To say that ‘not knowing is a fact’ is a metaphysical claim. It means you know that no one else could possibly know there was a God if there is one. Can you offer proof of this other than heartfelt belief?
The agnostic does, however, make absolute epistemological claims. That is, those agnostics whose position is that if there was a God it could not be known.
This implies that he cannot know if he cannot demonstrate it to you. But there a numerous counterexamples to the implicit rule.
REALLY? I must have been behind the door when all those numerous proofs were offered. Show me just one that isn’t conjecture or anectdotal. I’m all ears.
You are not getting it. You are making metaphysical claim that no other person can know there is a God if there is one. You have the burden of proof around that assertion.
Wrong. I’m saying that no one has offered tangible proof of a god. I’m still open to the possibility. I have no burden of proof because I’m not attempting to prove anything. there is nothing metaphysical about my stance in any way. That’s the second time you’ve tried to make assumptions that I’m ‘claiming’ something I’m not claiming. You need to stop doing that. But back to the ignored request: Show me your tangible proofs, please? 
Yes, you said that. But you also said…
and earlier
Here you are asserting that if a person is making claims based on their experience, it can only be an invention. IOW you are assuming that all knowledge can be demonstrated to others without the same experiences. The first quote is stating that any metaphysical claim - w hich would include the existence of God - is invention, well wishing.
These are assertions, and actually the former one is a metaphysical one. Another quote from even earlier seems to fit with these…
This again seem to be saying one cannot know certain things.
But perhaps I have misinterpreted your position, partly based on what agnostic often means - an epistemological stance. If you are not claiming one cannot know there is a God or not, then let me know.
Burden of proof is generally thought to come to a person when they make an assertion. They don’t have to set out to prove something.
If you are not saying that it cannot be known there is a God, then you are not making a metaphysical claim, but the quotes I cite above seem to contradict that.
Also you were referring to ‘agnostics’ as a whole. But many agnostics, including the man who coined the term, meant that if there is a God there is no way of knowing it and also that there is no way of knowing there is no God. I consider that a metaphysical claim, perhaps one you are not making, but it seems like you are, as I mentioned above.
Where have I asserted I have tangible proofs?
Tentative, I’m starting to wonder about my ability to communicate. I may in fact believe that there is “something” outside of human constructs. In fact, I think this is a very reasonable stance. I may even believe it is the default stance for us humans. But over and over again in this thread I have stated the opposite. I am not implying here that there is or isn’t or might be “something” outside of human constructs. I’m saying it doesn’t matter, for instance, whether “God” is invention, discovery, somehow both, or somehow neither. I’m saying belief in God exists and belief in God has certain effects in our world. Lack of belief in God exists and lack of belief in God has certain effects in our world. Actively taking part in a debate about the existence of God exists and has certain effects in our world. Declining to take part in a debate about the existence of God exists and has certain effects in our world. I suppose I am treating concepts like “God” as metaphysical inventions, but unlike the realist I don’t see how that is some kind of insult. As a person with one foot in the realist camp (i.e. I’m not insane), I still find the distinction useful. But I don’t think the distinction is a real one. I think it is a conventional one. It is useful.
Not knowing isn’t a fact, if you take the instrumentalist route. Knowing is an active process of engaging with the world. It isn’t some perfect state of union with “reality”, as if you somehow managed to get all the floaters out from your eyes. If there is no separate reality to be known (a gulf to be bridged), then there can be no facts. There is only exploration and experiment - beliefs, actions and consequences. Again, as a nod to realism, if there are realities and ultimate facts, they need not be worried over.
With an instrumentalist perspective there is no need and no desire to “verify” metaphysical claims. I think you are continuing to misunderstand what I’m trying to say here.
Again, you don’t seem to be understanding my points. You keep talking about “knowing” like it’s some bogeyman that we have to, for some reason, be terrified of. But knowing is what you and I do. Every day, continuously. Experiencing is knowing. We bring our histories with us, our conceptions, our delusions, our relationships… and we experience a world filled to overflowing with others. It’s all knowing. There are no gulfs, there are no schisms, there are no realities that are fundamentally (not merely practically) hidden to us, or separate from us.
Tentative, with respect to your conversation with Moreno, I think that the way you use the word “proof” suggests that you think there is some reality out there and that statements about that reality must correspond (whatever that might mean) to that reality. Otherwise, I’d think some variation on NOMA would make a lot more sense. You’ve alluded to perspectivism in your posts, so I don’t know why theistic assertions couldn’t be taken seriously at least with respect to certain kinds of human concerns and endeavors. It’s not about correspondance, it’s about results. What kind of consequences result from belief in God? Or more specifically, what kind of consequences result from belief in God in scientific fields of study? What consquences result from belief in God in the realm of human interactions? Are all theists the same in this respect? If not, is there a way to isolate “belief in God” from theism’s historical baggage and determine what that leads to? If not, what then? I guess you simply believe what you believe, modify your beliefs as you see fit, and go about your business. It’s a messy world, and you only live once.
Looks to me like he was a nontheistic Christian. In other words, he was a Christian who was unconcerned with the question of whether God is real or not. I’m probably oversimplifying, but anyway…
Interesting quote I just found…
“As men’s habits of mind differ, so that some more readily embrace one form of faith, some another, for what moves one to pray may move another to scoff, I conclude … that everyone should be free to choose for himself the foundations of his creed, and that faith should be judged only by its fruits.”
Not sure how you could judge the fruits of your beliefs and actions though. We can’t step outside of space and time in order to judge how things went, and how things might have gone if things had been otherwise. I mean, did Christianity for the most part help or harm the world? It’s an unanswerable question, isn’t it?
Maybe there is a way out of this: Let’s assume that all is invention (constructs). What we have inside of invention is discovery. We build a construct consistent with our genetic/encultured understanding of the universe. The test of what is “reality” to each individual is the consequences that follow from our construct. That is discovery. Experience either confirms or denies our constructs (learning/knowing). The difficult part is to remember that this is a continuous process as all experience is ever new and it is in our focus (constructs) that forms the flow of our reality. Thus, the reality of a confirmed theist, atheist, agnostic, can be genuine and all three can be different and all evolve over time.
As an agnostic, saying I don’t know ends right there. Moreno suggested that I was making claims to be proven, but I wasn’t. I was simply stating an opinion that could be right, wrong, or both. I know what I know - but only inside MY constructs. To the extent that what I say I know works at least 51% of the time, then I have a good grasp of “reality”. Of course, the same could be said of the devout theist who sees the hand of a god in every experience. This is why I can say there is no proof of any external reality. If there is one, we have no way to demonstrate that except in our individual constructs.
Hi friends,
Without going in details-
We have invented nothing so far,since Stone age, because we are simply not capable of that. That is totally out of question.
The all we have acquired so far are just discoveries, not inventions.
Assembling some descoveries in a new order should not be termed as invention.
It may be the invention of a new process, but not the product.
An invention requires much more than that.
with love,
sanjay
Not so sure I agree, Sanjay. Are you saying that unless you create something out of nothing you haven’t invented anything at all? But then there was a ‘you’ first, and not really nothing, so even that doesn’t count…
I think rearranging really is inventing, sometimes. Consider metamaterials.
Agreed.
Discovery = finding something already existent.
Inventing = assembling something that was not existent before its first assembly.
Anyone can invent a new ontology. It would be hard to invent one that is worthy of the effort, but is doable.
As I invented Rational Metaphysics, I also used it to form (invent) a new ontology (“Affectance Ontology”)and discover how and why subatomic particles do what they do, even more so than contemporary physics seems to understand. From that, I then discover a variety of truly universe principles.
The inventions led to the discoveries, much like inventing a microscope and then using it to discover bacteria.
RM is my “microscope”. The principles of the universe are the “bacteria”.
Hi anon,
I do not have enough time to write a detailed reply.
Yes. Nothing counts.
In my opinion, that is not the proper use of the word invention.
As an example, there are 26 alfabets in the english language and there are enumerable words derived from them. One may form as many as more new words as he likes but those would not be inventions. It is just a new order (irrespective of their utility).
If one really wants to invent new word, then he has to invent 27th alfabet, in the first place.
In the same way, at the micro level, we have some basic inputs or ingredients. And, more interestingly, even science does not know what is that particular building block of the matter and yet we claim that we can invent!
We just rearrange some intermediate state of materials and termed them as inventions, even without knowing the core ingredient. Is it philosophically right?
The whole of the cosmos is perpetual and if so, then it must me made of some material/ingredient ( whatsoever it may be ). It just changes shapes. So, even if it does not add any new thing, then how can we do that?
That is why i said that we are not capable of any invention in true sense.
with love,
sanjay
Those definitions refer to inventing stories/lies and also inventing machines, “fabricate”.
A lie is something that is invented. It did not exist until it was invented.
A car is something that is invented. It did not exist until it was invented.
A story is something that is invented. It did not exist until it was invented.
That is what the English word “invent” means.
At least according to Darwinians, mutation and selection invent things that did exist before.
Do emotion belong to discovery category or invention category?
James, i would like to disagree here.
I am not talking here about the dictionary meaning of the words here as they do not stick to strict versions and cover all possible intertretations of any word.
there are three things-
discovery- to find out something which was already existed in the exact form when it was found by someone for the first time.
innovation- to rearrange some inhand or already discovered material in a new order as to create something new.
Invention- nither find not rearrange but to create some new material ( like 27th letter of the alfabet)
James, if we go by your definetion, then what would be the difference between innovation and invention?
Imho, we either discover or innovate but do not invent.
Furthermore, if we accept rearranging as invention, then it would mean that every moment is an invention. Because, each and everything around us and in the universe is continuesly rearraging itself in a new order.
We also bound to change with each passing moment. That is why we use to grow from a infant to a mature and eventually die.
So, is each moment of our and life and universe is an invention or is it just rearrangement?
James, even as per RM, there are only two things; pta and waves of affectence. Everything else is rearrangement.
Thus, as i see it, there is no posibility of invention at all because we cannot create third ingredient other than pta and affectence.
with love,
sanjay
zin, you are redefining a word already defined as something else.
Why?
If it is to have the definition that you suggest, it loses all meaning and becomes worthless.
Why change it to mean something worthless? What would be the point?
James, to check any theory, one must streach it to its limits and then has to see whether it holds or not.
I am not redefining the meaning but trying to put emphasis on the real intention of the word in the light of broader context, because this was the real purpose on the thread. And, even this interpretation is not worthless.
Can you say that infinite is worthless?
Invention is different from innovation and more inclined towards the sense of creation. But, we do not use it in that way in day to day use.
If you remember that in another thread, I tried the same with belief and faith as I see faith more inclined towards fact in the comparison with belief. More often than not, we tend to use them in the same manner but I see a very vivid difference between them.
Although I am far for being an English major but I know how a language works and I do not have any hesitation in saying that English is not good example of scientific or perfect language. Perhaps, the reason for that is its borrowing and too much reliance on other languages. But, on the other hand, it is too easy to learn.
Let me give you some examples-
Both in Hindi and Sanskrit, there is a very simple and strict rule regarding pronunciation- pronounce just as it is written, thus, no confusion. But, in English, it is huge issue as pronunciation is entirely dependent on the practice, not on the letters.
Secondly, both Hindi and Sanskrit, use different form of verbs for genders while there is no such differentiation in English.
Take an sentence- Kamal goes. Here, by simpler reading of that, one cannot know whether Kamal is male of female but in Hindi, the difference is clear-
Kamal jata hai.
Kamal jati hai.
Thirdly, in Sanskrit, there are three types of the verbs; one is for singular, second for duo ( two persons) and third for plural.
Furthermore, there are 48 letters in Sanskrit and 47 in Hindi. This is to say that there are many sounds those do not have any counterpart in the English.
But, all his makes these languages much difficult while English is far easier to learn, speak and write as well. And,that is why it is almost an official world language.
with love,
sanjay