Total Posts:104|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

We Cannot Know Whether God Exists

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 10:45:09 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I have heard many (Insert, Paradigm, several Theists, etc.) claim that:

- We CANNOT know whether God exists or not
- Its beyond human knowledge
- Its beyond our capabilities and capacities
- Cannot be answered by science

Now these are pretty big claims and I would like to know what epistemic justification there is for such statements.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 11:02:59 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/27/2010 10:45:09 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I have heard many (Insert, Paradigm, several Theists, etc.) claim that:

- We CANNOT know whether God exists or not
- Its beyond human knowledge
- Its beyond our capabilities and capacities
- Cannot be answered by science

Now these are pretty big claims and I would like to know what epistemic justification there is for such statements.

Well can you present some form of argument to deny the existence of God. I am not referring to one specific form of God followed by one specific sect.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 11:26:49 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/27/2010 10:45:09 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I have heard many (Insert, Paradigm, several Theists, etc.) claim that:

- We CANNOT know whether God exists or not
- Its beyond human knowledge
- Its beyond our capabilities and capacities
- Cannot be answered by science

Now these are pretty big claims and I would like to know what epistemic justification there is for such statements.

Geo, why do you think these are "pretty big claims?". Which one do you find to be so outlandish?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 11:39:12 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I am still waiting for the epistemic justifications for the aforementioned agnostic claims.

@Cerebral
It's irrelevant as to whether there are arguments that deny Gods existence, which there are such arguments (that attack the general concept of God, not just a specific one). I'm asking you to provide epistemological reasons for the claims. The burden is on you.

@innomen
All of them.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 11:46:03 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I honestly don't see what is so absurd about this. There's nothing anywhere that says "GOD EXISTS" or says "GOD DOESN'T EXIST". Science proves nothing about the nature of God's existence.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 11:48:03 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/27/2010 11:46:03 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I honestly don't see what is so absurd about this. There's nothing anywhere that says "GOD EXISTS" or says "GOD DOESN'T EXIST". Science proves nothing about the nature of God's existence.

Exactly. They're big claims by Geo's account, but i doubt even most atheists would consider them to be so big for a theist to hold.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 12:11:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/27/2010 11:46:03 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I honestly don't see what is so absurd about this.

Those are absoute and extraordinary claims. I.e. "We CANNOT know whether God exists."

I want to know why we CANNOT know whether God exists. No one has ever defended this claim. The burden is on you to support your claim.

There's nothing anywhere that says "GOD EXISTS" or says "GOD DOESN'T EXIST".

Irrelevant. That's a separate issue altogether.

Science proves nothing about the nature of God's existence.

Another claim that has yet to be backed up. Are you aware that Victor Stenger has written an entire book showing why science disproves God?

This goes to show that it's not such a one sided issue and that you have to defend your case.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 12:16:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/27/2010 11:48:03 AM, innomen wrote:
Exactly. They're big claims by Geo's account, but i doubt even most atheists would consider them to be so big for a theist to hold.

Yes, even many Atheists here also agree that we cannot know whether God exists.

And whether you think they're big claims or not, I am still asking for reasons behind these assertions. They're not big claims so this should be easy, right?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 12:26:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/27/2010 12:16:00 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 9/27/2010 11:48:03 AM, innomen wrote:
Exactly. They're big claims by Geo's account, but i doubt even most atheists would consider them to be so big for a theist to hold.

Yes, even many Atheists here also agree that we cannot know whether God exists.

And whether you think they're big claims or not, I am still asking for reasons behind these assertions. They're not big claims so this should be easy, right?

One at a time okay: "We cannot know whether God exists or not."
Where exactly is your problem with this statement? Would the inverse be true? We do know whether God exists or not?

Like saying, i cannot know that my car will start, but i believe it will. Unlike saying i know my car exists.

Okay? Geo do your thing---
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 12:34:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/27/2010 12:11:15 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 9/27/2010 11:46:03 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I honestly don't see what is so absurd about this.

Those are absoute and extraordinary claims. I.e. "We CANNOT know whether God exists."

Actually, it's a negative claim. You make the positive claim that we CAN know with absolute certainty that God does/does not exist.

I want to know why we CANNOT know whether God exists. No one has ever defended this claim. The burden is on you to support your claim.

