• This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
  • Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Neo Agnosticism

Status
Not open for further replies.

arunshanker

Active member
Agnosticism is not some kind of weak- atheism. Agnosticism is not atheism or theism. It is radical skepticism, uncertainty in the possibility of certainty, antagonism to the unwarranted inevitabilities that atheism and theism have to offer. Agnosticism doesn't panic on in the case of uncertainty. Neither does it adhere in the dark or even in the light to the dogmas, beliefs, doctrines, canons, tenets, creeds and faiths of orthodox religion or atheism (to say that atheism has all this is again a debate). Agnosticism respects, compliments and may be venerates and celebrates uncertainty and has been doing so since before quantum physics revealed the uncertainty that lies at the very groundwork of being. In fact shades of this can be inferred in Nasadiya Sukta in the tenth chapter of the Rig Veda What about this - Is it possible to distinguish and the limits of rationality, There is one thing interesting here
Whether God exists or not is one. Whether we can actually know and discern the answer is another. So that makes it like agnosticism is not for the unsophisticated or the simple minded which itself sets it in a so called higher plane and is not as affable if I must say as atheism and theism are. But there is one thing - The audacity to acknowledge that we actually don’t know and may never actually distinguish what we don't know is more difficult than saying, sure, we know.
There is a difference between saying I know and can explain but you will never understand and saying I know that I don’t know
Extraordinary developments in space science and cosmology have been made in the past half century with in detailed observations of planetary systems and interactive combinations of neutral particles, ions, electrons, and electromagnetic fields and space-based platforms for astrophysics. The waste bins of history are actually brimming with abundant discarded "facts" which turned out to be wrong or at least not exactly right. This leads to the school of thought that almost no fact is truly secure and permanent in cosmology. Agnosticism In context of astronomical advancement proclaims uncertainty.
The context of many philosophical discussions, arguments and debates, most conspicuously those regarding the boundaries of our knowledge, agnosticism seems a conceivable, and hypothetically and theoretically almost the right, stance to take. In spite of this in order to meet the requirements as an appropriate standpoint, and not just to talk about the rebuttal to adopt any, agnosticism needs to be presented to be in antagonism to both confirmation and denial and to be accountable and even answerable to future evidence.
 
I have not seen the USA but many live? So can i conclude that USA never exists? Same is with god
It is not like that. If you want you can see USA, it is only by choice or circumstance that you have not seen it. If you want to see it USA is there to be seen. Now I guess it is not the same with God. Actually USA and God are very different. you will know when you try and define both USA and God in your own terms
 
Last edited:
If you want to see it USA is there to be seen.

It is the same argument posed by Theists. If you want to see God he is there to be seen.

It is never about whether we, ourselves, want to see USA or God (which I believe are opposites!), but we want the other guy to believe us.

Forget USA, have you seen X-rays? Nobody has seen X-rays. Prove to us it exists. Don't tell some indirect explanation that it falls on some films and manifests itself in some interactions because that will also be the same explanation for God.
 
It is the logical fallacy here
Now why go to X ray you can say simply "air" nobody has seen air so it does not exist.
the problem is to say the only visible things are to believed. In the case of Xray I dont have to go to eloborate detection and systems in physical sciences. In fact you were wroing when you said "Nobody has seen X-rays"
"Don't tell some indirect explanation"
Nobody has seen X-rays.
Actually you can see X ray
X ray and air is science and God is not - actually most things in science is based on Evidence and not proof and X ray is science
Coming to X ray actually the knowledge that X-rays are actually faintly visible to the dark-adapted naked eye has largely been forgotten today; this is probably due to the desire not to repeat what would now be seen as a recklessly dangerous and potentially harmful experiment with ionizing radiation.
While generally considered invisible to the human eye, in special circumstances X-rays can be visible. Brandes, in an experiment a short time after Röntgen's landmark 1895 paper, reported after dark adaptation and placing his eye close to an X-ray tube, seeing a faint "blue-gray" glow which seemed to originate within the eye itself. Upon hearing this, Röntgen reviewed his record books and found he too had seen the effect. When placing an X-ray tube on the opposite side of a wooden door Röntgen had noted the same blue glow, seeming to emanate from the eye itself, but thought his observations to be spurious because he only saw the effect when he used one type of tube. Later he realized that the tube which had created the effect was the only one powerful enough to make the glow plainly visible and the experiment was thereafter readily repeatable. Please refer - Frame, Paul. "Wilhelm Röntgen and the Invisible Light". Tales from the Atomic Age. Oak Ridge Associated Universities. A story about how Wilhelm Rontgen saw x-rays. And also
X-ray - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:
Coming to X ray actually the knowledge that X-rays are actually faintly visible to the dark-adapted naked eye has largely been forgotten today;

It is scientifically impossible to see X-rays, regardless of what funny stories are claimed about it. X-rays are of the order of magnitude 1 Anstroms and they will break the carbon carbon bonds. There are no 'excitations' of the retina caused by X-rays. Sorry, nobody can "see" X-rays. Same as God.
 
It is the logical fallacy here
Now why go to X ray you can say simply "air" nobody has seen air so it does not exist.

How is that a logical "fallacy". Both are same arguments, X-ray or Air. You can't "see" air, and therefore you can claim air doesn't exist. That is YOUR logic, not mine, Sir!
 
" It is the same argument posed by Theists. If you want to see God he is there to be seen."


The fallacy here is “argumentum ad ignorantiam”

  1. It has never been proven that God does not exist. So God exists.
It is not so very hard, however, to give a counterargument that is exactly as persuasive as this one, but leads to the opposite conclusion:

  1. It has never been proven that God exists. So God does not exist.
How, can we assess this pair of arguments? It would be challenging if someone would try to defend or attack either of the statements or one of them on the basis of a evaluation of the logical form of the other. The inaccuracy of one argument indicates the unjustifiability of the other, since both arguments share the same logical form. Actually agnosticism is actually popular because it solves the problem of the equivalence of two arguments with conflicting conclusions. Nonetheless, this explanation leaves the question open and more importantly with the statement - whether or not this form of argument is valid
 
How is that a logical "fallacy". Both are same arguments, X-ray or Air. You can't "see" air, and therefore you can claim air doesn't exist. That is YOUR logic, not mine, Sir!
As you might have read I have posted that X rays can in fact be seen
The fallacy I am talking about is in both the arguments I am not telling mine is better than yours
anyway logic is universal not Mine or yours
 
It is scientifically impossible to see X-rays, regardless of what funny stories are claimed about it. X-rays are of the order of magnitude 1 Anstroms and they will break the carbon carbon bonds. There are no 'excitations' of the retina caused by X-rays. Sorry, nobody can "see" X-rays. Same as God.

I will get you a peer reviewed paper on that
For starters
-conventional detection (excitation of rhodopsin molecules in the retina), direct excitation of retinal nerve cells, or secondary detection via, for instance, X-ray induction of phosphorescence in the eyeball with conventional retinal detection of the secondarily produced visible light.
 
Last edited:
I think you have a closed mind and will not take science
I will get you a peer reviewed paper on that
For starters
-conventional detection (excitation of rhodopsin molecules in the retina), direct excitation of retinal nerve cells, or secondary detection via, for instance, X-ray induction of phosphorescence in the eyeball with conventional retinal detection of the secondarily produced visible light.

induced secondary light is NOT X-RAYS

Show me X-rays like a train passing on a track.

Sure, give me a peer reviewed paper that carries the sentence "x-rays can be seen directly" and as a PhD in Physics I will gladly accept it or dispute it through physics.
 
Sure, give me a peer reviewed paper that carries the sentence "x-rays can be seen directly" and as a PhD in Physics I will gladly accept it or dispute it through physics.
The visibility of x-rays to the naked eye. J Radiol Electrol Arch Electr Medicale. 1951;32(5-6):494-5.
I have got more I will be giving them
 
The visibility of x-rays to the naked eye. J Radiol Electrol Arch Electr Medicale. 1951;32(5-6):494-5.
I have got more I will be giving them

Article in Undetermined Language, as per pubmed.

And the title doesn't say X-rays are visible or not. It is like "Life on other planets" which may or may not exist.

Put up a credible link with proof that X-rays are visible to the human eye and that there are rhodopsin emits an electron absorbing that X-ray (which is what is called "seeing" at the molecular level).

Here is a hint - you are wasting time. Rhodopsin or any other molecule in the body has NO RESONANCE BOND that can absorb X-rays and emit electrons.
 
Article in Undetermined Language, as per pubmed.

And the title doesn't say X-rays are visible or not. It is like "Life on other planets" which may or may not exist.

Put up a credible link with proof that X-rays are visible to the human eye and that there are rhodopsin emits an electron absorbing that X-ray (which is what is called "seeing" at the molecular level).

Here is a hint - you are wasting time. Rhodopsin or any other molecule in the body has NO RESONANCE BOND that can absorb X-rays and emit electrons.
Actaully to tell you the truth even I am astounded by these papers
here is one
The “visibility” of x-rays, Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology Volume 34, Issue 2, August 1972, Pages 330-334 by

John A. Reid D.D.S.University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
The abstract of the above article says Abstract

The purpose of this article is to challenge the frequently stated claim that x-rays are invisible. Whether they are, indeed, directly visible, or whether the “blue-gray mist” that some persons have seen is a secondary characteristic as a result of x-radiation exposure, a visual stimulation by x-radiation does occur.
This article is not included in your organization's subscription. However, you may be able to access this article under your organization's agreement with Elsevier. ( as you can see I don't have full text access here at my institution)
It is old so I guess I can't get a reprint from the author
But like you say I have to agree here that "Rhodopsin or any other molecule in the body has NO RESONANCE BOND that can absorb X-rays and emit electrons." But most of these papers and even Rontgents own ( I have a PDF copy of that) talk about indirect detection
I am sorry I said that you are not open to science guess that was an impulsive reaction Sorry again
Like you said I am wasting my time with all the full text access I have
 
Last edited:
Actaully to tell you the truth even I am astounded by these papers

Look, let me clarify - we aren't talking about "effects of X-rays" whether it produces phosphorescence or any other measurable event. If we talk about "effects" then Theists can talk about "effects of God" as proof of God.

Question is - seeing with ones own eyes. That is not possible. Not with X-rays, not even with air.

All I am trying to resolve is - the argument that "we can't see God, and therefore God doesn't exist". That argument is very weak. I am not trying to prove or disprove existence God. I have always maintained that I try to find a common set of rules to debate with believers and nonbelievers or quasibelievers and I try to show the flaw in their arguments. Nothing beyond. Pl don't take anything personally. Thanks.
 
Look, let me clarify - we aren't talking about "effects of X-rays" whether it produces phosphorescence or any other measurable event. If we talk about "effects" then Theists can talk about "effects of God" as proof of God.
Actually "effects of X-rays" can be detected and has evidence as you said it can be shown to the other person
But the analogy "effects of God" here is it correct. What I mean is X ray is in the realm of science and God is not in the realm of Science
Here classic closure rule in logic does not come into paly which says : ‘A failed defense of a standpoint must result in the protagonist retracting the standpoint, and a successful defense of a standpoint must result in the antagonist retracting his doubts’.
 
Equally weak as the argument -It has never been proven that God does not exist. So God exists.
This is the classic example of "argumentum ad ignorantiam" in logic

Not so fast! Not one theist has tried to claim God exists in this Thread using visibility or invisibility as an proof, so you are attempting to refute a nonexistent argument here.

You are trying to take a position in a triangle and try to practically "disprove" two other sides. If you are questioning the use of "logic" we have burned considerable midnight oil about drawback of binary logic and superiority of different logic functions and frameworks in the "God Exists" thread and you are encouraged to peruse them.
 
Not so fast! Not one theist has tried to claim God exists in this Thread using visibility or invisibility as an proof, so you are attempting to refute a nonexistent argument here.

You are trying to take a position in a triangle and try to practically "disprove" two other sides. If you are questioning the use of "logic" we have burned considerable midnight oil about drawback of binary logic and superiority of different logic functions and frameworks in the "God Exists" thread and you are encouraged to peruse them.
I am not claiming that some theist has tried to claim God exists in this Thread using visibility or invisibility as an proof,
I am trying to see the futility of this type of argument. In fact some of my post in the thread "God Exists" is on binary logic.
I bet the forum does not have rules that forbid users from posting views no "nonexistent argument" ( I am not refuting anything here)
 
Last edited:
Article in Undetermined Language, as per pubmed.

And the title doesn't say X-rays are visible or not. It is like "Life on other planets" which may or may not exist.
I like this. I posting this because I cant specifically like a specific statement in a post
 
I am not claiming that some theist has tried to claim God exists in this Thread using visibility or invisibility as an proof,
I am trying to see the futility of this type of argument. In fact some of my post in the thread "God Exists" is on binary logic.
I bet the forum does not have rules that forbid users from posting views no "nonexistent argument" ( I am not refuting anything here)

Not at all, people have used phrases like "evil Brahminism" and got away with such cardinal sins of the forum, so nothing is forbidden here.

I just wanted to point out that agnoticism is nothing but "I don't know" state and it isn't exactly a superior state compared to any of the other two.
 
Not at all, people have used phrases like "evil Brahminism" and got away with such cardinal sins of the forum, so nothing is forbidden here.

I just wanted to point out that agnoticism is nothing but "I don't know" state and it isn't exactly a superior state compared to any of the other two.
I did not claim it to be superior only I said that "The audacity to acknowledge that we actually don’t know and may never actually distinguish what we don't know is more difficult than saying, sure, we know"
 
It is the same argument posed by Theists. If you want to see God he is there to be seen.

It is never about whether we, ourselves, want to see USA or God (which I believe are opposites!), but we want the other guy to believe us.

Forget USA, have you seen X-rays? Nobody has seen X-rays. Prove to us it exists. Don't tell some indirect explanation that it falls on some films and manifests itself in some interactions because that will also be the same explanation for God.
You set the rules for your question "Prove to us it exists" so that it suits you well and you get the kind of answer you want
as you have overruled Detection methods of X ray and this also implies that you will not agree to the kind of evidence for X ray which is in fact Empirically measurable and demonstrably provable. This is something like saying prove or give evidence according my own rules only then I will accept it
In spite of that I must say that X ray is Empirically measurable and demonstrably provable and most importantly repeatable.
The analogy X ray does not fit in here
It seems to me like a case of Red Herring

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

Topic A is under discussion. Here is it God
Topic B (USA by kameshratnam and X ray by you ) is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A -
 
Dear Mr.Arun,

Topic A, Topic B, Topic C, under different threads with the intentions of proving or disproving GOD would ever remain inconclusive.

Topic A is too complicated and any supporting topic for the debate on Topic A would be considered as introduction of topics in guise to win, by both side.

Can you come out with relevent single topic as common ground of debate on Topic A (Does God exists?)?

Let us see to what extent we can debate on Topic A based on one single Topic to ponder on for the answeres to Topic A.


 
Last edited:
Dear Mr.Arun,

Topic A, Topic B, Topic C, under different threads with the intentions of proving or disproving GOD would ever remain inconclusive.

Topic A is too complicated and any supporting topic for the debate on Topic A would be considered as introduction of topics in guise to win, by both side.

Can you come out with relevent single topic as common ground of debate on Topic A (Does God exists?)?

Let us see to what extent we can debate on Topic A based on one single Topic to ponder on for the answeres to Topic A.


I will try
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest ads

Back
Top