I have to say the question posed in this thread makes my list of top ten really fucking stupid things I've seen on a forum.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ierre Il
If you think about it, it is an entirely philosophically indefensible position to hold that something absolutely does not exist, anywhere, unless it can be proved to be inherently self-contradictory
|
I would have thought that making decisions based upon the current evidence would be the most prudent approach, from a practical point of view.
On the other hand..
I'm sure a lot of people here know of Pascal's Wager, which basically states you have nothing to lose by believing in God, whether he exists or not, but you're a bit screwed if you don't believe in him and he does exist..
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ierre Il
Agnosticism would seem to be the best position to hold. An agnostic that is trying to find out more, even better.
|
If there is a god of the type that people believe, then finding out more (what do you propose to achieve this?) is surely pointless.
It would be a long and fruitless search to disprove the existence of a god, or prove the existence of an undetectable omnipresent god.
What sort of proof would an agnostic accept that a god exists?
What could it do that would remove all doubt from your mind?
I would say the best position is no position at all. Like in the film War Games, it would seem the only way to win is not to play. If you genuinely do not care then you can avoid engaging in futile discussion that presently cannot be proved either way.
Apart from the existence of athiests, which is true.