GOD EXISTS

gcomeau wrote:
You have presented no "problem" with Huxley's definition. The word describes a specific belief, that isn't a problem that's just what the word means.

In the literal sense, we are all ignorant of the Truth, whether that Truth is God or His absence. We are persuaded to believe one way or the other by evidence each of us finds compelling. So, Huxley's definition is useful to describe one sort of agnostic. The sort that believe no evidence can be compelling enough.

The agnostic isn't the ignorant. We are all ignorant in the literal sense. The agnostic is the un-persuaded.

Un-persuaded of *what*?

Of whether God exists? Wrong. I know agnostics who are un-persuaded and agnostics who are persuaded.

Here is an appropriate quote from this critical thinker:

Huxley states, "Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous [sic] application of a single principle... the fundamental axiom of modern science... In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration... In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable."

The bolded text is incompatible with the assertion that anything is unknowable. Since the limit of what can or cannot be proven is unknown, asserting it as unknowable is an act of faith or in Huxley's words a creed. If God's existence or absence is indeed proven to be unknowable, then agnostics would use no faith. They simply remain persuaded by whatever evidence theists or atheists present.

creed [ krēd ]
NOUN
a system of Christian or other religious belief; a faith:

The definition you used is a problem because Huxley's use of agnostic was an attempt to eschew the use of faith in reasoning. How can you avoid the use when the definition embraces it? I find this contradiction a problem.

Agnostics are persuaded by any evidence pointing to the belief that God either exists or does not exist. Theists and atheists have been persuaded one way or the other to believe in what has not been proved.

PeterZ wrote:Here is an appropriate quote from this critical thinker:

Huxley states, "Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous [sic] application of a single principle... the fundamental axiom of modern science... In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration... In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable."

The bolded text is incompatible with the assertion that anything is unknowable.

Please give some thought to the meaning of something NOT being demonstrable then rethink what you just said.

No, the bolded text is not in any way incompatible with anything being unknowable. It explicitly accounts for the existence of unknowable things right there in the statement. He flat out says don't claim to know things that CAN NOT BE demonstrated. Those things are unknowable.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Here is an appropriate quote from this critical thinker:

Huxley states, "Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous [sic] application of a single principle... the fundamental axiom of modern science... In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration... In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable."

The bolded text is incompatible with the assertion that anything is unknowable.

Please give some thought to the meaning of something NOT being demonstrable then rethink what you just said.

No, the bolded text is not in any way incompatible with anything being unknowable. It explicitly accounts for the existence of unknowable things right there in the statement. He flat out says don't claim to know things that CAN NOT BE demonstrated. Those things are unknowable.

Where is the proof that the existence of God or his absence CANNOT be demonstrated? Absent such proof, this is an assertion held by faith, just like theism and atheism.

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote:Please give some thought to the meaning of something NOT being demonstrable then rethink what you just said.

No, the bolded text is not in any way incompatible with anything being unknowable. It explicitly accounts for the existence of unknowable things right there in the statement. He flat out says don't claim to know things that CAN NOT BE demonstrated. Those things are unknowable.

Where is the proof that the existence of God or his absence CANNOT be demonstrated? Absent such proof, this is an assertion held by faith, just like theism and atheism.

The fact that demonstrating the existence of anything requires reliance on the reliability of observational data.

The reliability of observational data requires the baseline assumption that the basic laws of physics that govern those observations are not being violated.

Any supernatural hypothesis by definition requires those laws to BE violated (otherwise the thing in question, be it a deity or a ghost or a demon or whatever wouldn't be "supernatural").

Thus voiding the reliability of any test data and rendering the claim undemonstrable.

gcomeau wrote:
The fact that demonstrating the existence of anything requires reliance on the reliability of observational data.

Peter wrote:Agreed

The reliability of observational data requires the baseline assumption that the basic laws of physics that govern those observations are not being violated.

Peter wrote:Agreed

Any supernatural hypothesis by definition requires those laws to BE violated (otherwise the thing in question, be it a deity or a ghost or a demon or whatever wouldn't be "supernatural").

Peter wrote:Nonsese. The fundamental laws might be a product of your supernatural force. The fundamental laws in question is God's subconscious, if you will. No violation at all and might well be demonstrated under certain as yet undiscovered conditions.

Thus voiding the reliability of any test data and rendering the claim undemonstrable.[/quote]

Not quite.

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote:
The fact that demonstrating the existence of anything requires reliance on the reliability of observational data.

Agreed

The reliability of observational data requires the baseline assumption that the basic laws of physics that govern those observations are not being violated.

