1 year ago
Which side makes a better case?
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • a year ago

    @mani_bharathy great discussion man, thanks!

  • a year ago

    You said you are an agnostic theist. Because you are not sure about God's existence but you choose to believe God exists.

    You said you are sure about gravity like 99.99% not 100%. Does it makes an agnostic gravity believer?

    Now I can extend this to,
    Are you an agnostic science believer ?

    And you said we might have been made to believe that 1+1=2 by the infinite being. So,
    Are you an agnostic 1+1=2 believer ?

    Do you really think anything is true without being agnostic ?

    • a year ago

      @mani_bharathy There are two levels of knowledge. There is knowledge in the greater sense; appeals to complete 100.0% certainty. Humans are mostly incapable of such knowledge. The only such knowledge an individual human can have access to is the statement "I think, therefore I am."

      But of course, that gets us nowhere, which is why we humans operate according to a lesser degree of knowledge. We can know things through our senses. For our own practical well being, we ignore the fact that we have no reason to actually believe our senses except our senses, and then we formulate beliefs according to these senses.

      Through the senses, we can prove things to the highest degree of human certainty, such as mathematical principles and gravity. In the greater sense of knowledge, there is no way of verifying any of those principles unless we were to become infinite. In the lesser sense of knowledge, we can verify them through the scientific method.

      So according to human knowledge, I say with complete certainty that 1 + 1 = 2 and that gravity exists. According to greater knowledge, I cannot claim to know, because I do not have tools beyond my finite senses. It would be like if an ant claimed to know the purpose of the universe, despite not even having rationality in the first place. The ant isn't capable of answering that question because the tools it has aren't sufficient. Neither are human tools.

      When it comes to "agnostic theism" or "agnostic gravity" I'd say the standard should be a "reasonable degree of certainty." If someone could prove the merit of a religion to a reasonable degree of certainty, I'd accept that religion. If someone can prove a human purpose to a reasonable degree of certainty, I'd accept that we have such a purpose. And according to human knowledge, gravity has been proven to a 100% level of certainty, thus I believe in it. I'd also believe in gravity if it was shown to 95% certainty, since that would be a reasonable degree of certainty.

      And to answer the final question, I think things are true in the lesser sense, and they may be true in the greater sense, but we have no way of knowing or verifying that. A question of human purpose is an appeal to the greater sense (you said we were talking about an inherent, objective purpose) and as such, I say it's unknowable.

    • a year ago

      @sharkb8 Before I reply to this, what do you think about this 2 minute video?