MarvlMan wrote:
There is nothing wrong with agnosticism. There is also nothing acceptable about that statement.
It depends what you mean by "agnosticism." Richard Dawkins says that some people would call themselves agnostics if they held the same position as him. The problem is that you can't disprove the existence of something that doesn't exist (unless you're very specific about what it is, where it is, and how you'd be able to know that it really does exist). Therefore it's impossible to be 100% sure that God doesn't exist. However given all that we know about human development, various religions and the physical world, I think it would be reasonable to put the chance of God existing as along the lines of 0.000... 0001% - and of course part of the reason for that is which God are we talking about? There are thousands, and they all have the same amount of evidence to support them. We can trace their historical development just as well (in most cases) - we can see that they're human inventions (that doesn't mean that they aren't coincidentally true, but that, as I've just stated, must be extremely unlikely). Importantly, most of these gods are mutually exclusive. There is a very slim possibility that Islam is right and there is a very slim possibility that Christianity is right, but they can't both be right (as in exactly right; you could theorise some kind of amalgamation, but you'd have to be changing the religions).
Agnosticism really means "Not Gnostic" or "Not Religious" (usually specifically referring to the Abrahamic religions). However it has come to mean somebody who sits on the fence; somebody who isn't sure if God exists or not. The problem with this, of course, is that there are thousands of Gods. Is an agnostic equally as unsure about the existence of Zeus as they are about the existence of the Christian God? What about a God that I make up on the spot right now? Is an agnostic sure that my invented God does not exist?
Of course I've made a small and deliberate error in this post. I claim that there is a small chance that a God exists. Actually it's an undefined chance, and it could well be 0. The problem is that there is as much real evidence to support the God I invented just now, as there is to support any other god, and that is absolutely no evidence. If there really aren't any gods, we can explain why the world is how it is; the world appears and behaves as if there are no gods; and this means we have no reasons to think that there are gods.
So agnosticism can either be logically inconsistent, when they dismiss the existence of Gods other than the one that is dominate in their culture, or it is just stupid, when people are unwilling to say that they are sure the god somebody invented on the spot doesn't exist.
As long as we are on the path of discussing infinity, doesn't a physical form restrict the infinite. By definition, something physical is a limitation. Therefore, G-d is not physical and nothing physical can be G-d or worshipped as G-d. Make sense?
What is your evidence that God is infinite?
