tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post7736269271472048317..comments2024-03-02T00:44:55.128-08:00Comments on Pleiotropy: Yet more on whether adequate evidence for God could existBjørn Østmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08859177313382114917noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-91095736294837596672010-11-12T06:46:35.935-08:002010-11-12T06:46:35.935-08:00My dictionary doesn't have 'pistic' or...My dictionary doesn't have 'pistic' or 'apistic'. Is that reason enough to retain gnostic and agnostic - whose meaning we can at least look up?Bjørn Østmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08859177313382114917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-52377890204335598672010-11-11T12:32:52.570-08:002010-11-11T12:32:52.570-08:00Richard Dawkins rightly pointed out in "The G...Richard Dawkins rightly pointed out in "The God Delusion" that beliefs considered "religious" are, like all other claims about reality, not exempt from critical examination (falsification), and only a fideist would claim otherwise. He is wrong that the only alternative to NOMA is that evolution conflicts with any sort of design, however, where he is right implies that atheists who think atheism is not falsifiable (Myers), are 'implicitly' fideist.<br /><br />Genuine faith/belief is strengthened by evidence and weakened by counter-evidence, so there can be varying degrees of belief/faith/subjective certainty (hence, belief "scale"), but the 'truth' of the matter is very black and white (law of non-contradiction). A belief is either true or not true, regardless the amount of evidence you have in favor of it or against it, and regardless how subjectively certain you are or how strongly you believe it, which is why it is better to use "apistic/pistic" on a belief scale, rather than "agnostic/gnostic".<br /><br />http://www.examiner.com/apologetics-in-san-francisco/replace-agnosticism-with-apisticism-on-every-belief-scaleMaryann Spikeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11252412506351650920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-90468270992338857982010-11-07T09:51:26.886-08:002010-11-07T09:51:26.886-08:00Right. It is as if humans think that their expecta...Right. It is as if humans think that their expectations of godhood must be met. Says who?<br /><br />And yes, God may exist but may also not care to do anything. Retired?<br /><br />As for free will, I think that's the same way. We could expect God to have it (contrary to humans), but may not?Bjørn Østmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08859177313382114917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-71598028867124982892010-11-07T08:52:24.650-08:002010-11-07T08:52:24.650-08:00You make two interesting points:
1) religion does ...You make two interesting points:<br />1) religion does not need to explain anything, for all we know religions might not have anything to do with "god"<br />2) God does not need to explain anything, and also god's existence migth not matter at all. <br /><br />Still I wonder: Is there a religion that has a God that is incabable of having or excerting a free will?<br /><br />Cheers ArendDr. Arend Hintzehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01939871283783922116noreply@blogger.com