Flash Flash Revolution: Community Forums

Flash Flash Revolution: Community Forums (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/index.php)
-   Critical Thinking (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/forumdisplay.php?f=33)
-   -   Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/showthread.php?t=115695)

mhss1992 11-26-2010 02:05 PM

Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
I know that there have been many threads about this, but I'll still create this one because:
1- It's a subject that's been bothering me a lot lately.
2- I believe my arguments have evolved quite a bit since last time.

(I think I've said this exact same thing before. Oh, well...)

The purpose of this thread is to demonstrate that if one is to follow strictly logical and scientific rules to determine all of their beliefs, the only answer concerning religious matters will always be agnosticism (pure agnosticism, mind you. The one in which people affirm they just don't know).

I'll start by listing and refuting the main atheist arguments, and the religious ones will most likely be refuted in the process as well.

I - There are several logical inconsistencies regarding the existence of God (the existence of evil, impossibility of free will, omnipotence paradoxes, etc.), therefore, it can be proven by reductio ad absurdum that God does not exist.

II
- Gods were just invented by humans. There's no reason to believe in a specific God, as there are several religions with unique dogmas and Gods. It's just extremely implausible that one of these specific Gods is the real creator of our universe, so why should I favor a single one over the myriad of other possibilities?

III - Occam's razor. Our universe can be described in a satisfactory way by our current theories. It's completely unnecessary to create external entities beyond that, so what's the point?

IV - mhss1992 is a hypocrite. He is asking atheists and religious people to become agnostics, even though he is a DEIST. What the hell???

I'm not trying to do a strawman attack. I actually think these are the best arguments atheists have created, and I've seen many people using them (except the last one). If you have another one, feel free to say it. Well, let's begin:

I - No, it cannot. Perhaps you can prove that the biblical God has several inconsistencies (it has, but I'm not going to cite them as several people have done that already), but that doesn't prove that "God" doesn't exist.
What do I call "God", then? Well, an intelligent cause. That's it. No more specifications.
An intelligent cause is a perfectly valid theory in and of itself. It can be good, evil, neutral, not omnipotent nor omniscient, or even a being from ANOTHER universe, as long as it's smart enough to intentionally create the world in all of it's complexity. There's no absurd whatsoever, since it's absolutely impossible to tell whether there is or isn't a different type of matter than the one we can perceive (as our sensors are made from the same kind of matter we can perceive). So nothing disproves the existence of beings from other universes creating other universes, or immaterial forces, or whatever.

II - Hmm... It looks like I already wrote half of the answer to this argument in the previous paragraph. Well, anyway, this was probably one of my biggest quarrels with Rubix.
Here's the thing:

1-Assuming that existence is limited (a limited number of universes, dimensions, etc.) a specific event can be "implausible". For example, saying that our universe was created by an omnipotent lavender-colored mosquito inside a platinum dodecahedron weighing 16395472390.3961 pounds is ridiculously implausible. That's aproximately 0% probability.
Other specific "Gods" are actually in the same level, naturally: a bunch of characteristics given to some form of intelligence.
However... How many different possibilities are out there?
The answer is infinite.
Now, let's do simple math: infinity*zero=?
Anyone that has studied a bit of math knows that the answer can be any number!
So, the conclusion is: we can't say ANYTHING about the plausibility of the existence of a God, considering that "God" refers to the group that contains all of the infinite possibilities that satisfy the definition.
See? Very simple. This is actually valid for many other things, as well, not only God.

2- Assuming that existence can be unlimited (up to infinite universes as well), that only makes matters worse, as we can no longer say that the lavender mosquito is implausible, at all.

III - So, you're saying that if there's a simple enough theory that satisfies all the conditions, we should favor it, right?
Well, that's pretty reasonable. I agree.
Except that...

1- There's not a simple unified theory that describes the whole universe, just a bunch of theories that explain well specific areas. Also, the existence of a God is not mutually exclusive with any of them. Is it unnecessary? Well, it's actually more subjective than it seems.

2- There's not a single theory that explains why the physical laws are the way they are. We can only measure things that are subjected to the laws that work nowadays, but we cannot say anything about the actual cause of these laws. Were they pretetermined? Why?
Fluctuations in the void?
Pure randomness?
God?

It's all speculation. Always.

IV - *gasp* How dare you call me a hypocrite?!?
I am not saying that you, as an atheist or religious person, must become an agnostic because that's the more logical answer. People have reasons to believe in what they believe.

My point is: don't be a douche. Stop saying that your belief is what "science" and "logic" claims. Science and logic have LIMITS. They do not give you enough authority to affirm whether God exists or not.

What pisses me off about many atheists I talk to is their arrogance. And I am also pissed with people who believe in things just because they're written in some book.

If you're an atheist, theist, deist, whatever, it's due to personal reasons. Maybe these reasons are actually pretty good. Maybe you're just lying to yourself.

Maybe it's actually something extremely powerful, and yet you are unable to make other people see things the way you see. You just cannot express your thoughts, no matter how hard you try.

Whatever it is, don't try to force other people to accept it.

dore 11-26-2010 02:12 PM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
A complexity I don't think you cover is the fact that agnosticism is often paired with other labels, such as an agnostic Christian who believes in the Bible to some extent but also realizes that there's no way to prove one way or another whether their conception of God exists. Same with agnostic (insert any religion here).

mhss1992 11-26-2010 02:17 PM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
Sorry. I'm actually referring to "pure" agnosticism (we just don't know).
But anything that breaks the "I'm 100% sure that God exists/doesn't exist" is a good start.

cry4eternity 11-26-2010 02:46 PM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mhss1992 (Post 3351979)
What do I call "God", then? Well, an intelligent cause. That's it. No more specifications.

Does your "God" intervene in the physical universe or otherwise give us any good reason to even care whether or not he started the universe?

Quote:

Sorry. I'm actually referring to "pure" agnosticism (we just don't know).
But anything that breaks the "I'm 100% sure that God exists/doesn't exist" is a good start.
When dealing with such an esoteric topic, I'm often confused when people talk about 100% certainty. Obviously nobody has the ability to know something with 100% certainty. I call myself an atheist because I have not been convinced that any of theism's claims have been true. This does not mean I claim 100% certainty that there are no gods. Given proper evidence, my views would change.

I do, however, give a little credit to the stance of a Deist. It could entirely be the case that some intelligent force started everything and doesn't intervene. I dismiss this because it adds an extra, unnecessary step to the origin of the universe: uncaused creator creates universe vs. uncaused universe. Overall, anybody that isn't part of the sad majority of the world that simply follows their parent's or community's views and can justify their own beliefs earns respect from me.

mhss1992 11-26-2010 02:53 PM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by cry4eternity (Post 3352036)
Does your "God" intervene in the physical universe or otherwise give us any good reason to even care whether or not he started the universe?

I think I said I wasn't talking about an specific "God", at that moment. As a deist, I don't believe God intervenes. If I created a universe, I'd be very proud to see it working by itself and not having to babysit it all the time.

Quote:

When dealing with such an esoteric topic, I'm often confused when people talk about 100% certainty. Obviously nobody has the ability to know something with 100% certainty. I call myself an atheist because I have not been convinced that any of theism's claims have been true. This does not mean I claim 100% certainty that there are no gods. Given proper evidence, my views would change.
Given your particular reason for being an "atheist", I'd say it's more coherent to call yourself an agnostic. If you think it's more "likely" for God not to exist, just read the second argument again.

Quote:

I do, however, give a little credit to the stance of a Deist. It could entirely be the case that some intelligent force started everything and doesn't intervene. I dismiss this because it adds an extra, unnecessary step to the origin of the universe: uncaused creator creates universe vs. uncaused universe.
Did you read about the possibility of God coming from another universe? How about an endless cycle?

Quote:

Overall, anybody that isn't part of the sad majority of the world that simply follows their parent's or community's views and can justify their own beliefs earns respect from me.
No, thanks... I don't wanna get stressed trying to justify my beliefs yet again. I'm not trying to turn you into a deist, so just pretend I'm an agnostic.

Edit: My reasons have something to do with effort, satisfaction and the nature of the observer. They're ridiculously complex and you'll probably only comprehend them if you're willing to do some serious meditation, questioning of what seems obvious and stuff. Let's save it for later.

cry4eternity 11-26-2010 03:15 PM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mhss1992 (Post 3352047)
I think I said I wasn't talking about an specific "God", at that moment. As a deist, I don't believe God intervenes. If I created a universe, I'd be very proud to see it working by itself and not having to babysit it all the time.

This is what I believe the most plausible definition of any god. There are no inconsistencies, but it also appears unnecessary. The universe would look exactly the same as if there were no deity, it seems.

Quote:

Given your particular reason for being an "atheist", I'd say it's more coherent to call yourself an agnostic. If you think it's more "likely" for God not to exist, just read the second argument again.

I always thought agnosticism was a statement about knowledge whereas atheism is a statement about [lack of] belief. I would not call myself an agnostic because I say that there is a way we can falsify religious claims. If you can define a God in such a way that its existence necessarily implies something, and if this "something" can be found to be false, then the existence of the deity can also be determined to be false. If your definition of a God lacks predictive power, then it is a useless definition as it does not add to our understanding of the universe, and is just speculation as it cannot be tested.

Quote:

Did you read about the possibility of God coming from another universe? How about an endless cycle?

