[QUOTE=davar55;389192]Are opinions ever right when they conflict with an entirely valid proof?
[/QUOTE]Yes

[QUOTE=only_human;389196]Yes[/QUOTE]

No.

I want to leave that "no" as my whole post, but ...

you are implying that an opinion can be both right and wrong.

in its entirety.

which is impossible.

so are you serious or joking?

I'm saying that even if you obtain a rigorous conclusion that zero bits of information are available, this does not preclude someone else with additional axioms, postulates or data from reaching a conclusion yielding one bit of information.

If we think of the ultimate answer to the universe and everything as the "treasure" in a treasure hunt, so that the treasure could be "God" or it could be something else, then those searching for the clues and hunting the treasure can certainly call themselves agnostics. Any being which planted the clues or the treasure itself may well be in a different position.

Aside from only_human's point, I think fuzzy logic should certainly come into it when talking about "God". Considering that, whatever "God" might be, we are quite likely unable to even conceive of its nature or have adequate language to describe it, then the truth or falsehood of its existence need not be a binary value.

[QUOTE=only_human;389244]I'm saying that even if you obtain a rigorous conclusion that zero bits of information are available, this does not preclude someone else with additional axioms, postulates or data from reaching a conclusion yielding one bit of information.[/QUOTE]

It is impossible to "obtain a rigorous conclusion that zero bits of information are available", i.e. to prove the agnostic position
in the God issue, IF "someone else" HAS, by the nature of the issue [Is there a God?] already reached an unassailable, i.e.
totally proven, contrary conclusion ["yielding one bit of information"] - these two possibilities contradict each other.

One person's axioms or postulates may not conflict with a proven truth [There is no God.] nor, by the nature of proof,
can there ever be any valid evidence to conflict with a proven truth.

If one person has successfully proved there is no God [and yes, this is so], there is no God. Period.
Whether the agnostic knows about such a proof or not, the fact that such a proof or proofs exist
must necessarily mean that the agnostic's "rigorous conclusion" is in error.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;389261]If we think of the ultimate answer to the universe and everything as the "treasure" in a treasure hunt, so that the treasure could be "God" or it could be something else, then those searching for the clues and hunting the treasure can certainly call themselves agnostics. Any being which planted the clues or the treasure itself may well be in a different position.

Aside from only_human's point, I think fuzzy logic should certainly come into it when talking about "God". Considering that, whatever "God" might be, we are quite likely unable to even conceive of its nature or have adequate language to describe it, then the truth or falsehood of its existence need not be a binary value.[/QUOTE]

You assume "There is a God" when you phrase "Considering that whatever God might be".
There is no "might be" about God, just because you haven't found the proof of non-existence.
Others have found the proof. Their logic isn't fuzzy, and the binary-valued truth value of God is zero.

[QUOTE=davar55;389264]You assume "There is a God" when you phrase "Considering that whatever God might be".
[...][/QUOTE]
Okay, change the word "be" to "mean". We can refer to a unicorn in our language without implying that one exists.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;389270]Okay, change the word "be" to "mean". We can refer to a unicorn in our language without implying that one exists.[/QUOTE]

The last is true, but unicorns don't exist. if you define one, the definition must properly include the fact that
"a unicorn is an imaginary creature" [with certain characteristics]. I discussed the "unicorn variation of the
ontological argument" earlier with retina.

If you want to define God as "an imaginary being" [with certain characteristics], fine. See my discussion
of this point [the davar55 parry] earlier in this thread. Otherwise, define YOUR non-existent god.

[QUOTE=davar55;389276][...]If you want to define God as "an imaginary being" [with certain characteristics], fine. See my discussion
of this point [the davar55 parry] earlier in this thread. Otherwise, define YOUR non-existent god.[/QUOTE]
I can't do that. I don't have the language to do any such thing.

EDIT: The best I've ever been able to do for defining "God" is the word "purpose". But it's too abstract to be satisfactory.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;389280]I can't do that. I don't have the language to do any such thing.

EDIT: The best I've ever been able to do for defining "God" is the word "purpose". But it's too abstract to be satisfactory.[/QUOTE]

That would be substituting, not defining. "God" is not equal to nor a stand-in for Nature, Purpose, Self, Universe, Law, nor
any other word or phrase in ANY language.

God simply isn't.

I add the postulate that belief in God [I]is[/I] God. In this slightly larger system I then attempt to evaluate the existence function or look for contradictions.