Agnosticism
Lomanno (lomanno@ix.netcom.com)
Sat, 24 Oct 1998 13:34:21 -0400
Sean wrote:
> Anyone who answers "I don't
> know" to the question "Do figgledischnucks exist?" is just being silly as
> far as I'm concerned. And, I guess I'm not sure what the difference is
> between theories of God's existence and theories of the existence of
> figgledischnucks.
I don't think it's silly at all to say "I don't know" to the question of
whether figgledischnucks exist. No one can prove they don't. Just like
no one can prove God doesn't exist. Just like no one can prove that a
partner is NOT cheating; only that he/she IS. I think the ONLY answer
one can give to questions such as these is "I don't know."
Now, if you want to talk about the LIKELIHOOD of figgledischnucks or
God, that's another story. I have not seen proof that either of these DO
exist, either.
Jim wrote:
> The thing is, most of the people I know that sincerely and deeply believe
> in God do so because of what they believe is a personal experience with
> God. I believe you exist because I'm responding to e-mail from you. I
> believe my wife exists because, well, she just walked in the door and set
> a plate of food on the table next to my computer.
...And if God sent me an e-mail or walked in the door and handed me some
food, I'd believe in its existence, too. However, I think the idea of
"personal experience" is being used a little too freely here. People who
have the kind of personal experience with fiddledischnucks that you have
had with God would probably be put in an institution. It's only because
the existence of God is somewhat socially acceptable that people take it
as reality.
I'm just sort of playing the devil's advocate (pardon the multiplicity
of meaning) here because these are two extremes. The fact is, there is
no proof on either side, so the case must be thrown out. It should be OK
that we don't know all the answers. If we did, we'd no longer need God,
would we?
--Kari