Yeah, I've heard of the big bounce theory, but not the latter. Isn't that also just speculation?

Quote:

No, thanks... I don't wanna get stressed trying to justify my beliefs yet again. I'm not trying to turn you into a deist, so just pretend I'm an agnostic.
Actually, the way I meant that was you had your beliefs pretty well thought out and I was congratulating you.

EDIT: Sorry, didn't see this. Saving it for later sounds good. Have a nice day.

mhss1992 11-26-2010 03:25 PM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by cry4eternity (Post 3352058)
This is what I believe the most plausible definition of any god. There are no inconsistencies, but it also appears unnecessary. The universe would look exactly the same as if there were no deity, it seems.

I always thought agnosticism was a statement about knowledge whereas atheism is a statement about [lack of] belief. I would not call myself an agnostic because I say that there is a way we can falsify religious claims. If you can define a God in such a way that its existence necessarily implies something, and if this "something" can be found to be false, then the existence of the deity can also be determined to be false. If your definition of a God lacks predictive power, then it is a useless definition as it does not add to our understanding of the universe, and is just speculation as it cannot be tested.

The idea that a theory can only be considered "good" if it's falsifiable is actually a human invention.
You see, regardless of whether it's falsifiable or not, that doesn't change the fact that it can be true.

The third argument regards this. Atheists say it's unnecessary, but all of the theories I mentioned regarding the reason of the physical laws being the way they are are equally unfalsifiable (randomness being an example I particularly loathe). And equally valid (not counting subjective and weird stuff).

So, if you're an atheist for this reason, you should also be an "arandomist", because both randomness and God are in about the same level at explaining the cause of physical laws. Of course, there are other theories, and they're also in the same level: valid but unfalsifiable, at principle.

However, ONE of these things has to be true. The only position that is equally placed between all of these possible explanations is pure agnosticism.
See?

Quote:

Yeah, I've heard of the big bounce theory, but not the latter. Isn't that also just speculation?
Of course.

Quote:

Actually, the way I meant that was you had your beliefs pretty well thought out and I was congratulating you.
Oh. Thanks, then XD

DossarLX ODI 11-26-2010 03:35 PM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
So what's the big deal with God? Why do people care so much about religion in the first place?

Honestly, I don't think about religions mainly because I don't care in the first place. I really want some input as to why religion came to being.

mhss1992 11-26-2010 03:37 PM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DossarLX ODI (Post 3352081)
So what's the big deal with God? Why do people care so much about religion in the first place?

Honestly, I don't think about religions mainly because I don't care in the first place. I really want some input as to why religion came to being.

Because some people are interested at trying to understand why things exist and are the way they are...
Why do you care about FFR?

DossarLX ODI 11-26-2010 03:59 PM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
If people are interested at trying to understand why things are the way they are (physics, etc) that's what science is for - trial and error and experiments which allow conclusions to be made from results.

With religion, you start going into the "how can you be sure" ideology - where something gets mentioned, such as how all the matter came to being in the first place if matter cannot be created or destroyed. So why is this being done instead of saying you don't know, and just putting the idea on hold until some things are found to investigate? This is what's confusing.

As for purpose, it's also confusing - how can you aim for something you don't even have knowledge on (faith is not backed up) such as going to heaven when you die? With science, it can be postulated that when you die, you lose all your senses, so therefore you are no longer experiencing anything, and you aren't somehow going to appear in this place out of nowhere.

I don't know if it's just a way to make death seem less harsh or if it's just something to try giving a "temporary" answer or a justification that can't be proved (or disproved!). Or something else?

Please let me know if I am misreading what you're trying to say.

mhss1992 11-26-2010 04:10 PM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
Did you actually read the first post?
I feel like you completely missed the point, sorry. I'm not defending religion.

Patashu 11-26-2010 07:08 PM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
Actually, the reason why falsifiability is a criteria for a good theory is that falsifiability is a corollary to 'makes useful, testable predictions that are contrary to other theories/the null hypothesis'. And if a theory says nothing practical about the world that no alternate view does, then it is obviously not going to be useful for anything - thus, a non falsifiable theory is also useless.

But this ignores the fact that theories are not discrete, not a binary on/off switch - theories are a continuum of slightly related theories, an essentially infinite dimension space. Say I find some evidence that newtonian mechanics are wrong - the procession of a planet's orbit, say. This doesn't mean we need to ditch newtonian mechanics, this just means that the theory needs to be improved. Similarly, some 'experimental' theories in science are constantly refined in an 'ad hoc' fashion as new evidence arises - this doesn't necessarily mean they have no experimental value, though, it just means that there's not enough data yet to work out which versions of the theory work best, and thus whether it has a chance or not.

In the case of an arbitrarily defined God, though, which by definition can do anything supernaturally with no plausible mechanism required, there literally is no predictive value in such a theory - in the face of evidence against some traits you prescribe on such a God, you can redefine it so such evidence is its plan again. But a theory which never grows weaker or stronger is a theory without rhyme or reason, without an overall plan to follow. Theories are all about gathering previously unrelated facts and observations together under one modelling umbrella - then providing rules of thumb that allow you to make predictions about other, not-yet-seen events under this umbrella. A theory proposing a God that proposes the God in such a way that there is no way to predict its behaviour, provides no predictive tools for humans to use or test such a theory.

As a concluding point, whether belief in the Christian god, or any other religion's god(s) is falsifiable or not depends on whether such being is constrained by rules it has to follow or not, or limits to its powers.

foxfire667 11-26-2010 07:45 PM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
Personally, I like to look at things within a logical standpoint, in which everything that I have ever seen, or known is applied to a question. With this, I have yet to see anything that leads to the truth or existence of any supernatural being, especially that which has created our universe. So, logically, I disbelieve anything that regards religion, unless proof that such things could exist comes to be.

What I never understand is why people always argue "you cannot disprove religion." It almost calls out to me that they themselves cannot find a way to express how to prove their religion is in fact believable (which is generally the case), and only makes me side with them less than before. It is the equivalent of a person who cannot prove their innocence saying "you don't have any proof to convict me," in terms of a good way to keep your case.

Personally, I think that Religion has caused us many problems over our existence, and that this is yet another reason why I stay away from it. Getting caught in hundreds of wars, millions of deaths, all for a "god?" If there was/is a god, I'm sure that they would not like what has become of us because of our varying beliefs on them. Honestly, I don't see the big deal in letting people believe what the want to believe, if it makes them happy. The real thing that gets me annoyed is how opposing people have to be with others who believe in different things. So what if they worship this or that, if they think it will bring them to heaven, Valhalla, or even Wonka-land, then it shouldn't be a problem. As long as their "worship" doesn't breech the basic principles of human society (ie: human sacrifice, rape, etc), it shouldn't even be more than a peaceful debate about why one might believe what they do.

mhss1992 11-26-2010 07:53 PM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
Patashu:

Fine, but being useless still isn't the same as being false.

And I must emphasize the point of argument III again: there is no falsifiable theory explaining why the physical laws became what they are. They're on the same level.

There's no need to deny one of those specific theories in particular. What's the reasoning in that? Aren't they equally valid? Why not just say "I don't know"?

Do you get my point? Why is there a need to be an "atheist" and favor other unprovable and unfalsifiable theories that explain those unverifiable things, if they're EQUALLY VALID?

mhss1992 11-26-2010 07:59 PM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by foxfire667 (Post 3352279)
Personally, I like to look at things within a logical standpoint, in which everything that I have ever seen, or known is applied to a question. With this, I have yet to see anything that leads to the truth or existence of any supernatural being, especially that which has created our universe. So, logically, I disbelieve anything that regards religion, unless proof that such things could exist comes to be.

I've already made my point concerning "specific" Gods and religions. I am not referring to anything from an specific religion, here, but ALL possibilities.

Why is it logical to disbelieve in something that was not proven? Shouldn't saying "I don't know" be more logical?

There's no proof that there are universes beyond ours. But why "disbelieve" it?
Why favor the nonexistence?

That just makes no sense. No, this is not logical.

Etylukah 11-26-2010 08:53 PM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
I think that every person everywhere is forced to be an agnostic by default until it's either proven that God or whatever exists or not. If they don't they're just in denial because they can't prove that God exists or not and are therefore by definition agnostic?

I also think that Religion was a weapon created by humans to control people so, i'm going to stay far away from this thread. >:
I mean, trolling is an art.

~kitty~ 11-26-2010 09:19 PM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
I've noticed that people who tend to not believe in Religion and/or God have a very distinct personality, or are wannabe's. They're usually of relatively moderate intelligence, or are of severely low intelligence... however, those who tend to argue and debate about it tend to be butthurt trolls, and along with being arrogant and closed-minded, they seem to think believing in Religion or God is just retarded.

However, it's not really dumb to believe in God or Religion... I personally think many religions are expressed in a way where it's used as a coping mechanism, for things that scare all living things... death. However, when someone digs deeper into the meaning of all of this, it may actually be possible that a higher being exists, and that these paradoxes and confusions are man-made, and do not necessarily exist this way. Just because it doesn't seem so probable, doesn't mean it's stupid to believe in it.

People probably thought about the ability to fly in the same way like this (I haven't studied it), but we ended up doing it. Just saying, and I think it's pointless to argue these things, since no matter what happens, people on either side will be closed-minded to the other, and nothing will change them... at least nothing online.