What makes you think we CAN know for certain? That seems like a pretty extraordinary claim to me.

Science proves nothing about the nature of God's existence.

Another claim that has yet to be backed up. Are you aware that Victor Stenger has written an entire book showing why science disproves God?

Are you aware that science presupposes methodological naturalism rather than attempting to prove it? Say no to drugs, kids.

This goes to show that it's not such a one sided issue and that you have to defend your case.

Indeed.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 12:42:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/27/2010 12:26:51 PM, innomen wrote:
At 9/27/2010 12:16:00 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Yes, even many Atheists here also agree that we cannot know whether God exists.

And whether you think they're big claims or not, I am still asking for reasons behind these assertions. They're not big claims so this should be easy, right?

One at a time okay: "We cannot know whether God exists or not."
Where exactly is your problem with this statement?

The part where it says "we cannot know."

Would the inverse be true? We do know whether God exists or not?

That's not the inverse. The inverse is not "do we know" but "CAN we know."

And this is not just a semantic gripe, this is an important distinction.

The distinction is that, do we have the ability to attain such knowledge (not whether we actually have such knowledge).

You claim that we humans are incapable of attaining knowledge about Gods existence and I want to know, on what epistemological basis?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 12:44:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/27/2010 11:56:49 AM, theLwerd wrote:
Solipsism? (I hate that answer lol)

The first and only person to give a valid answer that addresses my inquiry.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 12:54:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/27/2010 12:44:39 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 9/27/2010 11:56:49 AM, theLwerd wrote:
Solipsism? (I hate that answer lol)

The first and only person to give a valid answer that addresses my inquiry.

Cool. Will you STFU now?
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 1:04:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/27/2010 12:54:33 PM, jharry wrote:
At 9/27/2010 12:44:39 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 9/27/2010 11:56:49 AM, theLwerd wrote:
Solipsism? (I hate that answer lol)

The first and only person to give a valid answer that addresses my inquiry.

Cool.

I take it back, it's not a valid response, it's an appropriate response that directly answers my inquiry.

It's still not a satisfactory answer.

Will you STFU now?

This is a debating site and a hot debate topic. Don't like it, then don't read it, or better yet, argue for your case.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 1:07:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/27/2010 1:04:35 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 9/27/2010 12:54:33 PM, jharry wrote:
At 9/27/2010 12:44:39 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 9/27/2010 11:56:49 AM, theLwerd wrote:
Solipsism? (I hate that answer lol)

The first and only person to give a valid answer that addresses my inquiry.

Cool.

I take it back, it's not a valid response, it's an appropriate response that directly answers my inquiry.

It's still not a satisfactory answer.

Will you STFU now?

This is a debating site and a hot debate topic. Don't like it, then don't read it, or better yet, argue for your case.

Lol. I like you Geo.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 1:19:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/27/2010 1:04:35 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 9/27/2010 12:54:33 PM, jharry wrote:
At 9/27/2010 12:44:39 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 9/27/2010 11:56:49 AM, theLwerd wrote:
Solipsism? (I hate that answer lol)

The first and only person to give a valid answer that addresses my inquiry.

Cool.

I take it back, it's not a valid response, it's an appropriate response that directly answers my inquiry.

It's still not a satisfactory answer.

Will you STFU now?

This is a debating site and a hot debate topic. Don't like it, then don't read it, or better yet, argue for your case.

Why do i believe what i believe? Or more specifically, what particular knowledge based piece of information justifies my belief?

In my faith all things are interconnected. There is far less that i know about God than i do know. It is within the humbling experience of being human and not God that allows me to believe that God is greater than i can comprehend. It is the acceptance that I am limited in my perception and ability to perceive that allows me to find my diminished place in the universe before God. My dog knew who i was but was incapable of understanding my nature.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 1:26:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/27/2010 12:34:29 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 9/27/2010 12:11:15 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 9/27/2010 11:46:03 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I honestly don't see what is so absurd about this.

Those are absoute and extraordinary claims. I.e. "We CANNOT know whether God exists."

Actually, it's a negative claim. You make the positive claim that we CAN know with absolute certainty that God does/does not exist.

False. The person claiming impossibility has the burden of proof. I say it's possible to know whether God exists, you claim it's impossible and you have to demonstrate why.

If what you're saying is true, then I can claim that it's impossible for God to exist, without any supporting reasons because according to you, it is a negative claim that requires no evidence.

