Agnosticism Game

Interbane · Wed May 11, 2011 9:31 am

I saw the apples fall through my kitchen window. They fell into a stack. The position here is agnostic, although one of you could have performed the "experiment" of taking the apples off the stack and investigating. It was a practice round.

There was a stake sticking up through the apples, they had accidentally landed upon. The answer was potentially gnostic-true, but as it stands, is agnostic.

NEXT CLAIM -

I was making this drink to feed my plants, a recipe I found on the internet. I mixed honey, a touch of lime, powdered sugar, a bit of vinegar.

I put it in a bottle, but it unfortunately exploded. Do you believe me?

stahrwe · Wed May 11, 2011 9:52 am


	Interbane wrote: I saw the apples fall through my kitchen window. They fell into a stack. The position here is agnostic, although one of you could have performed the "experiment" of taking the apples off the stack and investigating. It was a practice round. There was a stake sticking up through the apples, they had accidentally landed upon. The answer was potentially gnostic-true, but as it stands, is agnostic. NEXT CLAIM - I was making this drink to feed my plants, a recipe I found on the internet. I mixed honey, a touch of lime, powdered sugar, a bit of vinegar. I put it in a bottle, but it unfortunately exploded. Do you believe me?

I think your explanation of the apples is a cop-out. It is not demonstrative of anything as a cursory examination would have revealed the stake.

With regard to your next claim, the involvement of a human renders the experiment just that and not an exploration of belief in the sense of agnosticism.


	Quote: Agnosticism can be subdivided into several categories. Recently suggested variations include: Agnostic atheism Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not have belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they do not claim to know that a deity does not exist.[16] Agnostic theism The view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence.[16] Apathetic or Pragmatic agnosticism The view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic.[citation needed][17] Ignosticism The view that a coherent definition of a deity must be put forward before the question of the existence of a deity can be meaningfully discussed. If the chosen definition is not coherent, the ignostic holds the noncognitivist view that the existence of a deity is meaningless or empirically untestable.[18] A.J. Ayer, Theodore Drange, and other philosophers see both atheism and agnosticism as incompatible with ignosticism on the grounds that atheism and agnosticism accept "a deity exists" as a meaningful proposition which can be argued for or against. An ignostic cannot even say whether he/she is a theist or a nontheist until a sufficient definition of theism is put forth.[19][not in citation given] Strong agnosticism (also called "hard," "closed," "strict," or "permanent agnosticism") The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities, and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you." Weak agnosticism (also called "soft," "open," "empirical," or "temporal agnosticism") The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable; therefore, one will withhold judgment until/if any evidence is available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day, when there is evidence, we can find something out." Wikipedia

Enjoy your game.

johnson1010 · Wed May 11, 2011 10:31 am

"exploded"?

Was it air-tight? I could see that...

johnson1010 · Wed May 11, 2011 10:40 am

As to the first claim, people were going down the right track, more or less, which was that there must have been some environmental circumstance that allowed the apples to stack.

I am not totally against the notion of the apples landing in a stack without any outside physical structure to enable that, but i would doubt any claim that it did happen that way.

It could happen, but the chances are lottery-winner slim.

Everybody, take note of the change you feel when the explanation is presented. "Oh, OK. They fell on a stake which held them in place." You go from "this sounds fishy" to , "that makes sense". Why the transition? Think about that process.

There are still some things i would want to see about this for myself, such as the original starting point of the apples, but the largest hurdle of keeping the apples from scattering on impact was reasonably solved.

There is still not enough info here for me to say that it DID happen, but it seems much more reasonable that it COULD happen.

Interbane · Wed May 11, 2011 11:11 am


	Quote: I think your explanation of the apples is a cop-out. It is not demonstrative of anything as a cursory examination would have revealed the stake.

It's a game. If you don't like it don't play. The explanation was in place before I started this thread.


	Quote: With regard to your next claim, the involvement of a human renders the experiment just that and not an exploration of belief in the sense of agnosticism.

Every claim has an audience to which applies the exploration of belief. In this case, I am making a claim about a series of events that happened as a result of my actions.

Do you believe my claim, or not? In either case, explain why/why not or ask me to perform an experiment. When you feel you have the right amount of information that justifies moving from the agnostic position, and you're correct, you win the game.

This game is a perfect example of the different epistemic techniques required to justify knowledge of a claim. Your feathers are all in a ruffle because the answer for any single sentence within the bible MUST, by nature of the claim, be agnostic. You cannot justify your beliefs.

oblivion · Wed May 11, 2011 12:05 pm

Re: Stahrwe: The point is: one ASKS questions and considers possibilities in this game; acceptance at face value is not what it is all about (hint: its title is agnosticism game).

johnson1010 · Thu May 12, 2011 11:15 am

Question:

If you fashion a miniature volcano and drop the same contents inside, will it wow us with a 1/3000 scale eruption?

stahrwe · Thu May 12, 2011 11:27 am

I was going to leave off but since there seems to be an interest in continuing I will contribute an additional thought.

I was going to post discovering seven stacks of seven apples without any stake, but it occurred to me that the truly wonderous thing was NOT the stack of 3 or 7 7's but that there are apples.

Interbane · Thu May 12, 2011 11:41 am

Johnson, I performed that experiment and by golly you're right. I just came up with a brand new recipe for a homemade BOMB!!!!

You all should try my recipe for destroying ant hills.

Anyone else? Johnson has me figured. I can come up with another if you guys want. Seems to be somewhat fun. I'm in colorado now, so only have computer access once a day.

johnson1010 · Thu May 12, 2011 4:23 pm


	Quote: You all should try my recipe for destroying ant hills.

Phlogiston?

Suzanne · Fri May 13, 2011 6:47 am

This brings back memories. When my kids were little we created rockets by using water and alkaseltzer. We used a little plastic bottle and made a top from construction paper. It would go about 20 feet in the air. We made a lot of them as I remember.

What made your concoction blow up, the lemon juice and vinagar? Actually this concoction sounds a bit good to use on a salad, but I think I will refrain from using it!

Forum rules

Agnosticism Game Tweet This Topic

Who is online

Chat Room Always Open!