Agreed

Any supernatural hypothesis by definition requires those laws to BE violated (otherwise the thing in question, be it a deity or a ghost or a demon or whatever wouldn't be "supernatural").

Nonsese. The fundamental laws might be a product of your supernatural force.

Which by definition would require that that supernatural force supercede them and not be bound by them.

The fundamental laws in question is God's subconscious, if you will. No violation at all and might well be demonstrated under certain as yet undiscovered conditions.

Unless you're going to argue God is incapable of not being ruled by his subconscious, and thus has no conscious free will, God would not be bound by those laws.

Are you going to present an argument that God is bound by the laws of physics? Because that would be an extreme minority position within Christianity, and if you want to argue that would you mind starting with how God created the universe and those laws of physics with them?

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:
The fact that demonstrating the existence of anything requires reliance on the reliability of observational data.

Agreed

The reliability of observational data requires the baseline assumption that the basic laws of physics that govern those observations are not being violated.

Agreed

Any supernatural hypothesis by definition requires those laws to BE violated (otherwise the thing in question, be it a deity or a ghost or a demon or whatever wouldn't be "supernatural").

Nonsese. The fundamental laws might be a product of your supernatural force./quote]

Which by definition would require that that supernatural force supercede them and not be bound by them.

The fundamental laws in question is God's subconscious, if you will. No violation at all and might well be demonstrated under certain as yet undiscovered conditions.

gcomeau wrote:Unless you're going to argue God is incapable of not being ruled by his subconscious, and thus has no conscious free will, God would not be bound by those laws.

Are you going to present an argument that God is bound by the laws of physics? Because that would be an extreme minority position within Christianity, and if you want to argue that would you mind starting with how God created the universe and those laws of physics with them?

I am doing nothing of the sort. I simply assert that your proof is no proof at all. If fundamental laws are a product of god's conscious or unconscious mind, God existence does not violate that law and so might be observed with confidence.

That Huxley's coined term Agnosticism, cannot assert that proof God's existence either way is indemonstrable and still be consistent with the concept that spawned the word.

So, agnostic, as intended to be used by Huxley in regards to God's existence means the agnostic does not believe that God exists nor does he believe God does not exist. He has no faith guiding any belief about God.

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote:Unless you're going to argue God is incapable of not being ruled by his subconscious, and thus has no conscious free will, God would not be bound by those laws.

Are you going to present an argument that God is bound by the laws of physics? Because that would be an extreme minority position within Christianity, and if you want to argue that would you mind starting with how God created the universe and those laws of physics with them?

I am doing nothing of the sort. I simply assert that your proof is no proof at all.

If you're not making the argument above, then yes it is.

The only way around it is to declare you believe in a "God" that is NOT supernatural. Which you appear reluctant to do. I bet I can guess why.

gcomeau wrote:If you're not making the argument above, then yes it is.

The only way around it is to declare you believe in a "God" that is NOT supernatural. Which you appear reluctant to do. I bet I can guess why.

No, it isn't. Your argument required the chain of logic to conclude what you did. The possibility exists that God exists, because it is not proven that He does not.

To be indemonstrable, there can exist no possible way to demonstrate that the statement is true. We have agreed that God's absence or existence has not been proved. Your proof requiring fundamental law be broken if God exists is false because fundamental law can be a product of God's existence. God's existence has not been disproven.

Agnostics need not believe that God's existence is indemonstrable to be agnostic as Huxley envisioned.

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote:If you're not making the argument above, then yes it is.

The only way around it is to declare you believe in a "God" that is NOT supernatural. Which you appear reluctant to do. I bet I can guess why.

No, it isn't. Your argument required the chain of logic to conclude what you did. The possibility exists that God exists, because it is not proven that He does not.

now you're just changing the subject. Nobody was talking about having proven God didn't exist. We were talking about it NOT BEING POSSIBLE to prove he does or does not exist.

To be indemonstrable, there can exist no possible way to demonstrate that the statement is true.

Yep. Which there isn't.

We have agreed that God's absence or existence has not been proved.

Yep. So?

Your proof requiring fundamental law be broken if God exists is false because fundamental law can be a product of God's existence.

If they are a product of God's existence then God therefore supercedes them. He can't create them and be bound by them at the same time. So which is it? Is God bound by the laws of physics and you thus believe in a "God" that is entirely a natural entity... or is he the creator of the laws of physics and this not bound by them?

God's existence has not been disproven.

Why do you keep saying that? Is it some kind of compulsion?