Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions

[mhss1992]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by mhss1992

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?

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]

Originally Posted by cry4eternity

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.

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.

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?

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]

Originally Posted by mhss1992

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.

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.

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?

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]

Originally Posted by cry4eternity

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?

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

Of course.

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]

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]

Originally Posted by DossarLX ODI

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]

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]

Did you actually read the first post?
I feel like you completely missed the point, sorry. I'm not defending religion.

[Patashu]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by foxfire667

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]

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~]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by mhss1992

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.