Patashu 11-26-2010 09:34 PM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
If something is useless then its truth value is irrelevant. If something is useless and true, everything proceeds the same compared to if it was useless and false.

I could claim that a teacup was in orbit and residing somewhere in the Oort cloud. Such a theory cannot be proven false, but whether it is true or false does not effect any of our theories or how we should act in any situation.

Similarly, a deistic belief along the lines of 'God exists and created the universe exactly as we see it today' is useless unless personality characteristics are rigidly prescribed to such a God, such characteristics being useful to make operational predictions.

Also, an assumption you make is that atheists think 'I know there is no God.' More likely they think either 'I know the Christian God does not exist in any meaningful way' or 'I know that there is no evidence for any God that is meaningful to my life' or 'The statement 'God exists' is useless and impossible to ascertain a truth value for, so I live my life ignoring it'. They're not anti-God, just lack-of-God.

Reincarnate 11-26-2010 09:38 PM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
If you're religious you're either ignorant, delusional, laughably wishful, or plain stupid.

Science suggests agnosticism. Probability suggests atheism. Therefore I am an agnostic atheist. "Although I don't think we can ever be 100% sure, it's probably well over 99% likely that there is no God. We can also explain things without needing a God to begin with."

foxfire667 11-26-2010 09:45 PM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mhss1992 (Post 3352288)
Why is it logical to disbelieve in something that was not proven? Shouldn't saying "I don't know" be more logical?

Logical in terms of what? If I have been given no instance of why something exists, then I, by logical reasoning, cannot say that it does.

Obviously something that has not been proven has room for belief and disbelief, and varying opinions in between, but the reason why religion differs so greatly from something that has "not been proven" is because there is nothing to indicate that it has existence. The difference between, religion, and say...a traditional theory is that there is some sort of evidence or ground to what is being stated.

Like for the cell theory, as an example, there was a considerable amount of ground and research that went into the foundation of the original theory (and has been modified at various times), so I can say that it holds enough ground to be a general truth (maybe more altercations are necessary, you never know, but still something holds the ground for the thought). When it comes to religion, there is no grounding or foundation for me to assume that something is correct or not. If there was such a factor, some sort of evidence that could lead to the possibility of something divine...THEN it comes into the question of whether or not it would have happened. There are things that I am unsure about of coarse, but whether or not I am unsure about them should only some into play when some ground has been given.

If you tell me, right now, that there is a plasma TV floating in the deep regions of space...it wouldn't be a question of belief. Now if there was even a single piece of ground information (telescope recordings find images of small unidentifiable object, one was sent into space, etc.) then I could take the information I have been given and tell you whether I believe it or not.

dore 11-26-2010 10:11 PM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by foxfire667 (Post 3352355)
Logical in terms of what? If I have been given no instance of why something exists, then I, by logical reasoning, cannot say that it does.

Logical in terms of... ... logic? If you have been given no proof that something exists, then that neither proves nor disproves that that something exists. It proves that you didn't find any evidence, which holds no truth value either way.

IMM lol 11-26-2010 10:18 PM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
op: you're sensationalizing what is a very trivial point. you've essentially pointed out the humian problem of causality (which is that we can never explain causality; if we try to break down processes in terms of their causes, you'll hit an infinite regress of microprocesses) and then injected God into the equation.

my answer to that is who cares? no one; not the scientist, anyway. if you're willing to relegate God to the inexplicable of science, then go ahead, but at that point your God is simply a tautology for "randomness" "chaos" or whatever else you want to call it.

yes, the Deist has long been able to claim total compatibility with the sciences, and this is because the Deist essentially adds nothing to the equation; you're only giving another name for the same phenomenon which is inexplicable in terms of science or faith. you're really saying nothing at all.

robertsona 11-26-2010 11:48 PM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ~kitty~ (Post 3352332)
I've noticed that people who tend to not believe in Religion and/or God have a very distinct personality, or are wannabe's. They're usually of relatively moderate intelligence, or are of severely low intelligence... however, those who tend to argue and debate about it tend to be butthurt trolls, and along with being arrogant and closed-minded, they seem to think believing in Religion or God is just retarded.

However, it's not really dumb to believe in God or Religion... I personally think many religions are expressed in a way where it's used as a coping mechanism, for things that scare all living things... death. However, when someone digs deeper into the meaning of all of this, it may actually be possible that a higher being exists, and that these paradoxes and confusions are man-made, and do not necessarily exist this way. Just because it doesn't seem so probable, doesn't mean it's stupid to believe in it.

People probably thought about the ability to fly in the same way like this (I haven't studied it), but we ended up doing it. Just saying, and I think it's pointless to argue these things, since no matter what happens, people on either side will be closed-minded to the other, and nothing will change them... at least nothing online.

none of this makes sense and very nearly none of it is relevant (first paragraph in particular). you could apply your last sentence to nearly any argument--the point isnt necessarily to convince the other side that youre right (though that's nice) as much as it is to open both sides' minds.

~kitty~ 11-27-2010 12:16 AM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by robertsona (Post 3352440)
none of this makes sense and very nearly none of it is relevant (first paragraph in particular). you could apply your last sentence to nearly any argument--the point isnt necessarily to convince the other side that youre right (though that's nice) as much as it is to open both sides' minds.

The first paragraph is just a briefing of what I've seen in the personalities of such people, and the last paragraph was meant to imply that even though something seems impossible, you can't really eliminate it as a possibility.

EDIT: I do realize what you're trying to say, but the point is that you can't really talk about religion without having such people as I've described, due to the fact that religion isn't a topic that can ever really have definitive answers or come to terms with others without bringing a lot of emotional baggage into it, for either side really.

IMM lol 11-27-2010 12:18 AM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
thanks for the skepticism 101 briefing but i think everyone here knows that. however just because something is a possibility doesn't mean we shouldn't argue the validity of it

~kitty~ 11-27-2010 12:23 AM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by IMM lol (Post 3352472)
thanks for the skepticism 101 briefing but i think everyone here knows that. however just because something is a possibility doesn't mean we shouldn't argue the validity of it

If people could argue the validity of it effectively, there wouldn't be a problem.

robertsona 11-27-2010 12:58 AM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
no um not all atheists/agonstics are people who instantly dismiss all other opinions but besides even if they were what would that matter, it's as if you're trying to weaken the other side's point by just casting them off as stubborn jerks

~kitty~ 11-27-2010 01:17 AM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by robertsona (Post 3352506)
no um not all atheists/agonstics are people who instantly dismiss all other opinions but besides even if they were what would that matter, it's as if you're trying to weaken the other side's point by just casting them off as stubborn jerks

That's not what I was saying, and it applies for both sides equally, however online, there's a more popular atheist view, so there's no need to say anything about any other side, since everyone else is going to say it anyway.

Patashu 11-27-2010 02:18 AM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
hey let's have something interesting to think about with regards to religion, since it focuses on the effects of religion as a thing practiced and spread by humans, rather than talking about Gods which never goes anywhere

http://lesswrong.com/lw/18b/reason_a...mune_disorder/

mhss1992 11-27-2010 07:06 AM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
IMM lol:

If you don't care, just shut up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patashu (Post 3352343)
If something is useless then its truth value is irrelevant. If something is useless and true, everything proceeds the same compared to if it was useless and false.
Also, an assumption you make is that atheists think 'I know there is no God.' More likely they think either 'I know the Christian God does not exist in any meaningful way' or 'I know that there is no evidence for any God that is meaningful to my life' or 'The statement 'God exists' is useless and impossible to ascertain a truth value for, so I live my life ignoring it'. They're not anti-God, just lack-of-God.

If you don't care about the existence of a God, knows that there is no evidence for the existence of a God, doesn't that actually mean you don't know whether there is or isn't a God?
Isn't your definition of atheism practically the same thing as an agnostic?

If they're the same thing, why did someone bother creating different words for it?

Well, most atheists I know actually side with the "probably God doesn't exist" thing, which I've proven wrong.

Also, if you really don't care, why are you even discussing here?

Quote:

Science suggests agnosticism. Probability suggests atheism. Therefore I am an agnostic atheist. "Although I don't think we can ever be 100% sure, it's probably well over 99% likely that there is no God. We can also explain things without needing a God to begin with."
Actually, probability suggests agnosticism. Read the answer to argument II in the beginning.

Patashu 11-27-2010 07:35 AM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
Atheism practically is the same thing as being agnostic, they just evoke different things when you hear them.

Labels are funny like that, huh? Sometimes they're redundant - sometimes deliberately so, because one sounds nicer to people than the other.

I don't care about God as in the question 'is there a God or not' is meaningless*, but I do care about God in the sense of how believing in religions effects you, your associates and society, because religion's presence has measurable effects.

*Without prescribing more characteristics, as in 'I believe in the judeo-christian god as proposed by a reading of the bible'. Then we can analyze the bible for what we should find in the real world.

mhss1992 11-27-2010 08:01 AM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Patashu (Post 3352587)
Atheism practically is the same thing as being agnostic, they just evoke different things when you hear them.

hmm...
Well, most atheists I know would disagree with you. Atheism is a negative position regarding the belief in God, not a neutral one like pure agnosticism.

tofurox 11-27-2010 08:10 AM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mhss1992 (Post 3352594)
hmm...
Well, most atheists I know would disagree with you. Atheism is a negative position regarding the belief in God, not a neutral one like pure agnosticism.

