God and stuff

[Likeandthey]

In regard to the three outcomes, theism, atheism, and agnosticism, I've always read these positions comprising varieties of evidentiary support for the existence or non-existence of God. The logic would then be about formulating reasonable arguments such that a conclusion is able to be inferred from presented evidence. Which is why in the history of such a topic you have people trying to develop actual proofs for the existence of God. People like St. Anslem. Belief wouldn't, in this case, have much merit in regard to any of the three positions. Each is a bit more logicially rigorous.

I don't think you can logically prove the existence of God (theism) or disprove the existence of God (atheism). Lots have tried using various historical records, though. This leaves the position of philosophical agnosticism.

The supplied example, from the point of view of the two children, would result in agnosticism. The metaphor, however, kind of pulls at the reader in a way that the reader introduces knowledge that neither of the two characters actually have. Which, to me, is a little bit disingenious to do. One is led to introduce as a premise the very thing the two characters are trying to reason to 'prove'.

All that said, there are plenty of people who do utilize much looser definitions of the three positions. A theist (different definition), for instance, may say that the point isn't about evidence. The point is about belief, etc. In which case they would arguably qualify as a mystic or a spiritualist rather than a rationalist.

As another aside, there are extensive and numerous debates around God's inaccessibility and ultimate abandonment of the human species (the interpretation of god's 'will', the death of christ, the ossification of the church, dogma, etc). Personally, I have a lot of sympathy for death of God theologies, which are predicated on this abandonment- the God who throws himself into creation and is cruxified and dies. God is fully and actually dead. So, you end up with a position called Christian atheism (which then focuses on good works and living communities rather than the focus on there being a higher power who transcends and interferes).

 

[Stillrandy]

My best reference for the validity of my Christian faith is a little book by C.S. Lewis called "Mere Christianity". His reasoning is very sound to me and has reassured me in many moments of confusion and uncertainty in my life. He avoids many of the pitfalls that have been expressed in this thread. I recommend it to anyone seriously thinking about 'God and stuff'.

 

[neuroparenthetical]

I need help: my cynicism just derailed and I'm worried I may have upgraded to agnostic. The logic is compelling.

This not a pro-life thing because zygot's don't talk But it'll probably descend into a troll thread. Fuck. Forgot that but I've posted it now. Oh well

"In a mother’s womb were two babies. One asked the other: “Do you believe in life after delivery?” The other replied, “Why, of course. There has to be something after delivery. Maybe we are here to prepare ourselves for what we will be later.”
“Nonsense” said the first. “There is no life after delivery. What kind of life would that be?”

You should probably be as concerned about the potential existence of "something else" as you are about the possibility that two babies are actually talking to each other inside their mother's womb.

Anything's possible, right? Why should we assume that two babies can't communicate complex ideas to one another in that environment? Because our methods of communicating complex ideas to each other are the only ones possible? Because we blithely assume that our brains are "more developed" than a baby's? How arrogant! How presumptuous! How closed-minded!

The fable also conveniently omits the most common real-world analog: a baby who stubbornly insists that they're definitely going to be born to a glorbnax, prefucind, Xenuthestatic thruple on the "planet" Urrtfix, in the "year" FaFFA, at a highly specific breeding pit, probably around BbF in the "evening" (local time, of course. Some "planets" are so fucking bizarre that they have these things called "time zones.")

In response, the other baby asks two questions:

1) "Uh, where the fuck are all these incredibly-specific details coming from, dude?" and
2) "Why are you so passionate about this belief of yours right now, when it seems like there's basically nothing to be done about it either way?"

Said version of the fable might also not conveniently end before the big twist: that the babies are finally born to a mixed-race Jewish couple in Texas, on the planet Earth, in the year 1986, in a local hospital, at around 4AM (local time, of course, because Earth is fucking bizarre.)

Cue the ultimate ironic complaints from the pro-religious: "You're just playing God with the fable to twist it to your own ends!"

Yeah, it's really fuckin' frustrating when people do that, huh? Imagine how much more frustrating it is when they insist it's not a fable at all, but the actual truth!