AB: So far, I see a problem in your view. You can not form a lack of belief just as you can not form nothing (Lack = nothing or absence).
Perhaps the problem is just with the word "form". I see nothing wrong with saying someone actively (or chooses to) withholds judgement after being confronted with information. That would be synonymous with lacking a belief in terms of whether something exists or not.
Getting back to how this relates to agnosticism, I also think the "lack of belief" point presents a problem to the agnostics that do not identify with the atheist and theist label. I have my own solutions, like when someone doesn't know what they believe perhaps they haven't made up their mind because they have conflicting beliefs. William brings up "maybe" God exists and maybe not, and that can be used by an independent agnostic, as well.
William: As I pointed out earlier, belief [or lack thereof] of 'Gods' existing, is secondary.
The Question isn't "Do you believe Gods exist?" but "Do we exist within a creation?"
The whole 'God' question and subsequent argument between religious theists and non-theists is manufactured on fallacy.
AB: However, the only person that has the luxury of being identified as a "natural-neutral" is a baby or someone who has not encountered the God concept. This is because they are ignorant of the concept and are not suspending judgement. To suspend requires choice, especially when it comes to maintaining it. So the difference between a weak atheist and a baby is the latter doesn't choose to lack belief.
William: So here is someone who identifies as an 'agnostic' telling someone else what another's position means. Obviously it is not only atheists who think they have the right to do that.
The term "Natural-Neutral" was used by me as a temporary identifier as I became more aware that the identifier 'agnostic' wasn't appropriate.
I make that obvious.
"Agnosticism is a form of Liminalism, applicable only to The Question "Do we exist within a creation?" re the theistic and atheistic answers and subsequent arguments re said question.
Liminalism is not limited to pondering questions specific to theistic/atheistic interpretation of the mind in relation to matter. That is a huge advantage."
The question is asked on account of the experiential reality we exist within.
Since folk are agreeing to that, there is no argument.
"Yes ... We exist within a reality we call "The Physical Universe."
The question "Do we exist within a creation?" comes from that shared position.
Theism then claims that we exist within a creation - the inference being "Therefore a creator."
The atheist responds from a position of lacking belief in creators.
The Liminalist responds to both theist and atheist points of view that we could exist within a creation and proceeds with finding out how this might be established as factual.
The Liminalist explains to both atheists and theists that the first question to ask and answer is not about having or lacking beliefs in creators, because it has yet to be established that we do or do not exist within a creation.
Perplexed: Why should the God question require the creation and a creator?
William: That is how a "God" is Generically spoken of.
Also to note, it is we within the Physical Universe who appear to require an answer and the question of "God" is secondary to the question of creation.
Thus, making it the first question requiring an answer, is fallacy.
___________________________________________________
160722
...and the way forward, eyes wide open
SCLx7 + select last LE per shuffle
Psychology - They is what they is. - Accompanied - The Solution - Unhappy - Union - From the link
AP= Elephant [=81]
[81]
[Far Out!
Shucks!
Explain
Acid test]
RSP = SCLx1 B&E + P&P + N2N + LE Inputs New [LEIN]
09:01
GM: Available to all who seek this...Emergence Theory
"How can it be any other way?"
Out of Body Experience
The Body Of G_D
From the link
William: Yes. Given also that the mind can be altered that the experience had, can be altered, leads to the possibility that the human form was created so that a particular experience could be had by consciousness using the form.
Use of chemicals show that the brain can be altered in such a way that folk can have alternate experiences, but therein the experiences are quite similar, which we would not expect if brains are truly independent of each other and are solely responsible for the emergence of the individual consciousness said to be produced by the individual brain.
Perhaps this is the 'Elephant in the room"?
GM: Put yourself in your own shoes
Oneness of Wholeness
A Sturdy Place
Chamber Of Self
William: From the link;
William: This is a clear example of a theist focusing on claims re the second question, before the first question has been answered ...
GM: Nailed it!
Love Life
Reason Together
[When One is Feeling Tired]
William: Tired of the fallacy...
GM: Burden of Proof - The scientific way to examine verifiable evidence
One is not wrong
The ability of foresight helps one to think through the desires of ones heart through logic-based filters.
Pareidolia [ the tendency to perceive a specific, often meaningful image in a random or ambiguous visual pattern.]
This Speaks of....
William: A similar fallacy. Random hasn't been shown to exist...it is just assumed to be the case in regard to emergent theory.
GM: Things Are Not Always As They Appear
[Feature
Alignment
Left -brain Right brain Whole brain
Nothing More - Nothing Less]
["We’ve been an island of our own - we’ve been a cosmic rolling stone Now’s the time to spread our wings - and fly!"
Wishful Thinking]
[Truth
You Are Nobodies Victim - Ever.]
Effulgent [shining brightly; radiant. (of a person or their expression) emanating joy or goodness.]
Thinking Allowed
Graceful
09:25
Perhaps the problem is just with the word "form". I see nothing wrong with saying someone actively (or chooses to) withholds judgement after being confronted with information. That would be synonymous with lacking a belief in terms of whether something exists or not.
