively small amount of arguments it is easy to realize that none offer factual evidence for either position. EASY!
 
You are working with a concept of God that by your comments, could either be proved by "factual" evidence, or disproved by "factual" evidence, or could not possibly either prove or disprove God.

So which is it? You sound quite unclear.

In other words, God could be proved or disproved with "factual" evidence or not.

And if you are suggesting factually evidence could not prove or disprove of God, why is that? You must have some concept of God which prohibits factual evidence from offering proof or falsity.

I am assuming you able to tell me exactly what would constitute the "factual" evidence you speak of. So, what would constitute the "factual" evidence of the God you refer to?

You say there is no factual evidence, because you have defined the problem such that there can be no factual evidence, which is a fallacy of begging the question.

You have to establish something first before you define the criteria of evidence, and for you to be able to declare that no side offers factual evidence means that you have no working concept of God to begin with. Pure uneducated ignorance, not enlightened ignorance, which is very difficult and rare to achieve. It is very hard work to do it properly, not lazily.

Sorry kid, you are out of your depth on this one...which does make life easier for you, as the truly unexamined life is generally much easier to live...

Quote from NeoRio1:

You act like there are millions of arguments spread throughout the world. There really aren't that many arguments. After analyzing the relatively small amount of arguments it is easy to realize that none offer factual evidence for either position. EASY!
More...
 
Let's use an analogy.

Say there are some math problems that never been solved, but do exist.

There are such things.

A grade school kid is presented the problem in his math class, and says, I can't solve it...so I am agnostic about the solution.

Then a math wiz, got his PhD in math as a teenager, works his entire life to solve the problem, and concludes, I can't solve the problem, so I am agnostic to the solution.

One worked their entire life to figure it out, one was a youngster who was incapable of even trying to figure it out, or even understand the problem.

They both reach the same state of uncertainty if the problem can be solved.

The child is ignorant to the solution, if any solution to the math problem could even exist.

The educated man is enlightened as to the process of searching profoundly and diligently toward finding a solution to the math problem, if any solution to the math problem could even exist.

Do you see their positions are respectively equivalent, or is one simply ignorant...and the other enlightened in his ignorance?

One worked terribly hard their whole life to solve the problem, one didn't work at all...yet an uninformed would say their agnosticism of the math problem is exactly the same...it isn't.

One is easily achieved...just don't think.

The other is achieved with great difficulty and lots of deep thinking.



Quote from NeoRio1:

You act like there are millions of arguments spread throughout the world. There really aren't that many arguments. After analyzing the relatively small amount of arguments it is easy to realize that none offer factual evidence for either position. EASY!
More...
 
Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Let's use an analogy.

Say there are some math problems that never been solved, but do exist.

There are such things.

A grade school kid is presented the problem in his math class, and says, I can't solve it...so I am agnostic about the solution.

Then a math wiz, got his PhD in math as a teenager, works his entire life to solve the problem, and concludes, I can't solve the problem, so I am agnostic to the solution.

One worked their entire life to figure it out, one was a youngster who was incapable of even trying to figure it out, or even understand the problem.

They both reach the same state of uncertainty if the problem can be solved.

The child is ignorant to the solution, if any solution to the math problem could even exist.

The educated man is enlightened as to the process of searching profoundly and diligently toward finding a solution to the math problem, if any solution to the math problem could even exist.

Do you see their positions are respectively equivalent, or is one simply ignorant...and the other enlightened in his ignorance?

One worked terribly hard their whole life to solve the problem, one didn't work at all...yet an uninformed would say their agnosticism of the math problem is exactly the same...it isn't.

One is easily achieved...just don't think.

The other is achieved with great difficulty and lots of deep thinking.
More...
Bad analogy.
Math is proven.
 
Quote from NeoRio1:

You act like there are millions of arguments spread throughout the world. There really aren't that many arguments. After analyzing the relatively small amount of arguments it is easy to realize that none offer factual evidence for either position. EASY!
More...
Agnostic is often the name given to an atheist when a theist doesn't understand the argument.

With no belief for or against, it's still no belief. Therefore atheist. "EASY!"
 
Good analogy.

Unsolved questions relating to math problems exist.

Unsolved questions of God's existence exist.

Poor reasoning on your part.


Quote from stu:

Bad analogy.
Math is proven.
More...
 
A practicing atheist practicing denial of their own practiced belief system...unbelievable.


Quote from stu:

Agnostic is often the name given to an atheist when a theist doesn't understand the argument.

With no belief for or against, it's still no belief. Therefore atheist. "EASY!"
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top