Zonie63
Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline
|
This thread is partly inspired by the thread entitled A question game for agnostics.
As I pointed out in that thread, I am an agnostic because I honestly do not know if there is a supernatural deity (commonly known as "god") or anything at all beyond what we can observe in our reality. SpanishMatMaster has devised a question game directed at agnostics who neither affirm nor deny the existence of god. He mentioned that he would only play the game in that thread and not respond to other matters, so I'm starting a new thread to cover the particulars about the game itself and where it seems to be heading. As he wrote in his OP of that thread:
quote:
The game is for agnostics. For the case: I mean people who do not deny the existence of God, but also do not affirm that God exists. Rule #1: Do not discuss this definition, if you want to call them mentally "Eduardo's Agnostics" or "Budolobeedolapirious people" it's ok for me, I do not care about how you call them as long as we understand each other and for that, in this thread, please accept the word "agnostic".
Okay, so far, so good. "Agnostic" is one who does not deny the existence of God, but also does not affirm that God exists. That coincides with my views on the subject, so I'm on the same page with Rule #1.
Rule #2 merely excludes non-agnostics from the game, which is implied in the thread title anyway, so no problems there.
quote:
* If I can convert you to positive Atheism, you win.
* If you can show me that my logical demostration is erroneous, I win.
So, as I read this, I would win the game if I converted to positive atheism. He would win if I was able to show him that his logical demonstration was erroneous.
quote:
Yes, you got it right - the one who was wrong is the one who wins. He is the one who learns from this, and learning is the actual target of the game.
A rather interesting way of defining the winner, but okay. As it turned out, we both ended up losing, because I was not converted to positive atheism, nor was able to show Spanish Mat Master where his logical demonstration was erroneous (although I tried).
Now, on to Rule #3:
quote:
Rule #3: Do not discuss that definition, nor try to make it tighter with something like "absolute total dogmatic 100% proved security that...." God does not exist. If you simply say "God does not exist", no matter how "secure" you feel, you are already strong Atheist in the context of this thread. Again, internally (or outside this thread) you can tell that "this is not real strong Atheism!" and invite me to discuss definitions, but here, in this thread, please accept that one.
This rule presumably defines positive atheism in the statement "God does not exist" but does not want the definition made any tighter. However, in the course of playing the game (later on in post #233), there is further elaboration in that positive atheism follows the rule that:
quote:
"Positive assertions are to be considered false until there is a reason to consider them true"
This is elaborated on further:
quote:
* The rule does not say that we are SURE that the positive assertion is wrong. It only says that we consider it wrong, for the time being.
* The rule does not exclude that we may have, some day, a reason to think that the positive assertion is true. Then we will simply change our minds.
But, until then... there is no cup in the table.
Said as a temporal assertion. Truth until proven otherwise. Without pretending to be an absolute eternal truth.
In reality, in defining this rule, it doesn't sound like a heck of a lot different from agnosticism, although it just uses a bit of manipulation of language. "There is no God" doesn't really mean that "there is no God," and this is where the problem in the "game" begins and ends. If one wishes to redefine things in such a way as to fix the outcome of the "game," then that's okay, but I would just prefer to say what I mean and not try to reinvent the language.
Then, there was Rule #4, which I didn't have much of a problem with:
quote:
Rule #4: Consider God a person (that is, a "who", and not only a "what") who created the universe that we can perceive. Again - please accept this simplification and do not try to transform this game in a game on definitions. That's simply not its point.
However, given the direction the game took, I'm not sure if this rule was even necessary, since we didn't even mention God in any form. All we had were hypothetical examples regarding "Ishoser" or "Azonier" - some alien being from another planet who had the technology to steal our noses and replace them with substitute noses which, to us, would look and feel just like our own noses.
This led us to his first move in the game:
quote:
So... if you are agnostic, my first move are these two questions:
1) Why are you agnostic?
2) Do you have a nose?
I would like to ask SpanishMatMaster why ask the first question, in the context of this game. Is that an actual "move" in the game, or is it just an attempt to gain information as to why someone would be an agnostic? What does that have to do with the game, since we never came back to that point? All we ended up talking about was whether or not I had a nose.
Part of the definition of Azonier was that he was an alien being who steals noses, yet from our point of view, we would still observe that we have noses.
So, the sticky point was over the question, "If Azonier exists, then I have no nose." SpanishMatMaster then replied that I can't say that I have a nose because I have not precluded of Azonier. Even if I observe that I have a nose, that wasn't good enough. I was told that I must either deny the existence of Azonier or go through life without a nose.
With all due respect to SpanishMatMaster, I think it was a mistake to structure the game so as to ask about a nose, which is something provable and part of our physical reality as we have observed it.
|
Agnosticism - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread