Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
DannyM wrote:Hawking, Penrose and other astrophysicists held to the big bang model. I'll stick with the experts if it's all the same to you.
If you really can do that, it would be fantastic. As of now you are extending considerably beyond what the scientific community would assert.
The rest is just nonsense. Feel free to explain why anything and not nothing...Show me, in a coherent manner, of course, how something could logically arise from nothing...
Apparently you didn't read my post very carefully, for in it I remarked that such a suggestion is "agreeably incoherent."
Eh? What am I stating that the "scientific community" would assert?
And I'm still asking you to explain the universe's appearence out of something called "nothing"? Or are you saying the universe had no starting point?
DannyM wrote:Here we go with asserted claims with no rational basis.
I was asking questions, not asserting claims. But it so happens that I do regard God's existence as highly unlikely.
How "unlikely" is God's existence? On what do you base such a claim? Can you show me an empirical model from which you derive this claim?
Likelihood is, among other things, a measure of expectation. We can gauge our own expectation and assign a value we deem appropriate. No "empirical model" is required for us to do so.
So I ask you once again, on what basis do you determine the unliklihood of God's existence? Or is this just your personal opinion which has no real authority behind it and doesn't really warrant your lofty claim that God's existence is unlikely? Is that what this really boils down to?
DannyM wrote:I've seen the link before and it is utter nonsense. Sorry. I can show you Oxford, which correctly defines atheism and correctly defines agnosticism. From these definitions - the correct definitions - it is impossible, in the perimeters of the English language, and thus our whole mother tongue, to be an agnostic atheist.
Definitions are not "correct" or "incorrect." They are useful or not useful, appropriate or inappropriate, attractive or unattractive, but not "correct" or "incorrect."
It is quite true that "atheist" and "agnostic" both carry the definitions you ascribe to them---in particular contexts, of course. But they are by no means limited to those definitions.
I doubt you will be swayed by anything I say here, though, so, in order to verify it, I suggest you consult professional resources including the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and Antony Flew's God, Freedom and Immortality (esp. chap. 2).
You are right, nothing you will say can change the way in which the English language must be used. Apparently the word 'gotten' has made it's ghastly way into the American dictionary; this does not make the word legitimate in my eyes. It's probably made its way over here, too, but thankfully not into Oxford.
DannyM wrote:So, again, you are just taking a great big calving knife to our Post-Norman Mother tongue. For shame, TC.
Tell that to the philosophers who developed the terminology. There's no guidebook for the English language, it's just the words and grammar used by English speakers. I, and many other people, understand what is meant by the term "agnostic atheist" or "agnostic theist" or "theist who isn't agnostic". Call it butchery of the English language if you want, but by convention those terms have meanings.
I'm still not sure you've grasped that agnosticism is a term that is not restricted to the area of theism - once you grasp the "true" (in the sense that most philosophers of religion) meaning of agnosticism, you'll see that the term can be applied to atheists and theists alike.
You stated in one post that "everyone is agnostic because no one really knows...", but this isn't true; agnosticism isn't about what someone does know, it is about the extent to which they claim something is knowable.
DannyM wrote:You are right, nothing you will say can change the way in which the English language must be used. Apparently the word 'gotten' has made it's ghastly way into the American dictionary; this does not make the word legitimate in my eyes. It's probably made its way over here, too, but thankfully not into Oxford.
You're aware that the OED is a descriptive dictionary, right? They choose which words to include based on their frequency of use in various English language sources (hence words like "qwerty" make appearances).
If a word or a usage of a word becomes common parlance, then it will be included in a later edition of the OED. It's not a gold standard by which the "correctness" of English is gauged.
DannyM wrote:You are right, nothing you will say can change the way in which the English language must be used. Apparently the word 'gotten' has made it's ghastly way into the American dictionary; this does not make the word legitimate in my eyes. It's probably made its way over here, too, but thankfully not into Oxford.
You're aware that the OED is a descriptive dictionary, right? They choose which words to include based on their frequency of use in various English language sources (hence words like "qwerty" make appearances).
If a word or a usage of a word becomes common parlance, then it will be included in a later edition of the OED. It's not a gold standard by which the "correctness" of English is gauged.
DannyM wrote:So, again, you are just taking a great big calving knife to our Post-Norman Mother tongue. For shame, TC.
Tell that to the philosophers who developed the terminology. There's no guidebook for the English language, it's just the words and grammar used by English speakers. I, and many other people, understand what is meant by the term "agnostic atheist" or "agnostic theist" or "theist who isn't agnostic". Call it butchery of the English language if you want, but by convention those terms have meanings.
I'm still not sure you've grasped that agnosticism is a term that is not restricted to the area of theism - once you grasp the "true" (in the sense that most philosophers of religion) meaning of agnosticism, you'll see that the term can be applied to atheists and theists alike.
You stated in one post that "everyone is agnostic because no one really knows...", but this isn't true; agnosticism isn't about what someone does know, it is about the extent to which they claim something is knowable.
'Some twenty years ago, or thereabouts, I invented the word "Agnostic" to denote people who, like myself, confess themselves to be hopelessly ignorant concerning a variaty of matters, about which metaphysicians and theologians, both orthodox and heterodox, dogmatise with utmost confidence. Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe...Consequently Agnosticism puts aside not only the greater part of popular theology, but also the greater part of ant-theology.'
Thomas Henry Huxley.
"It simply means that man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe."
And is that still the sole meaning of the word agnostic?
You seem to think that it's some great tragedy that English speakers are fond of co-opting words, or tweaking definitions. I'm surprised you're even giving credit to a word that was made up from nowhere!
I think that the eagerness with which we English speakers have adopted and continue to adopt words from other languages or disciplines is what makes it such a brilliant language.
Was it absurd that our post-Norman tongue evolved to what it is today, then?
TC, if you want to try to place yourself in a pre-Norman world to see how absurd this might have been then be my guest. I think the fact that we have words like "agnostic atheist" and "gotten" permitted into dictionaries then it is time to get a little worried. I'm sorry if I'm alone in this, but the grammatical brutality in superficially combining the words "agnostic" and "atheist" to mean something which is complete and utter double-speak. This is verging on an inversion of a language. But I don't really want to get bogged down on it. "Agnostic atheism," in terms of having any real meaning, is just nonsense.
touchingcloth wrote:And is that still the sole meaning of the word agnostic?
You seem to think that it's some great tragedy that English speakers are fond of co-opting words, or tweaking definitions. I'm surprised you're even giving credit to a word that was made up from nowhere!
I think that the eagerness with which we English speakers have adopted and continue to adopt words from other languages or disciplines is what makes it such a brilliant language.
Only because you've taken "agnostic" to be a term related solely to theistic discussions.
If you look at why Huxley chose the word in the first place (gnosis meaning knowledge, later co-opted by the gnostics to refer to spiritual knowledge) then the etymology of "agnostic atheist" makes perfect sense. Even if the root words themselves became absurd when combined in this manner, the fact that they are used to mean certain things by philosophers etc. means that there are many people who understand what the term means, and they would still understand what the term means even if you moaned about it being nonsense or butchery.
DannyM wrote:Eh? What am I stating that the "scientific community" would assert?
And I'm still asking you to explain the universe's appearence out of something called "nothing"? Or are you saying the universe had no starting point?
This makes no sense at all, in the context of my posts. Are you actually reading them? If not, please do.
DannyM wrote:So I ask you once again, on what basis do you determine the unliklihood of God's existence? Or is this just your personal opinion which has no real authority behind it and doesn't really warrant your lofty claim that God's existence is unlikely? Is that what this really boils down to?
I already answered your question. We assign probabilities based on our levels of expectation.
DannyM wrote:You are right, nothing you will say can change the way in which the English language must be used. Apparently the word 'gotten' has made it's ghastly way into the American dictionary; this does not make the word legitimate in my eyes. It's probably made its way over here, too, but thankfully not into Oxford.
What do you mean, "legitimate"? Are you saying that philosophers ought not use the word "agnostic" any way other than described by the Oxford dictionary? If so, then I hate to break it to you, but that's not a reasonable expectation. If not, then in what way is it illegitimate?
touchingcloth wrote:Only because you've taken "agnostic" to be a term related solely to theistic discussions.
If you look at why Huxley chose the word in the first place (gnosis meaning knowledge, later co-opted by the gnostics to refer to spiritual knowledge) then the etymology of "agnostic atheist" makes perfect sense. Even if the root words themselves became absurd when combined in this manner, the fact that they are used to mean certain things by philosophers etc. means that there are many people who understand what the term means, and they would still understand what the term means even if you moaned about it being nonsense or butchery.
Fair enough. Well it obviously means something to you. To me it is just gobbledegook. We are all, every single one of us, agnostic in the sense of we do not really know. So by your own, baffling inversion of reasoning we are all agnostic-fill-in-the-gap...? Huxley is clearly saying that agnosticism is "the essence of science." "Consequently Agnosticism puts aside not only the greater part of popular theology, but also the greater part of ant-theology." Agnostics simply do not adjudicate on the existence or non-existence of God; they say they do not have sufficient knowledge to make a choice, and then on to either theism or atheism - or something like deism, whatever. Now the atheist does believe that there indeed is no god. Of course you, um, don't really KNOW, but welcome to the club, mate. You are an atheist in the sense you BELIEVE there is no god. It is not just that you lack the positive belief in God; no, you jump from that lack of belief to a positive belief that there IS NO god. Now, where on earth you get the absurd idea that you can somehow hang, just kicking back and sitting nice & easy somewhere in between these two terms and their true meanings is absolutely beyond me. I'm lost for words. I can't keep repeating this stuff.
