-
Does Agnosticism Have A Proper Premise?
Since they neither confirm nor deny the existence of God in the absolute terms that is.
But according to Ghamidi Sb and Quran, only God is the plausible explanation of all this.
So..?
-
5 Replies
-
Does Agnosticism Have A Proper Premise?
updated 2 years, 7 months ago
3 Members
·
5
Replies
-
For comments of Ghamidi Sahab, please refer to the video below from 1:24:00 to 1:27:16
-
Can you please provide the reference of this Hadith that Ghamidi Sb is quoting, this is so profound, I want to read the whole Hadith.
Thanks!
-
My apologies, I do not have the reference to the above quoted hadith.
-
-
Academically speaking, scientific agnosticism has a valid argument. The argument that knowledgeable agnostics make is that there’s not enough evidence to conclusively prove the existence of a creator. They clearly see and accept the intricate design, intelligence, and precise fine tuning in our universe in order to support life on earth, however, they hold that such evidence doesn’t conclusively prove a creator.
They’re right that our data doesn’t conclusively prove a creator, it only makes it probable beyond any reasonable doubt.
The mistake on their part, however, is that instead of judging things from the perspective of humans with limited knowledge and intellect, they view things from a viewpoint of absolute certainty.
From the perspective of humans, absolute knowledge or certainty is neither possible nor necessary. All of our decisions on a daily basis are based upon the information available to us a point in time. Even in science, we accept the most plausible explanation of any given phenomenon at any given time. Besides there’s no evidence based theory out there that explains the origins of our universe, and our own existence within this universe. Other than the God hypothesis, which fundamentally argues from what is obvious to the entire humanity (empirical evidence) and logical inferences thereof, everything else is just a speculation. The God hypothesis further solidifies itself with news from messengers of God who verify this hypothesis; their truthfulness is again verified by us through empirical evidence and logical inferences thereof. That’s the extent of what humans can achieve as far as discerning truth from falsehood.
Imagine if one had to be certain about reaching a destination before boarding a plane. Imagine if the doctors or scientists had to be certain before approving COVID vaccines. Imagine if we had to be certain about finding a job in the future before spending decades in schools. With certainty being a requirement, we can’t even put our feet on the ground. There’s no certainty about gravity still being around the next moment and functioning the same way as it has in the past. As humans we make all of our decisions on the basis of available information at any given point in time instead of indefinitely waiting for absolute certainty. If our data changes, our conclusions follow. This is true in every sphere of human life including science. Why should our decision regarding the origins of our universe be any different?
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
