No one knows for sure whats up.So be AGNOSTIC !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Dark_Magneto]

Leibniz was really on to something with that principle. It's too bad he didn't practice what he preached though.

Blaise Pascal's findings are used in everyday mathematics to this day, but that speaks nothing of his religious beliefs and wager that subsequently followed.

[Rust]

Do you really think that Leibniz the creator of the "Leibniz Principle of Sufficient Reason" didn't think about God when he created it. Of all things, he forgot to practice it on his belief of God?

He had his reasons for believing in God.

People don’t get that proof of the existence of God is relative. For me it could be some "miracle" or unexplained phenomena.

For others it could be something else.

It just has to be something that proves to you there is a God, not to "them".

"Blaise Pascal's findings are used in everyday mathematics to this day, but that speaks nothing of his religious beliefs and wager that subsequently followed."

His wager had little to do with mathematics and more to do with faith, logic, and HIS beliefs.

You may think I’m just a raving theist, just blinding believing in God, but I’m more like you: not and atheist, just really, really sceptical; I’m just leaning to a different side...

[UrbnTbone]

Why do people need to discuss on God's existence from an outsider perspective?

No proof is transmissible, so it's a matter of personal choice.

Either you consider the God hypothesis as never disproved, yet unproved, and you bet.

Or you have reliable enough experience to start a personalrelationship with the idea of God, and how God would relate to you and you to God. I'm serious: if you had 50% chances to have an unknown uncle, very rich and famous let's say, wouldn't you imagine and prepare and try to reach the uncle?

If you would write letters for him, nobody could say you are acting unrational, since such an important relative is worth the practical hypothesis.

[Dark_Magneto]

quote:Originally posted by UrbnTbone:

No proof is transmissible, so it's a matter of personal choice.

Why would a person believe in something that had no proof? If someone were to do that, and they weren't applying selective biased reasoning (and therefore appied the resoning equally to other claims as well), they would have to use the same criteria for every unproveable claim and thusly, they would believe anything unfalsifiable that you tell them. Like "Give me all your mony and you'll go to heaven".

quote:

I'm serious: if you had 50% chances to have an unknown uncle, very rich and famous let's say, wouldn't you imagine and prepare and try to reach the uncle?

I hope your not suggesting what I think you are, because pascal's sucker bet logic isn't going to convince anyone with half a brain.

The chance of any specific god factually existing is *statistically* impossible since there are an infinite number of possible gods.

quote:

If you would write letters for him, nobody could say you are acting unrational, since such an important relative is worth the practical hypothesis.

But when you keep sending letter after letter after letter, is it safe to assume that this unknown relative doesn't exist? What if you attempt to call them or visit them and they never produce themselvs? How would you know if the person was hiding for some stupid reason or didn't exist to begin with?

For the record, I'm not atheist. I'm just really really really really really skeptical of the existence of gods.

Every god lacks what every god has never had: Proof. For an all-powerful being, you would think this would be the simplest of tasks to perform. I find it ridiculous to think that a deity can create a physical world, but is incapable of generating physical proof.

I'll only believe something if it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt since I apply logic equally to all claims. If there is no proof for it, then there is no reason to believe it as well.

It keeps things rather simple and uncomplicated. If something comes along one day, great. If not, oh well.

[This message has been edited by Dark_Magneto (edited 05-23-2003).]

[Rust]

"The chance of any specific god factually existing is *statistically* impossible since there are an infinite number of possible gods."

You are wrong.

Yes there are infinite possible gods.

But in that realm of "possible gods" there are "wrong" ones and "right" ones.

There are an infinite number of "wrong" gods and "right" ones.

You could argue that your chances of choosing the "right" god are infinitely small or infinitely great.

Even if your chances were infinitely small, you would still have a chance to choose the "right" god. Not believing yields no chance at all.

[iod]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Even if your chances were infinitely small, you would still have a chance to choose the "right" god. Not believing yields no chance at all.

There are an infinite number of possible gods that would only grant atheists entrance to heaven because he respects skepticism and free thought. So, pascal's wager is still bullshit.

[Beany]

The journey of a soul is to find out what god is.

So no-one really knows yet, but we all will at some point.

[UrbnTbone]

quote:Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:

But when you keep sending letter after letter after letter, is it safe to assume that this unknown relative doesn't exist? What if you attempt to call them or visit them and they never produce themselvs? How would you know if the person was hiding for some stupid reason or didn't exist to begin with?

So, then you come up to the thread's title: agnostic.

quote:

For the record, I'm not atheist. I'm just really really really really really skeptical of the existence of gods.

Kewl, why not?

[/b][/quote]

Every god lacks what every god has never had: Proof. For an all-powerful being, you would think this would be the simplest of tasks to perform. I find it ridiculous to think that a deity can create a physical world, but is incapable of generating physical proof.[/b][/quote] Well they came up with the postulate of "free-will", in order that you will pass your karma tests in a neutral environment and reveal your true nature to a situation, the higher reality is kept veiled from you, if not you would have no merit behaving well.

quote:

I'll only believe something if it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt since I apply logic equally to all claims. If there is no proof for it, then there is no reason to believe it as well.

OK, but to the same extent, none ever proved this reality is 'the' reality, maybe it is depending on some other root dimension, wether you call it God or whatever concept.

One can safely assume there are as many chances for, than against, some "higher reality" hypothesis.

As of why such a god and not another, this is not the topic here. Agnostic means being at peace with the idea of 'some' higher realm.

[Dark_Magneto]

quote:Originally posted by UrbnTbone:



Well they came up with the postulate of "free-will", in order that you will pass your karma tests in a neutral environment and reveal your true nature to a situation, the higher reality is kept veiled from you, if not you would have no merit behaving well.

So free will can only exist on an environment where we are ignorant of gods existence? Doesn't that kind of deal a critical blow to popular notions of free will in an afterlife where gods presence is known?

quote:

OK, but to the same extent, none ever proved this reality is 'the' reality, maybe it is depending on some other root dimension, wether you call it God or whatever concept.

Yeah. And maybe it's all just a dream/we are coma patience in a hospital ward/ ad infinitum. I never did like solipsism myself. If anything comes along to demonstrate that we don't exist in reality here, I'll have to seriously consider it. Until then, such notions are only mental masturbation excercises.

I can accept "some" form of higher "something" may exist, but when people start defining, manufacturing, packaging, and labeling belief systems for mass consumption, hook, line, and sinker, a "few discrepancies" to say the least arise reflective of the era it was designed in .

[Rust]

T"here are an infinite number of possible gods that would only grant atheists entrance to heaven because he respects skepticism and free thought. So, pascal's wager is still bullshit."

A theist can still be skeptical, and a theist can still have "free thought" thus, they win as well.

Skepticism is doubt, and an atheist does not doubt. He does not believe in or denies the existence of a God.