To be agnostic is to not know whether or not god(s) exist. What would you say is the probability that god(s) exist? Is it about 50/50? Are you 60/40, 70/30, 80/20 or better that god(s) exist? Do you ascribe a low probability to the notion that god(s) exist? Where are you on the spectrum from 0.01 to 99.99? Agnostics and atheists in an almighty alliance against the forces of fallacy?
1
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
8 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.I think that you need to have information to assign probability, and since you have no information you can not realistically do so.
Also to get useful information out, you also need to specify which god or gods, you can not treat them as a group because they are too diverse. For example if you ask me about the Christian biblical god, I would say zero, because it is impossible. On the other hand if a religious naturalist told me that, since they do not believe in anything supernatural, therefore nature stands in as a god for them. Then I would say that if I accept you basic premise. Yes fair enough.
Fernapple
Level 9
Jan 15, 2021
0
The main "fallacy" is your question. There's no such thing as a "probability;" as an agnostic, I recognize since each person's definition of 'god' differs, the physical world either magically appeared out of nowhere, or there a basic fundamental Explanation for where it came from. Since we cannot do so at present, and may never be able to, how could we ever know who of what 'god' is, or isn't? So to speak of "probabilities" is silly.
Storm1752
Level 8
Jan 15, 2021
2
I don't agree with your definition of agnostic, since I believe the word agnostic means a BELIEF that the existence of god/s is an UNKNOWN. Because of my understanding of the word, I don't register on your 0.01 - 99.99% spectrum.
I have 0 belief that gods exist, and I believe that there is 0 possibility to KNOW whether god/s exist or not. I say that because I'm, um, agnostic.
There's no percentage of belief or probability I can report that god/s exist.
To me, a god is something that can't be known, only believed in. That's my take on it.
Julie808
Level 8
Jan 15, 2021
2
Wtf are you dragging up the Atheist Agnostic tempest in a teapot ?? Atheists are rational evaluating religions demanding evidence for their allegations..... my Agnostic comrades are conforming to the false Webster definition of Atheism fearing to fall into that trap of disproving a negative..... your absurd rambling here about percentages is far worse than deluded bigots of the Noah Webster successor publishers.... for example they equate Deism with Atheism due to their loyalty to xian dogma geebush geehobah ghostholes.....calling Thomas Paine a : " filthy little Atheist " quoting Teddy Roosevelt..... to stir up trouble AGAIN especially between new members here fresh out of the cults MUDDLES OUR COMMUNITY and our very name AGNOSTIC DOT COM
Larry68Feminist
Level 7
Jan 15, 2021
0
What’s a god?
skado
Level 9
Jan 14, 2021
1
Good point. I see no way a god could ever be proven. A superior being could exist, but that's not a god.
@Beowulfsfriend If you define 'god' as a "superior being." Maybe "superior beings" do exist, but that doesn't necessarily make them 'gods,' does it?
Right, so to what I have learned so far, “God” has many forms:
-
Supernatural God/Beard man in the sky trolling everyone
-
Beard man in the sky. Is perfect and wholly good. Wholly a spook of a mind awash.
-
Cosmic alien managing contained universe. How we might be perfectly managed indicates a malicious God, or simply such an alien that doesn’t care what we will do, what happens to us and what we have. The fact that the fully magnified/zoomed and delineated universe is perfect, but arranged naturally to make abstrusely generable objects suggests that what created this universe was technically characterized.
-
Thermodynamically dominant member of a higher ruling caste. Believe it or not, these are in every definite economic and political system.
-
Scriptural God/Jewish literature God. Is in the Jewish scriptures, is also a political “kraken” of ascendance which rewards the most profitable, pleasing, skilled, passionate individuals as part of a ponzi-type scheme. But this tangible form is only existent in the tangible world of values, currencies, and utility. The real scriptural God is only ever symbolized and suggested, rather than a complete concept.
-
“God” can also mean “a general God”.
“To be Agnostic is to not know whether or not god(s) exists”
No it’s not. Agnosics know very well as to the rationally pure uncertainty of God as a supernatural concept because if you actually learn something for once in your life, then that’s the natural conclusion.
Stop spreading bullshit and learn to source your definitions properly.
DZhukovin
Level 7
Jan 14, 2021
2
Given that nobody has ever provided any falsifiable evidence to support the existence claim of any god, it is not possible to assign a probably to the existence of any such god.
To assign such a probability is to commit a classification fallacy.
Anybody who claims that any god either exists or probably exists is being absurd.
anglophone
Level 9
Jan 14, 2021
2
Mvtt:
Correct answer
@Mvtt Thank you.
I believe that your agenda of advancing empirics is misguided, for its perversion into a means of arguing against knowledge.
Believe it or not, impossibility is absolutely a myth in such a system because we let God remain in a field densely veined by language.
Though the one who makes like God exists or concludes such is taking the less rational gamble because of comparitive evidence and rationale with respect to a supernatural conception of God, or real living God.
Gods, including angels and other deific entities, in the political sense, have just been the caste relatively above as a gambit against individual, lucid social mobility and pure self-determination, which took advantage of forced cohabitation and having things in common.
Well when I said that, I wasn’t being literal. Your basis seemed to depend on the need for falsifiable evidence. It seemed like a reference to tangible evidence, which in my case might be a poor evaluation on my part.
@DZhukovin Understood.
Yeah I forgot that Science doesn’t always use tangible evidence. Sorry about that one!
@DZhukovin No worries! 
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.