It’s quite simple really, it is, by virtue of an inherent quality of
the concept of a “god”, impossible to find any conclusive proof, or
even evidence, for or against, the existence of such a being. What does
all this mean?
First and foremost, this inherent quality of the concept of a “god”. It
is important to note here, that I do not speak of God, as in the
Judeo-Christian God, but of the general concept of a god, as is
central, and can be found in nearly, if not all, religions. This
inherent quality is quite simply the supernatural quality of a god,
which is a necessary quality for it to be a god. Were it not
supernatural, I would not call it “god”.
Now, let me examine this word, supernatural. It is composed of two main
parts: the prefix super, meaning greater, above, or beyond, and the
word natural, meaning of or pertaining to nature. Combining these, I
understand that something supernatural is something that is greater
than, above, or beyond nature.
But what of nature, what is this “nature”? Nature is all that can be
observed and/or measured within our universe. Something natural is
something observable and/or measurable. This is important when defining
proof and evidence. Note that I must here presuppose that our universe
does in fact exist, and is absolutely real, and reject, for the sake of
argument, the possibility of any solipsistic or other reality/existence
doubting/denying philosophical views.
Secondly, there is the matter of proof, which by reason of the
aforementioned, is impossible to find in respect to the existence, or
non-existence, of a god. But what consists of proof? Something can be
considered proven, and therefore true and factual, when an explanation
has been given which adequately explains, along with anomalies, and can
make accurate predictions, on some phenomena. Proof must also be
supported by evidence.
Evidence, in order to be accepted, must in most, of not all cases, be
empirical. It must also be testable, and verifiable, and therefore be
able to produce similar results when tested by various people. It is
important to notice here that the only things which could possibly fit
this description must be able to be described as natural.
I can therefore conclude, that by the definition herein set forth, that
for anything to be considered as evidence, it must foremost be natural
(i.e. observable and/or measurable). Furthermore, I can conclude that
since proof relies on evidence, by extension, proof must also foremost
be natural. Since a god is inherently supernatural (i.e. greater than,
above, or beyond nature), it is therefore also greater than, above, or
beyond proof and evidence, and as such, can never be proven or
disproven.
Should evidence or proof be found relating to a god, it would
immediately cease to be a god, as proof must be observable and/or
measurable. Those qualities which, in order for the proof to apply,
must extend to the “god”, will therefore make the “god” natural; an
occurrence of nature. A thing, however, cannot be both natural and
supernatural. Such a statement is a logical contradiction.
Since it is a necessary requirement of proof that it be of natural
origin; and since it is also a necessary requirement for this proof to
apply to said “god”, that the proof’s qualities, that is, its natural
origin, extend to the “god”. This makes the natural quality of the
“god” necessary for the proof to be valid, and the only way to
reconcile this with the aforementioned logical contradiction, is to
remove the supernatural quality. In so doing, I remove and inherent and
necessary quality of a god, and so it ceases to be a “god”.
In summary, I have chosen the agnostic view because, though I do not believe in any form of god, I cannot deny the possibility
of one’s existence. This is because, for the reasons described above,
there can be no proof or evidence, for or against, the existence of
some god, and without proof or evidence, no possibility can be denied.
So, you don't worship a god or follow a religion, but can't disprove ones existance. You sound like an atheist to me, to be an agnostic, you have to SERIOUSLY consider the existence of a deity as probable, or even likely, not just "there is a possibility god might exist". Not that there's anything wrong with being an atheist of course.
Saying "there is a possibility god might exist" is considering it possible. As far as my defining goes, an agnostic is a form of atheism seeing as you partake to no particular god. A- no. Theist- god/religion.
What we would call an atheist, however, is not what he is describing here. An atheist in societies eyes would be someone who says "There is no god. No way no how." Now anyone saying this would be just as ignorant as anyone saying that there definitely is 100% a god. For me, I choose to be an atheist/agnostic without saying there is no god, because I can't supply evidence to support it. For the same reason, though, I choose not to believe in a god or deity since there is also no evidence to say there is one.
TL;DR - The existance of God can not be proven or disproven
Well done dickhead, like that hasn't been said before.
Yes, but if you'd bothered to read the blog in its entirety, you'd have noticed that he gave a fairly eloquent argument as to why it can't be proven that God exists, particularly that if empirical evidence was found, then it would be of something that we could not call God, due to the 'supernatural' nature of God.
SocialismCross wrote on Mar 11th, 2009 at 12:50pm :
umm why does everyone on UG think that the world needs his philosophy ? I'm not saying the Blog is bad, but seriously i'm getting SICK of it, it's everywhere, almost every profile that's not a profile of "kid" "poser girl" or something, is just a profile with blogs expressing the thoughts of people on God or stuff.
