What about deism? (Introduction)

by Cary Cook , Saturday, June 21, 2008, 04:23 (5788 days ago) @ dhw

>>Cary: "If you know that one of two things is true, are you not forced to believe (1) one of them?" - Okay, I didn't say that right. I know a coin flip will be either heads or tails, but I don't have to believe1 one of the options because the odds are exactly 50%. If I believed1 the odds were anything other than 50%, I would necessarily believe1 one of the options, because that's what probability is all about. E.g. If I believed1 a box contained 999,999,999,999 white marbles and 999,999,999,998 black marbles, then I would necessarily believe1 that a marble chosen randomly would be white. If the odds are not statistically calculable, then it's likely, but not necessary, that one option would appear more probable than the other. But if you insist that the God question appears to be so close to 50% as to be indiscernible, I can't say you're forced to believe1 one or the other. Is that what you're saying?
--------------------------------------
Your classic definition of agnosticism is defective, because it cites only one of the two types. My definition is better:
theological agnostic: a person who doesn't know if God exists
a. A "hard" agnostic says no one knows if God exists, and it is impossible to know if God exists.
b. A "soft" agnostic says that he does not know if God exists, but someone may, and it might be possible to know if God exists.
---------------------------------------
>I don't know which of the alternatives is true, and so I cannot believe either. - This is totally erroneous by either definition of belief. E.g. You don't know that you will pick an ace out of a deck of 52 cards, but you necessarily believe1 that you won't.
But possibly this is an overreaction to my erroneous statement above.
-----------------------------
>The statement that something is impossible may be objective if we all agree on it. - Actually objectivity is totally independent of anyone's agreement.
-------------------------------------------------------------
>In saying something is impossible for me, I mean that I can't do/believe/accept it. - Okay, I understand what you mean, but that's an ambiguous way to say it.
A proposition may be unbelievable for you ... no problem.
A task may be impossible for you to do ... no problem.
A proposition may be impossible for you to believe ... no problem.
A proposition may be impossible for you ... problem because ambiguous.