"Daedalus" newtko0ouks.biz> wrote in message
news:7nddt31l6reqa54eqvjfe5hsfbj18ir5q1@4ax.com...

Therefore it doesn't for any practical, logical or philosophical purpose.

On Mar 13, 6:14 am, "Reality_Check" wrote:

Do your ideas exist?

The complete lack of sensory evidence, the contradictions contained
within any and all definitions offered, of the mystic's god, all point
to the simple fact that god does exist but as an idea, started in the
mind, at best a feeling about a feeling.

Agnostics are mystics in waiting, sitting on the coward's fence of
evasion. To be agnostic is not a position it is the evasion of one.

"Reality_Check" wrote in message
news:63qve9F296aqiU1@mid.individual.net...

Correct.Now remove logic,practicality and philosophy, and what are you left
with ?

Clue. Look in the morror.;-)

BOfL

"Michael Gordge" xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:35d60f0d-6e23-4570-a006-7bd0437fb982@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 13, 6:14 am, "Reality_Check" wrote:

Do your ideas exist?

The complete lack of sensory evidence, the contradictions contained
within any and all definitions offered, of the mystic's god, all point
to the simple fact that god does exist but as an idea, started in the
mind, at best a feeling about a feeling.

On Mar 13, 8:35 am, "brian fletcher" gmail.com> wrote:

No I dont, they speak for themselves.

In reality evidence is sensory and non-contradictory, whereas what the
mystics offer, for their god mumbojumbo, is totally utterly mind
dependent and jam packed with contradiction, reality's not.

That's an oxymoron.

To be left and or mystic requires the rejection of reason and the
embracing of faith.

MG

On Mar 12, 2:14 pm, "Reality_Check" wrote:

Does that apply to the many versions of agnostisism?

Strong agnosticism (also called hard agnosticism, closed agnosticism,
strict agnosticism)--the view that the question of the existence of
deities is unknowable by nature or that human beings are ill-equipped
to judge the evidence.

Michael Gordge wrote:

Yes.

brian fletcher wrote:

Cogito Ergo Sum

The horror.

Immortalist wrote:

Kant would call the argument unknowable or not determinable either
way. This would lead to contradictions either side one might take;

Antinomies are contradictions that Kant believed follow necessarily
from our attempts to conceive the nature of transcendent reality. Kant
thought the Antinomies cannot be resolved and that attempts to
conceive the transcendent will always produce irresolvable
contradictions. This does not mean that there is no transcendent or
that attempts to conceive the transcendent are meaningless. They are,
just as Kant said, necessitated by reason itself. It does mean,
however, that the transcendent defeats rational representation.

Speculative reason will be mis-applied beyond the limits of possible
experience while considering such topics. The contradiction arises
because valid arguments can be made in favour of both views. If
unresolved this antimony could lead to 'the euthanasia of pure
reason' (AKA skepticism).