Getting back to how this relates to agnosticism, I also think the "lack of belief" point presents a problem to the agnostics that do not identify with the atheist and theist label. I have my own solutions, like when someone doesn't know what they believe perhaps they haven't made up their mind because they have conflicting beliefs. William brings up "maybe" God exists and maybe not, and that can be used by an independent agnostic, as well.
William: As I pointed out earlier, belief [or lack thereof] of 'Gods' existing, is secondary.
The Question isn't "Do you believe Gods exist?" but "Do we exist within a creation?"
The whole 'God' question and subsequent argument between religious theists and non-theists is manufactured on fallacy.
AB: However, the only person that has the luxury of being identified as a "natural-neutral" is a baby or someone who has not encountered the God concept. This is because they are ignorant of the concept and are not suspending judgement. To suspend requires choice, especially when it comes to maintaining it. So the difference between a weak atheist and a baby is the latter doesn't choose to lack belief.
William: So here is someone who identifies as an 'agnostic' telling someone else what another's position means. Obviously it is not only atheists who think they have the right to do that.
The term "Natural-Neutral" was used by me as a temporary identifier as I became more aware that the identifier 'agnostic' wasn't appropriate.
I make that obvious.
"Agnosticism is a form of Liminalism, applicable only to The Question "Do we exist within a creation?" re the theistic and atheistic answers and subsequent arguments re said question.
Liminalism is not limited to pondering questions specific to theistic/atheistic interpretation of the mind in relation to matter. That is a huge advantage."
The question is asked on account of the experiential reality we exist within.
Since folk are agreeing to that, there is no argument.
"Yes ... We exist within a reality we call "The Physical Universe."
The question "Do we exist within a creation?" comes from that shared position.
Theism then claims that we exist within a creation - the inference being "Therefore a creator."
The atheist responds from a position of lacking belief in creators.
The Liminalist responds to both theist and atheist points of view that we could exist within a creation and proceeds with finding out how this might be established as factual.
The Liminalist explains to both atheists and theists that the first question to ask and answer is not about having or lacking beliefs in creators, because it has yet to be established that we do or do not exist within a creation.
Perplexed: Why should the God question require the creation and a creator?
William: That is how a "God" is Generically spoken of.
Also to note, it is we within the Physical Universe who appear to require an answer and the question of "God" is secondary to the question of creation.
Thus, making it the first question requiring an answer, is fallacy.
___________________________________________________
160722
...and the way forward, eyes wide open
SCLx7 + select last LE per shuffle
Psychology - They is what they is. - Accompanied - The Solution - Unhappy - Union - From the link
AP= Elephant [=81]
[81]
[Far Out!
Shucks!
Explain
Acid test]
RSP = SCLx1 B&E + P&P + N2N + LE Inputs New [LEIN]
09:01
GM: Available to all who seek this...Emergence Theory
"How can it be any other way?"
Out of Body Experience
The Body Of G_D
From the link
William: Yes. Given also that the mind can be altered that the experience had, can be altered, leads to the possibility that the human form was created so that a particular experience could be had by consciousness using the form.
Use of chemicals show that the brain can be altered in such a way that folk can have alternate experiences, but therein the experiences are quite similar, which we would not expect if brains are truly independent of each other and are solely responsible for the emergence of the individual consciousness said to be produced by the individual brain.
Perhaps this is the 'Elephant in the room"?
GM: Put yourself in your own shoes
Oneness of Wholeness
A Sturdy Place
Chamber Of Self
"In the beginning God created ...." - Page 18 - Philosophy Now Forum
forum.philosophynow.org
William: From the link;
William: Aye. There is more than comparing notes. There is also comparing experiences. You used the notes to form images in your head. "Oh sweet Jesus!" [said every beloved/besotted follower]
Immanuel: It's your call. My job begins and ends with telling you where to look. It stops well short of forcing you to do the right thing. That's up to you. It's you that will answer for your choice, not me.
William: This is a clear example of a theist focusing on claims re the second question, before the first question has been answered ...
GM: Nailed it!
Love Life
Reason Together
[When One is Feeling Tired]
William: Tired of the fallacy...
GM: Burden of Proof - The scientific way to examine verifiable evidence
One is not wrong
The ability of foresight helps one to think through the desires of ones heart through logic-based filters.
Pareidolia [ the tendency to perceive a specific, often meaningful image in a random or ambiguous visual pattern.]
This Speaks of....
William: A similar fallacy. Random hasn't been shown to exist...it is just assumed to be the case in regard to emergent theory.
GM: Things Are Not Always As They Appear
[Feature
Alignment
Left -brain Right brain Whole brain
Nothing More - Nothing Less]
["We’ve been an island of our own - we’ve been a cosmic rolling stone Now’s the time to spread our wings - and fly!"
Wishful Thinking]
[Truth
You Are Nobodies Victim - Ever.]
Thinking Allowed
Graceful
09:25