I want to know why we CANNOT know whether God exists. No one has ever defended this claim. The burden is on you to support your claim.

What makes you think we CAN know for certain? That seems like a pretty extraordinary claim to me.

Saying something is possible, is NOT an extraordinary claim.

Science proves nothing about the nature of God's existence.

Another claim that has yet to be backed up. Are you aware that Victor Stenger has written an entire book showing why science disproves God?

Are you aware that science presupposes methodological naturalism rather than attempting to prove it? Say no to drugs, kids.

Irrelevant. Insert said science doesn't disprove God so I pointed out that she is ignoring Victor Stengers efforts to show how science does disprove God.

Also, science doesn't presuppose anything. It's a method of discovering truths about the Universe.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 1:28:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/27/2010 11:02:59 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/27/2010 10:45:09 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I have heard many (Insert, Paradigm, several Theists, etc.) claim that:

- We CANNOT know whether God exists or not
- Its beyond human knowledge
- Its beyond our capabilities and capacities
- Cannot be answered by science

Now these are pretty big claims and I would like to know what epistemic justification there is for such statements.

Well can you present some form of argument to deny the existence of God. I am not referring to one specific form of God followed by one specific sect.

Wow, this comment is completely irrelevant to the topic. Cerebral is really intelligent, but I don't think he reads things before responding to them. >.>
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 1:42:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/27/2010 1:19:10 PM, innomen wrote:
At 9/27/2010 1:04:35 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
This is a debating site and a hot debate topic. Don't like it, then don't read it, or better yet, argue for your case.

Why do i believe what i believe what I believe?
Or more specifically, what particular knowledge based piece of information justifies my belief?

Thank you for providing a good explanation.

In my faith all things are interconnected.

Same here, though I don't see how this supports your position.

There is far less that i know about God than i do know. It is within the humbling experience of being human and not God that allows me to believe that God is greater than i can comprehend.

This presupposes God. Also, knowing that a supposed God is greater than you doesn't give you basis to say we can't know about his existence. Apparently you already know Gods existence given that you presuppose his existence as if it's axiomatic.

It is the acceptance that I am limited in my perception and ability to perceive that allows me to find my diminished place in the universe

Ok, this is the kind of answer I was looking for though I find this to be an incomplete reason. Obviously we are limited in our ability to percieve, yet that doesn't stop us from discovering the age of the Universe.

before God. My dog knew who i was but was incapable of understanding my nature.

Once again, this presupposes God.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 1:50:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/27/2010 1:42:16 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 9/27/2010 1:19:10 PM, innomen wrote:
At 9/27/2010 1:04:35 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
This is a debating site and a hot debate topic. Don't like it, then don't read it, or better yet, argue for your case.

Why do i believe what i believe what I believe?
Or more specifically, what particular knowledge based piece of information justifies my belief?

Thank you for providing a good explanation.

In my faith all things are interconnected.

Same here, though I don't see how this supports your position.

There is far less that i know about God than i do know. It is within the humbling experience of being human and not God that allows me to believe that God is greater than i can comprehend.

This presupposes God. Also, knowing that a supposed God is greater than you doesn't give you basis to say we can't know about his existence. Apparently you already know Gods existence given that you presuppose his existence as if it's axiomatic.

It is the acceptance that I am limited in my perception and ability to perceive that allows me to find my diminished place in the universe

Ok, this is the kind of answer I was looking for though I find this to be an incomplete reason. Obviously we are limited in our ability to percieve, yet that doesn't stop us from discovering the age of the Universe.


before God. My dog knew who i was but was incapable of understanding my nature.

Once again, this presupposes God.

I specifically started with all things are interconnected, and if you read the whole of what i wrote you would understand why that was important. Of course everything presupposes my belief in God, hence my statement of interconnectedness, but you are not asking about my faith in God, but what i believe to be a particular part of God's nature. Obviously it all presupposes that i believe in God. Get it? You start with a belief in God, and these other things fall into place.

You admit our limitations, and i agree that we still have great capacity for more understanding. All of this is now, and i cannot say what will happen in the future, but at this time, this is what i believe and where the basis comes.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 2:32:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
@innomen

Youre way off the mark now. All you told me was what you believe about the nature of God and that you presuppose his existence. My question was, why can't we know whether he exists or not.