I understand that. When I listen to most atheists they truly are "against" a superior being, not simply "doubtful" or not believing. It's a much more tenacious outlook on religion. They specifically disprove the presence of a godly figure and are completely against it.

Personally I am basically agnostic Catholic, sounds like an oxymoron does it not? My parents (grandparents too) would probablly shoot me (not literally) if they heard me talking like this but in all honesty I find it very difficult to believe something that does not have very much evidence to prove anything. Yeah sure people were there, but things like that can be forged. People can be duplicitously convinced something has happened for whatever reasons there may be.

If someone were to bring fourth hard evidence that something of this nature has happened, it would allow me to believe it more. I am almost leaning to my Earth and Space Science teacher who is a die hard evolutionist (though that's a topic for another thread).

foxfire667 11-27-2010 09:06 AM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dore (Post 3352376)
If you have been given no proof that something exists, then that neither proves nor disproves that that something exists. It proves that you didn't find any evidence, which holds no truth value either way.

But that is exactly what I mentioned throughout the rest of my post. There is no evidence for either side, making it a null, and basically doesn't even consider itself into the equation of "belief" or "disbelief". It has no grounds to be considered in either direction, which makes it utterly pointless to debate about it. When I say "by logic I cannot believe" I mean this because it has not even stepped up to the level of decision upon the matter yet. My wording could have been revised for less confusion though, so I apologize for that.
Example: I am God's brother. Disprove that I am God's brother. It's null, and without evidence either way, it fails to really come to the level of logical decision making.

But this is without adding science into the equation. It has been stated before that we have been able to explain the creation of the universe and life without adding God into the equation. A lot of these theories have a considerable amount of research and ground behind them. If you add this into the equation, then the amount of information that goes against many of the worlds religious deities is greater than the amount for them (in essence, 0). Now does this mean it disproves ALL supernatural hierarchies? I suppose you could say that this is not quite the case, and once again, we are back to the "null" region of thinking. It's null on either side, so again, it doesn't even bring itself to the level of logical decision.

Again, deciding whether or not there is a plasma TV floating around the deep regions of space with no evidence on either side, makes it null. You could deduce by common sense that this is not the case, but this doesn't mean that it isn't out there. With nothing on either side, logical decision making is null. It's like telling a computer to decide (when there is only 0, and 1) the correct answer when nothing is told to guide it. It could guess randomly, I suppose, but it could never guess based on logic.

mhss1992 11-27-2010 10:08 AM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by foxfire667 (Post 3352609)
But that is exactly what I mentioned throughout the rest of my post. There is no evidence for either side, making it a null, and basically doesn't even consider itself into the equation of "belief" or "disbelief". It has no grounds to be considered in either direction, which makes it utterly pointless to debate about it. When I say "by logic I cannot believe" I mean this because it has not even stepped up to the level of decision upon the matter yet. My wording could have been revised for less confusion though, so I apologize for that.
Example: I am God's brother. Disprove that I am God's brother. It's null, and without evidence either way, it fails to really come to the level of logical decision making.

But this is without adding science into the equation. It has been stated before that we have been able to explain the creation of the universe and life without adding God into the equation. A lot of these theories have a considerable amount of research and ground behind them. If you add this into the equation, then the amount of information that goes against many of the worlds religious deities is greater than the amount for them (in essence, 0). Now does this mean it disproves ALL supernatural hierarchies? I suppose you could say that this is not quite the case, and once again, we are back to the "null" region of thinking. It's null on either side, so again, it doesn't even bring itself to the level of logical decision.

Again, deciding whether or not there is a plasma TV floating around the deep regions of space with no evidence on either side, makes it null. You could deduce by common sense that this is not the case, but this doesn't mean that it isn't out there. With nothing on either side, logical decision making is null. It's like telling a computer to decide (when there is only 0, and 1) the correct answer when nothing is told to guide it. It could guess randomly, I suppose, but it could never guess based on logic.

Well... That means you agree with the initial premise of the thread. You're an agnostic, not an atheist.

Izzy 11-27-2010 12:43 PM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
I usually don't consider myself belonging to any particular label. Religion and all related aspects are just irrelevant to my life because they never get brought up in ever day life so it doesn't matter.

RE_Alioth2 11-27-2010 01:37 PM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
I wouldn't know what Atheism is like because I do not consider myself that yet. However, I am agnostic, and I know that my religion in particular is too conservative to modern acceptances for me to even consider into my life again. If I were to consider becoming religious, it would have to be with something more modern, which is non-existent at the moment.

fido123 11-27-2010 03:29 PM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Izzy (Post 3352680)
I usually don't consider myself belonging to any particular label. Religion and all related aspects are just irrelevant to my life because they never get brought up in ever day life so it doesn't matter.

I'd personally say these topics are a part of your every-day-life for the sole fact that you live.

I'm an agnostic. I think us as a human society know only an very small portion of our/the universe's origins. I look at the world around me often and I'm overwhelmed at the thought that all of this couldn't have happened without intelligent intervention, but the idea of intelligent intervention is just as overwhelming. I just look at all of this as question that I'll probably never have an answer to, so why should I pretend to know by "picking" a religion and sticking by it. Far too many people pick an answer that agree's with most of their personal morals and crusade their way through life like a total tool. A girl I know is a bhuddhism and actually believes the earth is an egg or some crap like that. I honestly think these people are dumb stupid tools. Although we don't know much, we still know quite a bit about the planet we live on, and I don't see why I have to take those views seriously and tolerate them. I'm apparently an asshole for telling her that the planet is in fact not a ****ing egg. I am however tolerant to most religions because again, we don't know, so why pretend to know and force my beliefs upon others? I think the way things probably happened is something along the lines of what atheists think, but unless we can look billions of years into the past I can't stand by it as fact and utter truth.


Quote:

Originally Posted by RE_Alioth2 (Post 3352701)
I wouldn't know what Atheism is like because I do not consider myself that yet. However, I am agnostic, and I know that my religion in particular is too conservative to modern acceptances for me to even consider into my life again. If I were to consider becoming religious, it would have to be with something more modern, which is non-existent at the moment.

Sorry to call you out on this but this is exactly what I hate. People "picking" a religion because they feel like they need a personal stance on life or something. Why don't you become religious because you actually believe it? The concept of "picking" a religious sounds completely retarded to me.

Reach 11-27-2010 11:24 PM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
While I do agree with most of what you're saying, I would like to elaborate on a few points:

Quote:

Stop saying that your belief is what "science" and "logic" claims. Science and logic have LIMITS. They do not give you enough authority to affirm whether God exists or not.
For many people that take a scientific approach to the issue, it isn't about confirming or denying the existence of God. It's about an evidence based approach to thinking.

I would never claim to know that 'God' doesn't exist, but I wouldn't claim to know whether 'X' exists either, where X can represent any concept I can't falsify.

Concepts without falsifiability have no scientific utility. Science and logic have limitations, but those limitations reject hypotheses that cannot be falsified.

Thus, those that rely on science as a philosophical framework reject the concept of 'God' because it serves no scientific purpose and has no place within a scientific framework.

With that said, an infinite number of possibilities for 'God' of course still remain, any of which could be elucidated at a future date and turned into a scientific hypothesis. Until then, however, I request evidence based arguments before I seriously consider something as plausible.

Otherwise, endless, irrelevant debates ensue. D:

mhss1992 11-28-2010 06:18 PM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Reach (Post 3353291)
Concepts without falsifiability have no scientific utility. Science and logic have limitations, but those limitations reject hypotheses that cannot be falsified. ... Until then, however, I request evidence based arguments before I seriously consider something as plausible.

You know... This bugs me a little.
I believe that facts remain true regardless of their utility to humanity, science or whatever.

I am by no means trying to hinder science's progress by forcing scientists to always think "the results of this experiment are a strong evidence to 'X theory', but God is still an option". That's absolutely useless (though pretty harmless).

It's just that possibilities are out there. There are certain things that will never (or at least as long as we are alive) have any form of evidence, like different kinds of matter and universes, but that is not an excuse to take a negative position regarding their existence. The answer is just "I don't know". It's that simple. The fact that they're not important to us does not change that answer. This thread is actually just a complaint against the arrogant people who think they know too much, and I've seen far too many of those.

gnr61 11-28-2010 06:46 PM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
As Patashu touched upon, the difference between "agnostics" and "atheists" with which you are so fixated is not much more than a semantic hiccup. There is no black and white divide here, it is very rarely a "negative position" versus a "neutral position," at least when dealing with well-thought individuals. To say atheists and religious people are those who take, respectively, absolute negative or absolute positive theistic positions is reductionist, and would confine 99% of intelligent individuals, no matter what their leaning, to being lumped together as agnostics--thereby deadening the labels you put so much stock in.

Okay, we might acknowledge that even the most rigid atheist or theist must allow room for doubt in their position, because their position is ostensibly unfalsifiable: call it the "I don't know" factor. You have to understand that the very presence of this factor does not necessarily indicate agnosticism. No thinking atheist will attempt to absolutely dismiss the possibility of God's existence, any more than he will attempt to absolutely dismiss the possibility of the existence of an invisible green elephant living in his closet; BUT he can assert with some degree of certainty (based on presence or lack of evidence) the likeliness of these things.

