You could argue it, but it would be a totally illogical argument. There is absolutely no way to arrive at "therefore there are no gods."
I would disagree...and I suspect that any logician would disagree with a conclusion that "there are no gods" has been established logically.
Incorrect. Pull up a chair and I'll explain this one to you. Before I begin, however, I'll acknowledge up front that what you wrote above is what any normal, rational lay adult would find "intuitive." But in this scenario, you and I are discussing the matter philosophically and all concepts are on the table, to include those that aren't typically discussed over drinks at the bar.
Were I arguing the position described earlier, I would inform you that your statements are true but your conclusion is false. Kurt Gödel (a mathematician) proved in his
Incompleteness Theorem that there is always a statement about the system that is
true that is nonetheless not provable by the logic system alone. I would point out that your assessment accurately confirms that we are talking about just that kind of statement, and that I am giving you my reasons as to why that statement is
true. How would you respond?
Don't worry about putting a lot of thought into this question because we aren't having this discussion and I'm not arguing that position. My point is that I
could argue the position, and it wouldn't be a stupid argument. You'd have to be pretty sharp to find the chinks in the armor. But even if I were to have a totally irrefutable argument, you still might not be convinced, you might be certain that there
must be an error in there somewhere, and you might simply remain thinking that the belief(s) is(are) unknowable. Great. Your position on the knowability of the beliefs would be completely independent of your actual beliefs.
but an agnostic could easily argue that a set of "beliefs" MAY be knowable is not compromising his/her agnosticism on that issue in any way. I am not making an error on this.
You're making an error on this, specifically a logic error. I meant to mention this last time but I forgot.
When you write "MAY be knowable" ... you are saying nothing, but you think you are saying something of informational value.
"MAY be knowable" = "is knowable" or "is not knowable" =
True
This is called a tautology, something that is always necessarily true, and therefore does not add any value. If I rewrite your assertion, I get: "
but an agnostic could easily argue that True and not be compromising his/her agnosticism on that issue in any way" ... and I would agree ... and you would have said nothing.
This last bit is unworthy of all the thought you put into the issue earlier, Mann. It is an attempt to pretend that a blind guess is something more than just a blind guess.
In any case, descriptors suck. Try to make your case without using the descriptors...and see how that goes.
I have to admit that you had me confused for a while. I couldn't figure out what you were talking about. Then I realized, it's the
Climate Change comment. You don't like your religion being referred to as a religion. Frank, I hate to splash anyone with cold water but your epiphany that
Global Warming and
Climate Change are just WACKY religions based on hatred and intolerance that have absolutely nothing to do with science ... is only a matter of time. When that time comes, you will not be listing me among the fuckers that took advantage of you, manipulated you, lied to you and spit you out. Until that time, I will tell you that now is as good a time as any to start thinking critically and independently instead of letting others bend you over furniture and do your thinking for you.
Look, if you have any science or math questions, I'm here for you. If you are going to expect me to revere your religion, don't hold your breath. It's a fucked-up religion that targets the stupid for recruitment because they don't know enough to call bullshit when they should. I recommend you get out now, but don't expect me to fall for the same scam that appealed to you.
I'm not looking to be confrontational on the matter; please notice that it was
you who got all pissy at my mere pointing out of just one of your religion's many contradictions.