Also, I still don't see what interconnectedness has to do with your belief in God.

(Btw, your argument didn't presuppose your belief in God, it presupposed Gods actual existence.)
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 2:49:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/27/2010 2:32:45 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
@innomen

Youre way off the mark now. All you told me was what you believe about the nature of God and that you presuppose his existence. My question was, why can't we know whether he exists or not.

Also, I still don't see what interconnectedness has to do with your belief in God.

(Btw, your argument didn't presuppose your belief in God, it presupposed Gods actual existence.)

Since it's my argument i fail to see the difference.

Why can't we know rather than believe? Because there is insufficient objective evidence to satisfy our know of his existence at this time. Like i said, i know that my car is there (I have sufficient objective evidence to support that statement), but i believe that it will start.

You're straddling two different things, i think. Can we know if God exists or not, and Do we have the ability to comprehend the existence of God. I dunno, i'm having a hard time understanding you.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 2:52:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/27/2010 11:39:12 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I am still waiting for the epistemic justifications for the aforementioned agnostic claims.

@Cerebral
It's irrelevant as to whether there are arguments that deny Gods existence, which there are such arguments (that attack the general concept of God, not just a specific one). I'm asking you to provide epistemological reasons for the claims. The burden is on you.


Fail.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 2:54:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/27/2010 12:16:00 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 9/27/2010 11:48:03 AM, innomen wrote:
Exactly. They're big claims by Geo's account, but i doubt even most atheists would consider them to be so big for a theist to hold.

Yes, even many Atheists here also agree that we cannot know whether God exists.

And whether you think they're big claims or not, I am still asking for reasons behind these assertions. They're not big claims so this should be easy, right?

I posit that there is an omni type God that brought about the circumstances of the big bang and now does sod all. How can you disprove this?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 2:54:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/27/2010 10:45:09 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I have heard many (Insert, Paradigm, several Theists, etc.) claim that:

- We CANNOT know whether God exists or not
- Its beyond human knowledge
- Its beyond our capabilities and capacities
- Cannot be answered by science

Now these are pretty big claims and I would like to know what epistemic justification there is for such statements.

There isn't, if we assume the contemporary definition of God. One that is the creator of the universe, all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good.

The characteristics of God are in contradiction. Thus it can be discerned that God cannot exist.

Can a square circle exist? Of course not. It's characteristics are contradictory.

Present me with a different definition and I may change my opinion. But I know THIS God is illogical.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 2:58:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/27/2010 2:54:58 PM, FREEDO wrote:

There isn't, if we assume the contemporary definition of God. One that is the creator of the universe, all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good.

The characteristics of God are in contradiction. Thus it can be discerned that God cannot exist.

Can a square circle exist? Of course not. It's characteristics are contradictory.

Present me with a different definition and I may change my opinion. But I know THIS God is illogical.

Lol...

Anyway, I'm not going to argue with you, Geo. Once you get your mind set on something, there is no amount of logic or evidence that can get you to change.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 3:01:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/27/2010 2:58:46 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 9/27/2010 2:54:58 PM, FREEDO wrote:

There isn't, if we assume the contemporary definition of God. One that is the creator of the universe, all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good.

The characteristics of God are in contradiction. Thus it can be discerned that God cannot exist.

Can a square circle exist? Of course not. It's characteristics are contradictory.

Present me with a different definition and I may change my opinion. But I know THIS God is illogical.

Lol...

Anyway, I'm not going to argue with you, Geo. Once you get your mind set on something, there is no amount of logic or evidence that can get you to change.

Why can't i learn that?
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 3:01:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/27/2010 1:28:07 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 9/27/2010 11:02:59 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/27/2010 10:45:09 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I have heard many (Insert, Paradigm, several Theists, etc.) claim that:

- We CANNOT know whether God exists or not
- Its beyond human knowledge
- Its beyond our capabilities and capacities
- Cannot be answered by science

Now these are pretty big claims and I would like to know what epistemic justification there is for such statements.

Well can you present some form of argument to deny the existence of God. I am not referring to one specific form of God followed by one specific sect.

Wow, this comment is completely irrelevant to the topic. Cerebral is really intelligent, but I don't think he reads things before responding to them. >.>

Oh... I'll get my coat then... sorry.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.