A stance of simply "I don't know," the "pure agnostic" position you advocate regarding unfalsifiable claims connotes compromise, neutrality, a middle-of-the-road mindset that lends equal weight to all possible answers; obviously some people favor, based on their assessment of the evidence, one answer over the others. We call these people atheists or theists depending on which, and not agnostics because doing so would render the word meaningless.

Reincarnate 11-28-2010 07:53 PM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mhss1992 (Post 3353761)
You know... This bugs me a little.
I believe that facts remain true regardless of their utility to humanity, science or whatever.

I am by no means trying to hinder science's progress by forcing scientists to always think "the results of this experiment are a strong evidence to 'X theory', but God is still an option". That's absolutely useless (though pretty harmless).

It's just that possibilities are out there. There are certain things that will never (or at least as long as we are alive) have any form of evidence, like different kinds of matter and universes, but that is not an excuse to take a negative position regarding their existence. The answer is just "I don't know". It's that simple. The fact that they're not important to us does not change that answer. This thread is actually just a complaint against the arrogant people who think they know too much, and I've seen far too many of those.

I think you're misinterpreting Reach. He's saying that there may very well be things out there that are "true," but if there's no way for us to tell, we can't say much about them at all. He's not saying that we need to take a negative position when there's no evidence. There's nothing necessarily wrong with saying "I don't know," but this answer doesn't satisfy many people, which is why religion is so appealing.

Reincarnate 11-28-2010 08:04 PM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
BTW to clarify agnosticism versus atheism:

Agnosticism is all about how "knowable" something is. It's a statement about knowledge.

Atheism is simply a "non-theist." That is to say, someone who does not subscribe to any theistic religion:

1. Gnostic theist: "I believe a God exists, and I know this to be true."
2. Agnostic theist: "I believe a God exists, but I don't claim that I know it's true."
3. Gnostic atheist: "I don't believe any Gods exist, and I claim to know this to be true."
4. Agnostic atheist: "I don't believe any Gods exist, but I don't claim to know that this is true."

Agnosticism by itself is a sort of 50-50 probability weighting. I could be a pure agnostic about the statement "There is a Starbucks on the next block here in Manhattan." I may not know if this is true or not true, and I might weight each probability at 50%.

But it usually doesn't make as much sense when we're talking about God. People claim to be agnostic in the sense that the probability between God existing and not existing is 50-50. Evidence strongly pushes this distribution far in favor of God NOT existing, which is why "agnostic atheist" is a more appropriate term for most atheists today (but we'll still call them "atheists" anyway). It's just bad science to claim something is true without any evidence, but theistic nuts take advantage of this by blowing it out of proportion: "So you admit that you DON'T know for sure! See!"

Yeah, we don't know FOR SURE, but that's like saying that I don't know FOR SURE that there isn't a pink unicorn under your bed. They are both equally ridiculous scenarios. It's just that the proof against the unicorn is more easily understood by most when compared to the evidence against God... which really requires a deep understanding of abiogenesis, evolution, cosmology, quantum physics, psychology/utility, mathematics, statistics, logic, physics, etc. The more and more you understand those subjects, the more you'll come to understand why God is a pretty unlikely thing. This is also why more intelligent people tend to be atheists.

mhss1992 11-29-2010 10:10 AM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Reincarnate (Post 3353876)
Evidence strongly pushes this distribution far in favor of God NOT existing, which is why "agnostic atheist" is a more appropriate term for most atheists today (but we'll still call them "atheists" anyway). .

What evidences?
If that's really the case, try to answer directly to my arguments in the first post.

Reincarnate 11-29-2010 10:42 AM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
BTW this is Rubix on a new account, just so you know.

Ill briefly address your own points before moving onto mine in the next post:

I. Sure, there are logical inconsistencies with God, but this depends on how one defines God. I think certain definitions of God are incompatible with what we know about our universe, but that doesn't mean all definitions are incompatible. I don't think this is a strong atheist argument, so I think it should be removed.

II. I think this is a fair point any rational atheist would make. There are an infinite number of possible Gods we could believe in, and they're all just as arbitrary and devoid of direct evidence. They are indeed invented by humans, and I think this is an important point to make.

III. This is also a fair point. If we can explain something with variables A, B, and C, why invoke an arbitrary, ill-defined D? Why not also tack on E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, and/or M, while we're at it? Ultimately, we gain nothing by just tacking on "possibilities" that we can't really test or observe in any real way. It doesn't help us in terms of truth or knowledge, and if anything, it can do damage if people are making decisions based off something without evidence.

IV. Most atheists ARE agnostic to some degree -- just not a 50/50 split. Many people assume atheists are gnostic when they aren't. Again, remember that (a)gnosticism is a claim about knowledge, while (a)theism is a claim about belief. I think it's always good science to be agnostic to some degree, because it's a bad idea to say that something is knowably certain (otherwise you're appealing to something unfalsifiable even if it's actually untrue).

Reincarnate 11-29-2010 11:58 AM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
Anyways I think the strongest evidence against God is what was outlined in points II and III in tandem. The evidence suggests that God probably doesn't exist only because we can explain everything without him. Do you need to invoke Sonic the Hedgehog to explain why the ice in your drink melts? Probably not -- so what good does it do to say "Well, it's *possible*, right? Anything's *possible*"?

When you approach the more fundamental, though, things get crazy. Quantum physics and M-Theory are fascinating frameworks to address the bigger questions (Why are the laws the way that they are? What really happened during the Big Bang? What IS space and time? Was the Big Bang really the "start" of existence? Can we really say anything is "causal"?). Even so, it doesn't help us to invoke God. It doesn't help us to just clap out hands and say, "Well, God must have been at the helm." We need to find some sort of model that can make accurate predictions/explanations with respect to our observations. Otherwise it's a sort of useless tautology to say "Things are the way they are because God did something." What "just did God," then? It doesn't get us any closer to the "true" answer. If you want to say "God has always existed," then why not save a step and say that the universe has always existed until we are proven otherwise?

But at the core of the question, why call it God at all? We seem to have this desire to liken God to something human or alive -- some sort of intelligent entity that has desires and wishes and utility functions and goals like we do -- something that intentionally set forth the universe into motion. But we can just as easily say that the "creating force of the universe" may not be a "who" but a "what" -- in which case we stop thinking of the origin of everything as a God but rather a scientific explanation just like any other. It also becomes even more unlikely when we consider HOW our intelligence came about to begin with (evolution).

mhss1992 11-29-2010 03:51 PM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
Rubix:

When I made the "Why are the laws the way they are?" question I was trying to imply something very simple:
There's nothing we can say about it. Our observations and postulations are based on the current laws of our universe, naturally. There are endless theories that try to explain this (not to mention endless different ones inside the groups "God", "randomness" or even stuff like "existence trying to fill every possibility").

One of them MUST be true, and ALL of them have the same probability to us (completely unknown). It could also be "God and randomness", "randomness and Ç", whatever.

But why are so many people specifically against the group "God", after all?


Also... I am not really adding God to the explanation of the laws that are already known and well explained. I guess everyone agrees that's unnecessary. I'm a deist, after all. I was really trying to emphasize stuff that's completely unexplained by our science like the cause of the laws of the universe.

In this case, God is not just an "extra" variable, it's a theory like any other.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reincarnate (Post 3354708)
But at the core of the question, why call it God at all? We seem to have this desire to liken God to something human or alive -- some sort of intelligent entity that has desires and wishes and utility functions and goals like we do -- something that intentionally set forth the universe into motion. But we can just as easily say that the "creating force of the universe" may not be a "who" but a "what" -- in which case we stop thinking of the origin of everything as a God but rather a scientific explanation just like any other. It also becomes even more unlikely when we consider HOW our intelligence came about to begin with (evolution).

Some people believe in a purpose. I'd rather stay away from the part I cannot express. The last tries weren't very pretty. For both sides (I know that's probably not what you think, and I really don't care).

Reincarnate 11-29-2010 04:09 PM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
Even if there's something we can say nothing about with any degree of proof or certainty, that's all we can do: "I don't know."

Do we really "know" what happened at t=0? Do we really "know" what happened before the Big Bang, if anything? There are countless theories that attempt to explain things within a consistent framework -- but again, even if we don't know for sure, what's so bad about saying "We're still investigating"?

You can assume a God if you want, but the fact is that it doesn't get us anywhere in the same way M-Theory might. God isn't really the same as any other theory because, again, it doesn't really explain anything other than saying "Things are what they are because God did it." Until we have proof of a "God," there's no real reason to make such a theory.

Reincarnate 11-30-2010 08:53 AM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mhss1992 (Post 3354873)
Some people believe in a purpose. I'd rather stay away from the part I cannot express. The last tries weren't very pretty. For both sides (I know that's probably not what you think, and I really don't care).

Oh, I don't question that people believe in purpose, but I think it's important to look at what makes us think that there's purpose in the first place. When you look at the evolutionary pressures, "purpose" is just a function of our intelligence and our need to search for patterns in nature. Religion appeals to this and displaces through the ego.

In other words, "purpose" is a humanized construct. If life had never evolved, would you think the universe had a "purpose"? Odds are, no -- because nobody would be around to even realize the universe exists. The universe would just be. Is there a "purpose" behind something that exists for its own sake?

mhss1992 11-30-2010 10:02 AM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Reincarnate (Post 3354879)
Even if there's something we can say nothing about with any degree of proof or certainty, that's all we can do: "I don't know."

