If you can be convinced by proof that there is a god, then by definition you are agnostic
LOLXIANS and all that... But we atheists are left with what some philosophers call "the super-ultimate question": Why should something exist rather than nothing?
Meanwhile, most actual definitions of "agnostic" -- you know, from dictionaries -- say that an agnostic thinks that the question of god-or-not is not only unknown, but also almost certainly unknowable. So if anything, the person who you mention, who "can be convinced by proof", is anything but an agnostic.
Unless and until physics can give us a handle on the super-ultimate question, atheists are just guessing like everybody else. Though, to our credit, we're less preoccupied with making sure the queers ride at the back of the bus.
Oh, yes that would be so nice. I was sort of into Bones for a while until I realized that every episode will contain some little nugget linking Bones's dysfunctional social relationships to the fact that she's feminist, well-educated, childfree or atheist.
I would be extremely difficult to convince that there is a God. Not impossible perhaps
I've gone on and on about how if God exists, there would have to be evidence, and you seem to be implying that God is real as a concept... which is weird, since no theist believes in God as a concept, but as a living thing.
We can easily assign attributes to God that are non-physical, take omnipotence as an example.
A side note for verb, the second idea that you put forward, about God being the rules, is pretty similar, in spirit, to what Spinoza argued for.
But there is an older, though still relevant and in use, sense of the term in which laws are thought to be real things with full ontological status. This is the sense which supports the claim that laws have a causal role in the world.
When a student asks why does the pressure of a gas increase when the volume decreases, one might respond by saying something like: well there is a law of the universe, that we approximate with Boyle's Law, which makes it so. (Is that what you mean by an example?)
(Now, I won't speak to the merit of such an explanation, but one benefit of it is that it keeps things like the many instances of a phenomenon from being coincidental. That is, it's not just an accident that every time we observe a decrease in volume we see an increase in pressure. The descriptive model understanding of laws can't offer an such assurances, since by definition it's merely a description of what has happened and cannot fix future events. )
The cases in which "and god" add insight, clarity, or better predictions to those systems have generally been fairly weak.
« Older Miru Kim: Making art of New York's urban ruins.... | Welcome to Dog Time. My name i... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt