Does the (Christian) God Exist?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

The poll is SO UNFAIR!

"Yes!" and "No!" are almost tied and those of us going "probably..." are like a harsh minority.

[Minarchist States]

There is a god because my parents told me so.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Except the disallowance of "pure agnosticism" as opposed to "agnostic atheist" or "agnostic theist" makes me think that you believe otherwise.

That's nice. I don't.

Atheism has been taken throughout history to at least imply some sort of active disbelief, or conscious choice to not maintain a god concept. Agnosticism has not. Therefore, by removing pure agnosticism from the equation, you're classifying a large group of people under a label that doesn't fit.

So... appeal to tradition?

No thanks, I'll stick to actual definitions that are relevant today.

The definitions are relevant today to everyone but atheists who don't especially care for the wishes of self-identified agnostics.

[With Teeth]

The poll is SO UNFAIR!

"Yes!" and "No!" are almost tied and those of us going "probably..." are like a harsh minority.

It's about ontology, not epistemology.

[The USOT]

That's nice. I don't.

So... appeal to tradition?

No thanks, I'll stick to actual definitions that are relevant today.

The definitions are relevant today to everyone but atheists who don't especially care for the wishes of self-identified agnostics.

And defining agnosticism as the middle ground between atheism and theism leaves out the people who identify as agnostic atheists or agnostic theists.

[Seleucas]

The Christian God almost certainly does not exist; I do not feel that Rom. 1:20 establishes the existence of God by virtue of needing an uncreated Creator, on account of the universe not needing any causality in order to begin its existence. That being said, it would make things a lot simpler if God did exist.

[The USOT]

The Christian God almost certainly does not exist; I do not feel that Rom. 1:20 establishes the existence of God by virtue of needing an uncreated Creator, on account of the universe not needing any causality in order to begin its existence. That being said, it would make things a lot simpler if God did exist.

Surely the addition of something is more complex than its default?
E.g. a painting of a red dot on a wall is far simpler than multiple red dots.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

The definitions are relevant today to everyone but atheists who don't especially care for the wishes of self-identified agnostics.

And defining agnosticism as the middle ground between atheism and theism leaves out the people who identify as agnostic atheists or agnostic theists.

I'm not advocating that those subgroups be eliminated. Instead, I'm arguing that pure agnosticism is not default atheism.

[Seleucas]

The Christian God almost certainly does not exist; I do not feel that Rom. 1:20 establishes the existence of God by virtue of needing an uncreated Creator, on account of the universe not needing any causality in order to begin its existence. That being said, it would make things a lot simpler if God did exist.

Surely the addition of something is more complex than its default?
E.g. a painting of a red dot on a wall is far simpler than multiple red dots.

But it's not really adding; the universe can generate randomly, there is no need for an act of volition to bring it into being.

[The USOT]

And defining agnosticism as the middle ground between atheism and theism leaves out the people who identify as agnostic atheists or agnostic theists.

I'm not advocating that those subgroups be eliminated. Instead, I'm arguing that pure agnosticism is not default atheism.

What would it be then?
Having it not as the default leaves out most people who identify as agnostic atheists. Especially the more vocal ones in the "new atheist" movement.
Hell, it even leaves out people who just think of themselves as "atheist" but still fit the definition of "not sure one way or the other" without even knowing the agnostic point.

Having agnostic as the middle position alienates quite a lot more positions of self identification (nevermind as I have argued the inefficiency of it).

[The USOT]

Surely the addition of something is more complex than its default?
E.g. a painting of a red dot on a wall is far simpler than multiple red dots.

But it's not really adding; the universe can generate randomly, there is no need for an act of volition to bring it into being.

I entirely agree. My point was adressing the last part which I have underlined. You said it would be simpler if god did exist, which is an addition to a universe by default.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I'm not advocating that those subgroups be eliminated. Instead, I'm arguing that pure agnosticism is not default atheism.

What would it be then?
Having it not as the default leaves out most people who identify as agnostic atheists. Especially the more vocal ones in the "new atheist" movement.
Hell, it even leaves out people who just think of themselves as "atheist" but still fit the definition of "not sure one way or the other" without even knowing the agnostic point.