Do we really "know" what happened at t=0? Do we really "know" what happened before the Big Bang, if anything? There are countless theories that attempt to explain things within a consistent framework -- but again, even if we don't know for sure, what's so bad about saying "We're still investigating"?

You can assume a God if you want, but the fact is that it doesn't get us anywhere in the same way M-Theory might. God isn't really the same as any other theory because, again, it doesn't really explain anything other than saying "Things are what they are because God did it." Until we have proof of a "God," there's no real reason to make such a theory.

I get your point.

Correct me if I'm wrong. You, as a scientifically minded person, have a concern: trying to find explanations and theories that allow us to better comprehend the universe. Theories that allow people to describe the behavior of the universe in a way that can be useful at improving our lives.
These theories are organized in such a way that they create a "thread" that only gets more complex, allowing us to reach even more fundamental theories which will allow us to understand even more.

The moment we assume "God" as an explanation, we will "stop" this thread. There will be nothing else to understand or investigate. We will be ultimately stagnated. That's why you're not particularly fond of the idea of a "God".


But...

There's a mistake in this line of thoughts: You are treating God as something necessarily magical.

You are actually putting the "God made it" hypothesis in the exact same level as "magic", which means you are treating it as something inherently incomprehensible and unexplainable.

You know this very well: intelligence isn't magical. Intelligence has causes and implications. I think you didn't take the "infinite possibilities" as seriously as you should have.

Maybe that's why so many atheists treat the whole idea as something shildish, they are too attached to the "magical" concept of God.

For example: assuming that an intelligence like this might exist, what could have caused it?

Well, the cause itself could be considered "unintelligent", like chaotic interations that generate something in a similar way evolution does. Naturally, the same chaotic interations could create the universe itself, without the need of an intermediate intelligence. However, the chaos itself could have been created by another intelligent/dumb force.
Maybe the nature of this intelligence would allow us to discover even further.
Maybe this intelligence itself IS the result of a very well defined physical theory. One could argue that the chaos itself is SO complex that it occasionally shows sign of intelligence. How about evolution on a much larger scale?

Then you ask: "but why pick intelligence? Why is it so special?".
Actually, the question of this thread is "Why NOT intelligence? What makes intelligence LESS of a theory than any other?"


Also, you said things like evidences putting God in a very implausible position, but you didn't show any actual scientific or statistic evidences suggesting that. It was really just your personal interpretation of the matter.

Reincarnate 11-30-2010 10:30 AM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
I fear our language differences make these discussions difficult and strained. At the same time I feel like if you don't agree, you just don't agree. I require physical evidence and reasoned logic for my claims of truth, and I say "I don't know" otherwise. That's the way I operate, and you may operate differently.

Reincarnate 11-30-2010 11:05 AM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mhss1992 (Post 3355774)
Also, you said things like evidences putting God in a very implausible position, but you didn't show any actual scientific or statistic evidences suggesting that. It was really just your personal interpretation of the matter.

Let me make an analogy.

It's a lot like a scene of a crime. You gather evidence to make a conclusion about what happened. Let's say you live in a house with a friend. You come home one day to find the friend has been killed via bullet wound to the chest. You notice that the assailant left the gun behind with tons of fingerprints. He also left behind blood, hair, etc -- lots of DNA evidence. Then you also remember that you installed cameras in your house, except for the room the murder occurred in. You watch the tapes and notice that nobody was in the house except for you and the friend. Then you see yourself leaving and the friend entering the murder room. Then you see the assailant on tape entering the house, entering the murder room with the gun, and then leaving in a bloodied mess without the gun.

But you never ACTUALLY see the murder. We catch the assailant, the DNA matches, the ballistics check out and we can determine where the shooting occurred and from what angles, perform an autopsy, etc -- to back up the claim that the assailant indeed shot and killed the friend in cold blood. But then people question this case and wonder, "Well, we never SAW the murder actually happen, right? Isn't it possible that the assailant entered the room and the friend died of natural causes just as the assailant fired the gun? We can't prove that this DIDN'T happen!"

Much like the case with God, we have to start bending over backwards to justify "possibilities" when we have mountains of evidence that already point to some pretty clear conclusions -- in a much stronger fashion than even the analogy I gave. It may very well be true that the friend died of natural causes an instant before the gun was fired, meaning that the assailant just shot an already-dead person... but it's a very improbable thing and it doesn't help to assume that this is the case when everything else is considered.

It may very well be true that we have an intelligent God at the helm. But we have no evidence to show for that, and we can already reach conclusions without such a God.

mhss1992 11-30-2010 01:52 PM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Reincarnate (Post 3355790)
I fear our language differences make these discussions difficult and strained. At the same time I feel like if you don't agree, you just don't agree. I require physical evidence and reasoned logic for my claims of truth, and I say "I don't know" otherwise. That's the way I operate, and you may operate differently.

I don't remember claiming something when there was no evidence in this thread. I'm honestly trying to make sense here. I try hard to be honest to myself and to other people. Was the rest of that post really that hard to address directly? Did I say some sort of nonsense?

I admit that I often feel that same about you disagreeing. In fact, I get the feeling that everyone with different convictions than mine try very hard to convince themselves that they're right even when I'm almost sure that they will change their minds. Maybe I do that, too.
However, I tend to think better and change in the long term. I've changed a lot in the past 4 years. I still don't think I have a good reason to consider myself wrong right now, though.

Quote:

Much like the case with God, we have to start bending over backwards to justify "possibilities" when we have mountains of evidence that already point to some pretty clear conclusions -- in a much stronger fashion than even the analogy I gave. It may very well be true that the friend died of natural causes an instant before the gun was fired, meaning that the assailant just shot an already-dead person... but it's a very improbable thing and it doesn't help to assume that this is the case when everything else is considered.
You also seem to think that the existence of God would automatically disprove several known theories used to describe our universe, as if they're mutually exclusive. Which ones, exactly? What would be the equivalent to the evidences from the analogy you mentioned and why is it so strong?

I have to mention the possibilities again. There are several ones that are perfectly friendly to everything that we know about our universe. So, yeah, there are probably tons of evidences against many of these possibilities, but not all of them.

Please remember that I am not trying to *prove* the existence of God. That's not what this thread is about.

Reincarnate 11-30-2010 02:08 PM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mhss1992 (Post 3355909)
You also seem to think that the existence of God would automatically disprove several known theories used to describe our universe, as if they're mutually exclusive. Which ones, exactly?

I have to mention the possibilities again. There are several ones that are perfectly friendly to everything that we know about our universe. So, yeah, there are probably tons of evidences against many of these possibilities, but not all of them.

God is not incompatible with current theory -- just to make this clear. The problem is that God is constantly redefined in order to fit the conclusions rather than fitting the conclusions around the evidence. It's a constant case of moving the goalposts. He's defined as something that we can't falsify, because if we falsify something, we just redefine God so he's outside of it. No matter *how much evidence we acquire*, we can *always* say "Well, there COULD be a higher God outside of this..."

God's a non-falsifiable concept. This doesn't make it a valid scientific hypothesis. Please read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Reincarnate 11-30-2010 02:18 PM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mhss1992 (Post 3355909)
Please remember that I am not trying to *prove* the existence of God. That's not what this thread is about.

I understand that -- but just because we can't ever *disprove* something doesn't mean it's *worth* believing in, especially if it can be used to justify atrocity and abuse.

How would you like it if I said that killing was OK because of quantum suicide effects? You might die in this universe, but you'd still be alive in countless others, so what's the big deal?

SpookG 11-30-2010 03:07 PM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
It sounds like you have been reading Carl Sagan.

Here, let me help you:

The Dragon in my Garage

Reincarnate 11-30-2010 03:21 PM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
Showing an example comparing the difference between nonexistence and unobservable entities is a logical concept that you can find just about anywhere.

fishbone528 11-30-2010 07:12 PM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
Imagine an individual buying a single lottery ticket and proclaiming, "This ticket could either hit the jackpot, or it won't, I don't know which it will be, so both are equally likely".

The "pure agnosticism" which you prescribe, is pretty much the same thing. You are stepping back and boiling it down to God or no God (or Supreme First Mover or no Supreme First Mover, from a more Deistic perspective), I don't know which it was, so both are equally likely. This is almost certainly not true. Like the unfortunate lottery player above, just because we don't know what the probability is, does not make it 50-50.

Any (useful) definition of God will have consequences on the universe as we know it. So far, we have found no evidence that suggests a supernatural force at work in the universe. With each new generation of scientific research, more and more phenomena seem to be finding reasonable and coherent natural explanations.

Deism is a really a non-stance. Yes, perhaps it may actually be true. But how would you know it's true? How would you know it's not true? If you don't know the answer to either question, does that mean both possibilities are equally likely? Almost certainly not.

Furthermore, what would the universe look like if Deism were true? What would it look like if it wasn't? Any difference? No. Deism simply equates "God" with "That which is unknown or unknowable".

I think at the basic level we are all having an argument based on the definition of words and labels.

Your definition of atheism probably runs something like, "One who believes that Gods or supernatural entities absolutely do not exist". This narrow and aggressive definition is sometimes associated with the capitalized label, "Atheism". You also seem to assume this is what the majority of atheists believe.