It's getting BORING People.
Yes on my profile i express my beliefs and stuff, and i was planing on posting blogs to justify some of my opinions, but now i'm having second thoughts.
What do you suggest people write blogs about? Perhaps what gauge strings one uses, or what colour one's guitar is? Or who's the fastest, Eddie Van Halen or Steve Vai?
Pff, it's all semantics anyway, the common conception of a god is that one of his qualities is that he's "supertnatural", but again, that assertion is made in relation to our way of measuring and observing. God could be part of our "measurable" reality, but out of our measuring ability, and still be considered God because he is out of our reach, whether he is "supernatural" or not...
Although I agree that given his other qualities (omnipotent, outside of this universe, or whatever) it does seem it's pretty much impossible to prove his existance, although to say that it's "impossible" is kind of an assumption (we can't know if it's possible or not, maybe one day God goes into my room and will start talking to me, given some of his qualities, or maybe another scenario, etc)...
"But what consists of proof?"
A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is
a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven.
As a fellow Canadian, I sincerely hope you get that.
Good blog mate.
My personal views on the existence of God are atheistic. The way I see it, Christianity and Islam developed from Judaism, which developed from the merging of Atenism and Semitic polytheistic pantheon worship, (both of which came from the same family as the Hellenistic and Vedic religions and have their origins in Mother Goddess and Solar Deity worship.)
Yet all three Abrahamic religions regard anything that came before Judaism as pure mythology, so if the notion of God is essentialy based upon mythology, that would make God a man made notion.
I freely admit that I cannot prove that God doesn't exist, but I also cannot prove that fairies don't exist, but I still don't believe they do.
Initially, I thought this blog post was from an atheistic stand point. I was about to comment on how the entire argument was a play on words so to speak, granted and eloquent play on words. However, upon reading the conclusion I realized it was an agnostic argument, which makes the entire blog more effectice. This blog serves as a nice dichotomy to: "the Earth is 6,000 years old because the bible says so" and "there's no god because war" and I enjoyed the logical steps you took and your presentation thereof.
Technically, it is atheistic. I say I don't believe in God, therefore I'm an atheist (using the definition of atheism=lack of theism=lack of belief in God), though it's also agnostic, as I acknowledge that I can't know whether or not God exists.
I very much enjoyed reading it. Normally when you read blogs like this they are religiously (<-- irony) denying the stupid notion of a God. Yours was approached in a very different and refreshing way. Well done in that aspect.
Here's my question: you take "super" to inherently imply "separate" (at least as part of your definition, though not the entirety of it) am I correct? But, when we say "superhuman" or "superpower" do we also imply that the superhuman still is a human, just greater then all the rest, and that the superpower is still a country, just GREATER then all the rest?
What I mean to ask is, must a God be "separate" from the world in order to be called "supernatural?" Could he not be transcendent (as most religions would argue)? That is, present both within and outside of our "reality."
I am an agnostic as you are, but I just want to bring up that the prefix "super-" does not negate the stem of the word. It is not "exo-natural" (meaning "outside of nature"), it is "super-natural"
Hello, I managed to stumble across this randomly. I would like to say that it's actually a sincere shock that there is actually someone in the Pit that is intelligent. (for once...) I never really considered that God could be UNPROVABLE because of the innate supernatural quality of his existence. That's, at least, a great attempt at an explanation, so thank you.
That being said, I believe exactly like you. YET, I still call myself an atheist. In all honesty, regardless of the theoretical/philosophical ability to disprove God (or anything for that matter, but that's a different story :P..) this does not necessary allow for the equal possibility that he does exist.
Aside from empirical evidence, I find that the rational claims made in support of God's existence are in fact irrational, or unreasonable. (again, I'm not going to go there, at least, not now) My point is, that regardless of the inability to disprove God, there is a very minimal chance that God exists, and thus I live my life in accordance with the presumption that he doesn't. I live my life as an "atheist".
Richard Dawkins actually covered this idea in "The God Delusion" (2006), and made the probable estimate that most atheists, including himself, allow for this small possibility, but are still "atheists". He coined these types of atheists to be, "de-facto atheists", so, in all honesty I think it may in fact be a good idea to adhere to this new definition in order to not seem like the hypocritical type of atheistic definition that you seem to be avoiding.
The majority of atheists are in fact what you described as yourself in your argument, but don't go by the term, "agnostic". What do you think?
| My Profile
Why I'm Agnostic blog