Having agnostic as the middle position alienates quite a lot more positions of self identification (nevermind as I have argued the inefficiency of it).

Wait. People can still identify as agnostic atheist. "By my reasoning, a lack of proof means that by default, I do not believe in God" is a perfectly valid statement. So is "I simply don't know one way or the other, so by default, I simply don't know." The world is big enough for both the former (agnostic atheism) and the latter (pure agnosticism).

[The USOT]

What would it be then?
Having it not as the default leaves out most people who identify as agnostic atheists. Especially the more vocal ones in the "new atheist" movement.
Hell, it even leaves out people who just think of themselves as "atheist" but still fit the definition of "not sure one way or the other" without even knowing the agnostic point.

Having agnostic as the middle position alienates quite a lot more positions of self identification (nevermind as I have argued the inefficiency of it).

Wait. People can still identify as agnostic atheist. "By my reasoning, a lack of proof means that by default, I do not believe in God" is a perfectly valid statement. So is "I simply don't know one way or the other, so by default, I simply don't know." The world is big enough for both the former (agnostic atheism) and the latter (pure agnosticism).

...by that standard, the latter would fit into the former. Unless the "by my reasoning, a lack of proof means that by default" is the point of differentiation to you (in which case I would critique it on the grounds that you have added skepticism into it) the "I do not believe in God" is the same outcome as "I simply dont know" as the latter does not express belief in a god either. Note the difference there between saying "I believe there is no god" (did you mean this?) to "I do not believe in god".

[Tsa-la-gi Nation]

I didn't read 38 pages of posts, but the OP should post his or her own opinion.

My point of view is that if you focus your life on the existence of god and what he/she/it would like from us, you miss the meaning of your own life by doing so. We have two great gifts bestowed upon us. The spirit inside our bodies with the ability to make a moral choice, and the earth that enables us to live. I believe if you treat these gifts with the best respect you can, the answer of who or what is god will reveal itself to you in time in a very natural way. But to simply ask the question does not mean you are worthy of the answer. It's like picking up a seed and asking "what does the flower or fruit look like?", if you want to know, care enough to feed the seed.

[Mostrov]

And yet in all this discussion there is a theoretical middleground between an agnostic atheist and an agnostic theist. What are they termed?

[Seleucas]

But it's not really adding; the universe can generate randomly, there is no need for an act of volition to bring it into being.

I entirely agree. My point was adressing the last part which I have underlined. You said it would be simpler if god did exist, which is an addition to a universe by default.

Oh, I meant that my life would be simpler, not that the universe would be simpler.

[Shilya]

And yet in all this discussion there is a theoretical middleground between an agnostic atheist and an agnostic theist. What are they termed?

"Those who have not heared about god yet." I don't know if there is a specific term for that.

[The USOT]

And yet in all this discussion there is a theoretical middleground between an agnostic atheist and an agnostic theist. What are they termed?

Well for the advocates of the terms like myself, we tend to go by diagrams like this. http://i.stack.imgur.com/yX0vu.png

So the issue is that there isnt and cant be a theoretical middleground by that standard. It literally solves that, and doesnt suddenly make half the worlds atheists dissapear XD

[The USOT]

And yet in all this discussion there is a theoretical middleground between an agnostic atheist and an agnostic theist. What are they termed?

"Those who have not heared about god yet." I don't know if there is a specific term for that.

As said, for advocates of the terms, the answer would still be agnostic atheist. Agnostic atheism is merely the lack of belief in a deity. So somebody who had no concept of a deity would by that standard be an agnostic atheist.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Wait. People can still identify as agnostic atheist. "By my reasoning, a lack of proof means that by default, I do not believe in God" is a perfectly valid statement. So is "I simply don't know one way or the other, so by default, I simply don't know." The world is big enough for both the former (agnostic atheism) and the latter (pure agnosticism).

...by that standard, the latter would fit into the former. Unless the "by my reasoning, a lack of proof means that by default" is the point of differentiation to you (in which case I would critique it on the grounds that you have added skepticism into it) the "I do not believe in God" is the same outcome as "I simply dont know" as the latter does not express belief in a god either. Note the difference there between saying "I believe there is no god" (did you mean this?) to "I do not believe in god".

"I don't know" and "I don't believe" imply very different perspectives.

[The USOT]

...by that standard, the latter would fit into the former. Unless the "by my reasoning, a lack of proof means that by default" is the point of differentiation to you (in which case I would critique it on the grounds that you have added skepticism into it) the "I do not believe in God" is the same outcome as "I simply dont know" as the latter does not express belief in a god either. Note the difference there between saying "I believe there is no god" (did you mean this?) to "I do not believe in god".

"I don't know" and "I don't believe" imply very different perspectives.

Somebody could interpret the intent of the user, but the outcome is the same.
If you want an example.
I (literally me) dont know if there is a god. I dont believe in one.

By your standard, I am pure agnostic, and I am not pure agnostic.

[Mostrov]

Well for the advocates of the terms like myself, we tend to go by diagrams like this. http://i.stack.imgur.com/yX0vu.png

So the issue is that there isnt and cant be a theoretical middleground by that standard. It literally solves that, and doesnt suddenly make half the worlds atheists dissapear XD

Well I'd simply draw a dot on the line and prove you wrong

I guess the idea that if you don't explicitly say I believe you in a god and the default assumption of that you lack belief is accurate, but for example what if I say I partially believe in a god and ever finer gradients of that?
I mean the question here is that there can be a pascalian wager, because saying you don't think you know usually just incorporates one god or somesuch. For instance what if I acknowledge a religion and then explicitly reject it? Suppose in a simple contrarian example that there is either one god or their isn't; if I don't believe I get sent to hell and if I die I cease to exist. What if instead of trying to win I rather want to get the worst score, and so I can always lose in that situation. I can't describe such a hypothetical as either atheistic or theistic in origin; because fundamentally the question doesn't really matter if you can see where I am getting at. I can provide other examples, but I'm not really inclined to effort if I just get ad hominems and called irrational 'because I am right'.

I can understand the furor over the idea that its appropriation of terms, but it isn't as though both sides are being silly over this; agnosticism can still be a 'pure' thing.

[The USOT]

Well for the advocates of the terms like myself, we tend to go by diagrams like this. http://i.stack.imgur.com/yX0vu.png

So the issue is that there isnt and cant be a theoretical middleground by that standard. It literally solves that, and doesnt suddenly make half the worlds atheists dissapear XD

Well I'd simply draw a dot on the line and prove you wrong

That wouldnt prove me wrong, I would just look at you confused

I guess the idea that if you don't explicitly say I believe you in a god and the default assumption of that you lack belief is accurate, but for example what if I say I partially believe in a god and ever finer gradients of that?

You are a theist. Even if it is a smaller degree, you still have that belief.

I mean the question here is that there can be a pascalian wager, because saying you don't think you know usually just incorporates one god or somesuch. For instance what if I acknowledge a religion and then explicitly reject it? Suppose in a simple contrarian example that there is either one god or their isn't; if I don't believe I get sent to hell and if I die I cease to exist. What if instead of trying to win I rather want to get the worst score, and so I can always lose in that situation. I can't describe such a hypothetical as either atheistic or theistic in origin; because fundamentally the question doesn't really matter if you can see where I am getting at. I can provide other examples, but I'm not really inclined to effort if I just get ad hominems and called irrational 'because I am right'.

I can understand the furor over the idea that its appropriation of terms, but it isn't as though both sides are being silly over this; agnosticism can still be a 'pure' thing.

The term deals with the belief of the person, and not what they profess.
If you will allow me to use Pascals wager for instance, if I were to say "There is no god but God, Muhammad is the messenger of God" then people could put me somewhere on the graph, but my position in regards to my actual belief would still be an agnostic atheist.

I entirely agree with you that it depends on the deity in question though. No one definition however solves that issue. Even if you take the idea that agnosticism is its own category, to be intellectually honest one would still have to apply it to different concepts of deites.
Find a way to fix that issue and I will be all ears =)

[Shilya]

Well for the advocates of the terms like myself, we tend to go by diagrams like this. http://i.stack.imgur.com/yX0vu.png

So the issue is that there isnt and cant be a theoretical middleground by that standard. It literally solves that, and doesnt suddenly make half the worlds atheists dissapear XD

Well I'd simply draw a dot on the line and prove you wrong

I guess the idea that if you don't explicitly say I believe you in a god and the default assumption of that you lack belief is accurate, but for example what if I say I partially believe in a god and ever finer gradients of that?
I mean the question here is that there can be a pascalian wager, because saying you don't think you know usually just incorporates one god or somesuch. For instance what if I acknowledge a religion and then explicitly reject it? Suppose in a simple contrarian example that there is either one god or their isn't; if I don't believe I get sent to hell and if I die I cease to exist. What if instead of trying to win I rather want to get the worst score, and so I can always lose in that situation. I can't describe such a hypothetical as either atheistic or theistic in origin; because fundamentally the question doesn't really matter if you can see where I am getting at. I can provide other examples, but I'm not really inclined to effort if I just get ad hominems and called irrational 'because I am right'.

I can understand the furor over the idea that its appropriation of terms, but it isn't as though both sides are being silly over this; agnosticism can still be a 'pure' thing.

Thinking about it for a moment, this came out:

Pure Agnostic: "I have seen equally valid points presented for both sides, or no points presented for either side. Based on this, I estimate the probability of gods existance at 50% and we currently cannot get to a better conclusion."
Pure Gnostic: "I've seen equally valid points presented and estimate the propability of gods existence at 50%. But that is my fault, because I think that more throrough investigation would already have given me a perfectly valid answer. The question is solveable, we're just dumb."
Pure (a)Theist: "I (don't) believe in god, but estimate the likelyhood of there existing sufficient evidedence for this at 50%"

Pure middle: "I guess the question might be solveable. Maybe. Likelyhood 50%. And with equal likelyhood of 50%, the answer is yes. Or no. Also, I'm so stoned right now."

[The USOT]

Well I'd simply draw a dot on the line and prove you wrong

I guess the idea that if you don't explicitly say I believe you in a god and the default assumption of that you lack belief is accurate, but for example what if I say I partially believe in a god and ever finer gradients of that?
I mean the question here is that there can be a pascalian wager, because saying you don't think you know usually just incorporates one god or somesuch. For instance what if I acknowledge a religion and then explicitly reject it? Suppose in a simple contrarian example that there is either one god or their isn't; if I don't believe I get sent to hell and if I die I cease to exist. What if instead of trying to win I rather want to get the worst score, and so I can always lose in that situation. I can't describe such a hypothetical as either atheistic or theistic in origin; because fundamentally the question doesn't really matter if you can see where I am getting at. I can provide other examples, but I'm not really inclined to effort if I just get ad hominems and called irrational 'because I am right'.

I can understand the furor over the idea that its appropriation of terms, but it isn't as though both sides are being silly over this; agnosticism can still be a 'pure' thing.

Thinking about it for a moment, this came out:

Pure Agnostic: "I have seen equally valid points presented for both sides, or no points presented for either side. Based on this, I estimate the probability of gods existance at 50% and we currently cannot get to a better conclusion."
Pure Gnostic: "I've seen equally valid points presented and estimate the propability of gods existence at 50%. But that is my fault, because I think that more throrough investigation would already have given me a perfectly valid answer. The question is solveable, we're just dumb."
Pure (a)Theist: "I (don't) believe in god, but estimate the likelyhood of there existing sufficient evidedence for this at 50%"

Pure middle: "I guess the question might be solveable. Maybe. Likelyhood 50%. And with equal likelyhood of 50%, the answer is yes. Or no. Also, I'm so stoned right now."

Why overcomplicate it further?
Now you have all sorts of categories. Hell, many people dont fit into any of them!
I dont think you can put a percentage on deities existence or not. Where do you put me?