The other definition runs something like, "One who does not actively prescribe to any theistic viewpoint", or simply, "not a theist". This could be referred to by the lowercase label, "atheism". It is worth noting that "atheism" is a superset of "Atheism".

I see that Reincarnate has described this fairly well, but I'm going to take a stab at it as well.

There are 2 separate scales at work here, atheism vs theism and agnosticism vs gnosticism. I believe my "little a" atheism definition above describes the first scale. You either believe a god exists or you don't. This first scale boils down to "feeling", and may or may not be based on evidence (or lack thereof).

Gnosticism, as you may know, derives from the greek word for "knowledge" and one of it's definitions is, "possessing intellectual or esoteric knowledge of spiritual things" for which the antonym is agnostic or, "uncertain of all claims to knowledge".

So basically to be agnostic is to maintain some level of uncertainty about truth claims, such as "There is (or isn't) a God".

Therefore, to ask whether an individual is agnostic OR atheist doesn't make any sense. Each label is answering a different question.

An individual could fall into one of 4 categories: gnostic atheist, agnostic atheist, agnostic theist, or gnostic theist.

I suppose you could insert a philosophical fence in the middle and perhaps even label it "pure agnosticism". This would be the stance that "I am unsure of the existence or nonexistence of a God or gods and I believe that any claims to existence or nonexistence are both equally likely". This is a very narrow fence indeed. In practice, people generally have a feeling toward one end or the other.

Most, or perhaps all, people would fall into the middle 2 (or 3). Only the diehard "big A" Atheists would be the first category and likewise with diehard Theists on the other end of the spectrum. The reason I say perhaps all people fall into the middle 2 is that I can't really imagine anybody truly believing they absolutely know the truth about the existence or nonexistence of a God or gods. I could certainly be wrong about that however.

In case you're wondering, my personal stance is that of the agnostic atheist. In practice, since I think that everyone is probably agnostic to a certain degree, I don't see the purpose in using the label agnostic and simplify my stance to "atheist".

Patashu 11-30-2010 07:47 PM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
The problem with the Christian God being magical is that, well, he is. Believers will commonly refer to God's ways as being mysterious and unknowable by mortal minds, and so you just have to trust whatever his plan is. No characteristics are provided that can be used to run a 'god-test' in the present - as in, if we notice God do this, then it's the christian god else it's not, and so on.

mhss1992 12-1-2010 08:43 AM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Reincarnate (Post 3355925)
God is not incompatible with current theory -- just to make this clear. The problem is that God is constantly redefined in order to fit the conclusions rather than fitting the conclusions around the evidence. It's a constant case of moving the goalposts. He's defined as something that we can't falsify, because if we falsify something, we just redefine God so he's outside of it. No matter *how much evidence we acquire*, we can *always* say "Well, there COULD be a higher God outside of this..."

God's a non-falsifiable concept. This doesn't make it a valid scientific hypothesis. Please read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

I have read that before, thanks.

Anyway, I actually even thought of this myself: as science proves certain things, the concept of "God" evolves and becomes harder to kill.
Something on the lines of:
A: God made this nest.
B: Actually, this nest was made by this bird.
A: God made this bird.
B: This bird became what it is due to evolution.
A: God made evolution!
And so on...

You're assuming that you can induce that this thing would happen ad infinitum, because it has happened many times in the past, even if they're just differenct theories with the same name. Though I actually believe that there's a much bigger barrier when it comes to the determination of the laws of physics themselves, it can also be said that this is like putting the goalposts as far as possible. So this is a fair point.

I just don't think this is as conclusive as that analogy, though. Technically speaking, there are still no actual numbers we can get from this. It's not like the same "God" has been disproven a thousand times, like I said, different theories with the same name and some traits in common have been disproven.

Quote:

I understand that -- but just because we can't ever *disprove* something doesn't mean it's *worth* believing in, especially if it can be used to justify atrocity and abuse.

How would you like it if I said that killing was OK because of quantum suicide effects? You might die in this universe, but you'd still be alive in countless others, so what's the big deal?
This is exactly why I hate dogmas. But if that's not a personal concern, I don't know what else is.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Reincarnate (Post 3355978)
Showing an example comparing the difference between nonexistence and unobservable entities is a logical concept that you can find just about anywhere.

Let's make a thought experiment:
There is matter A and matter B, subject to laws A and B respectively.
Matter A can only interact with matter A, which means that beings made from matter A can only perceive things made from matter A, no matter how advanced their instruments are. The same is valid for matter B.

We are made from matter A. The assumption that matter B exists does not help our knowledge of laws A in any way, so it's useless. Matter B is also non-falsifiable, naturally.

Should matter A beings disbelief the existence of matter B because of that? I mean, if we're going to bet, should we say that it's more likely that matter B doesn't exist?

fishbone528:
Quote:

Deism is a really a non-stance. Yes, perhaps it may actually be true. But how would you know it's true? How would you know it's not true? If you don't know the answer to either question, does that mean both possibilities are equally likely? Almost certainly not.
I never said that. When the probabilities are unknown, they are unknown, not 50-50. That's pretty obvious. I most certainly don't believe in God just because the probability is unknown, though. Like I said, I have other good reasons but they mostly are notions acquired through introspection, so I can't really express them.

Quote:

Your definition of atheism probably runs something like, "One who believes that Gods or supernatural entities absolutely do not exist". This narrow and aggressive definition is sometimes associated with the capitalized label, "Atheism". You also seem to assume this is what the majority of atheists believe.
I never said that, either. And I didn't assume that, either. But there is a concept called "strong atheism" which refers to people who affirm that the statement "there is at least one God" is false wih 100% certainty.

Patashu:

Why are atheists so attached to the specific Christian God?

Reincarnate 12-1-2010 10:54 AM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mhss1992 (Post 3356793)
I have read that before, thanks.

Anyway, I actually even thought of this myself: as science proves certain things, the concept of "God" evolves and becomes harder to kill.
Something on the lines of:
A: God made this nest.
B: Actually, this nest was made by this bird.
A: God made this bird.
B: This bird became what it is due to evolution.
A: God made evolution!
And so on...

You're assuming that you can induce that this thing would happen ad infinitum, because it has happened many times in the past, even if they're just differenct theories with the same name. Though I actually believe that there's a much bigger barrier when it comes to the definition of the laws of physics themselves, it can also be said that this is like putting the goalposts as far as possible. So this is a fair point.


I'm not assuming it would happen ad infinitum. I am saying that given what we know, we're showing that when it comes to the global scope of our existence, we're finding that more and more (and by this, I mean everything to date) is explainable with our natural laws and science, and we push God further and further out of the picture. Therefore "God" becomes less and less likely. That's all it is -- a lowering a probability. Nowadays, that probability is so absurdly low that it's honestly not worth considering anymore until proven otherwise. That's where my stance derives from.

I am not denying the possibility that that chain would stop at some point. But what does it really mean to "consider it as a possibility"? How are you going to treat this "possibility"? We both have said outright that we don't deny this possibility. But what then? Where do we differ, specifically? Are you saying that God is simply more probable than I am suggesting despite the evidence?


Quote:

Originally Posted by mhss1992 (Post 3356793)
This is exactly why I hate dogmas. But if that's not a personal concern, I don't know what else is.

Yes, dogmatic justifications can be very dangerous, which is why I think it's always a good idea to make reasoned decisions based off *evidence* that is true for me, true for you, and true for anyone else making the observation.

Reach 12-1-2010 11:33 AM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
Quote:

Why are atheists so attached to the specific Christian God?
They're not. It just comes up a lot in debate.

There is really no 'specific Christian God'. Rather, the Abrahamic God is essentially the same God in Christianity (All variants), Judaism and Islam. You can call him whatever you want; Yahweh, Jehova, Elohim, Allah etcetera, but it's the same god in different variations that more than half of the entire population of the Earth believes in.

The point here is the people believe God to be a supernatural creator and overseer of the universe.

The question then becomes, is this likely? While creator remains a possibility, overseer becomes more and more unlikely as we elucidate more and more theory of how the universe functions as an autonomous system.

It's harder to look at the issue of creation because we can't look at time before the creation of time (i.e. the Big Bang), though we can infer one thing. Complex, organized systems arise from simple ones, as we see from the evolution of our universe. It is therefore reasonable to assume it is unlikely God could represent a complex and organized system (There is nothing to precede him if he is indeed responsible for creation).

In that sense, I don't feel this view represents how most people conceptualize God, meaning it is unlikely that Abrahamic-like Gods exist. There is no way to define probabilities here, but we can still say it's unlikely based on what we know about the universe.



Anyway, Fishbone brings up a lot of good points with respect to the semantic issues I was going to address, and Rubix has contributed so much I really don't have anything else to add.

mhss1992 12-1-2010 03:07 PM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Reincarnate (Post 3356825)
I'm not assuming it would happen ad infinitum. I am saying that given what we know, we're showing that when it comes to the global scope of our existence, we're finding that more and more (and by this, I mean everything to date) is explainable with our natural laws and science, and we push God further and further out of the picture. Therefore "God" becomes less and less likely. That's all it is -- a lowering a probability. Nowadays, that probability is so absurdly low that it's honestly not worth considering anymore until proven otherwise. That's where my stance derives from.

I am not denying the possibility that that chain would stop at some point. But what does it really mean to "consider it as a possibility"? How are you going to treat this "possibility"? We both have said outright that we don't deny this possibility. But what then? Where do we differ, specifically? Are you saying that God is simply more probable than I am suggesting despite the evidence?

Less and less likely...
Think about it for a while: if there were a known fixed number of "things left to be explained", maybe we could speak of a probability.
For example:
"99.99% of everything about existence has been explained by science, and .01% is unexplained."

However, the actual number of "unknown" things to be explained is, well, UNKNOWN.
What if we know only .0000001% of existence? Well, that speaks very little about the probability of existence of God. It's by no means "absurdly low".

My point is: unknown probabilities are unknown.

Another detail: Our current science depends on the current laws of physics. Everything discovered by it depends on them. If we consider that something might have determined these laws, then, by definition, this thing is not subjected to the same laws.

Is there any mistake here?

Patashu 12-1-2010 07:00 PM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
It's not so much that they're anti-Christian God, but that there's no need for them to rebuke Gods that aren't being postulated.

Reincarnate 12-1-2010 07:36 PM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mhss1992 (Post 3356943)
Less and less likely...
Think about it for a while: if there were a known fixed number of "things left to be explained", maybe we could speak of a probability.
For example:
"99.99% of everything about existence has been explained by science, and .01% is unexplained."

However, the actual number of "unknown" things to be explained is, well, UNKNOWN.
What if we know only .0000001% of existence? Well, that speaks very little about the probability of existence of God. It's by no means "absurdly low".

My point is: unknown probabilities are unknown.

Another detail: Our current science depends on the current laws of physics. Everything discovered by it depends on them. If we consider that something might have determined these laws, then, by definition, this thing is not subjected to the same laws.

Is there any mistake here?

You need to understand that while unknown probabilities ARE unknown, this means we can't say anything about them one way or the other. The unknown factor could be useless and small. It could be massive and important. It could be anything. It could be nothing. We don't know if it exists or not. Therefore, it is of no use to anyone in any way. We can treat it as not existing UNTIL SHOWN OTHERWISE. Like that Sagan story showed, what's the difference between a dragon that you can't sense, see, smell, touch, detect, interact with, etc -- and a dragon that just doesn't exist at all? Nothing. What does it mean for such a dragon to even "exist," then? In the context of our universe/existence, it doesn't mean anything at all.

If you are going to discount all probabilities as being useless because there could always be a huge, unknown variable then by that note you may as well say all knowledge is useless because "you just never know for sure."

I understand that you are wise enough to keep an open mind, as I think we all should. There are things we had no idea existed that had huge impacts on the way we see reality (such as relativity, quantum mechanics, etc). I understand that maybe everything we know about reality is only local to our universe and that it could be an entirely different ballpark outside of that.

But the problem lies in the fact that when we don't know something, we don't know something. It does nothing for us to pick something at random and "believe" in it. You can be open-minded to the possibility, but that's it. I am open-minded to the possibility of God, but I am also open-minded to the concept of there being an alternate universe where humans are blue-colored and planets are made of peanut butter. I am open-minded to the notion that Zeus and Thor exist. I am open-minded to these concepts because they aren't disprovable or impossible, but I can say that I don't think any of them are very likely within the context of our universe. But I am not going to waste my time with any such arbitrary beliefs until I have proof that I *should*. Again, all those beliefs are like invisible dragons.

Even if there is a God -- what if that God exists in a realm that we can never observe or experience? What if there's no way for a creator to interact with his creations besides just setting everything into motion? How does that solve our fundamental desire to ask "What caused everything?" Even if the answer to "What made the universe?" IS "God," then we aren't any closer to our fundamental desired answer. What made God, then? Are we really so satisfied with the answer "God did it?" Are we okay with "God" being an uncaused cause, and yet NOT okay with the universe itself being an uncaused cause? They're both "complex" entities in their own right. So what makes "God" God and not the "universe" it's own "God"? Even if such a God existed that we couldn't possibly interact with, we would never know about it. We would have no idea whether or not it was a God or some other explanation/entity/concept at the helm/root of the answer. All would be just as unknown as any other randomly invoked theory. But if we can't know about it, we can't say anything -- and we may as well simplify things by treating all unknown, unobservable concepts as nonexistent until shown otherwise.

mhss1992 12-2-2010 09:39 AM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
You know what? We actually agree in most points. If we consider the possibility of God existing in our universe as something observable, then it's most definitely a ridiculously small probability. I guess the difference is that I tend to think too much about things we don't know (several universes and etc.). It just bothers me that you treat certain probabilities, like the "absurdly low" probability of existence of God, as practically certain. Again, such probability is only valid if we don't consider every possibility. That's what I've been trying to say in the whole thread.

I was actually afraid that you'd say something like "the probability of our knowledge of existence being so small is very small", so thanks for NOT saying that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reincarnate (Post 3357211)
You need to understand that while unknown probabilities ARE unknown, this means we can't say anything about them one way or the other.

Typo?
If you actually meant "this doesn't mean we can't say anything about them one way or the other.", my answer is: if what we know about existence is as little as that percentage I mentioned, then we practically can't say anything at all. But, again, such percentage is unknown.

That doesn't mean that we can't postulate probabilities about things that have been observed in our universe. It's just that when it comes to possibilities beyond our universe, we REALLY can't say anything. Did you see the "Matter A/Matter B" thought experiment I mentioned in an earlier post? The problem is that you always link these possibilities with insanely specific things like Sonic the Hedgehog or the invisible dragon, even when I mentioned that we can't treat groups containing infinite possibilities as something as specific as that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reincarnate (Post 3357211)
Even if there is a God -- what if that God exists in a realm that we can never observe or experience? What if there's no way for a creator to interact with his creations besides just setting everything into motion? How does that solve our fundamental desire to ask "What caused everything?" Even if the answer to "What made the universe?" IS "God," then we aren't any closer to our fundamental desired answer. What made God, then? Are we really so satisfied with the answer "God did it?" Are we okay with "God" being an uncaused cause, and yet NOT okay with the universe itself being an uncaused cause? They're both "complex" entities in their own right. So what makes "God" God and not the "universe" it's own "God"? Even if such a God existed that we couldn't possibly interact with, we would never know about it. We would have no idea whether or not it was a God or some other explanation/entity/concept at the helm/root of the answer. All would be just as unknown as any other randomly invoked theory. But if we can't know about it, we can't say anything -- and we may as well simplify things by treating all unknown, unobservable concepts as nonexistent until shown otherwise.

Trying to answer everything in order:
As long as we are in this universe, this possibility is more likely. I can't say anything about that. I don't actually believe there was a "first cause" meaning a "beggining" of existence, because, if we try to apply causality to everything, such cause would be either eternal or caused by something else, in an endless chain (and I like causality very much). I can't say anything about that. No. No. Intelligence, at least according to the definition.

Also, I already got the "God doesn't explain anything" long ago. The thing is, like I said, the existence of things doesn't depend on their utility to us. Is it really such a big deal for a scientist to answer just "I don't know" when someone asks them whether God exists or not?

Reincarnate 12-2-2010 10:21 AM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
I think on the whole we agree on most posts as delivered in that recent post.

teh_masterers 12-11-2010 07:05 PM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
There's always one missing link when it comes to falsifying or proving the existance of God, but when the quantity of evidence AGAINST God outweighs the quantity of evidence FOR God, it's not an idiotic thing to expect more evidence for God's existance...

mhss1992 12-14-2010 03:56 PM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by teh_masterers (Post 3366430)
There's always one missing link when it comes to falsifying or proving the existance of God, but when the quantity of evidence AGAINST God outweighs the quantity of evidence FOR God, it's not an idiotic thing to expect more evidence for God's existance...

Why do I even bother answering...

There is no evidence against God if you consider every possibility. This has been covered a thousand times already. There only is evidence against specific concepts of God, but not all of them.

Izzy 12-14-2010 04:05 PM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
There would be evidence against god if we weren't using the premise that god would be above the laws of physics and natural existence.

But since anything that we can use to disclaim the idea of god then obviously there is no evidence against it.

But if we were assuming that all things had to abide by normal rules then there would be a whole slew of evidence against it.

Yieldsign 12-14-2010 05:52 PM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mhss1992 (Post 3369189)
Why do I even bother answering...

There is no evidence against God if you consider every possibility. This has been covered a thousand times already. There only is evidence against specific concepts of God, but not all of them.

and you unwittingly nail home the point...

...who cares?

mhss1992 12-14-2010 07:06 PM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Izzy (Post 3369196)
But if we were assuming that all things had to abide by normal rules then there would be a whole slew of evidence against it.

By "normal rules" you mean "rules we can observe", right?
Nothing can be said about what we cannot observe.

Existence beyond our universe is not "slightly unknown" or "partially unknown". It's COMPLETELY unknown. Assuming that there is nothing beyond the laws we can observe is every bit as illogical as assuming there is something, that's the point of the thread.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Yieldsign (Post 3369346)
...who cares?

I'm starting to get seriously pissed off at people who post in threads to say nothing but "who cares?", "nobody cares". The fact that you actually bother answering to something you don't care about is paradoxal and stupid.

devonin 12-14-2010 08:16 PM

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions
 
Not only do you have every right to get pissed off at such people, they are in fact violating the rules of the forum and need to stop lest they be banned.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:22 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution