|
|
#41 |
|
FFR Simfile Author
|
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.
__________________
squirrel--it's whats for dinner. |
|
|
|
|
|
#42 | |
|
x'); DROP TABLE FFR;--
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,334
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#43 |
|
x'); DROP TABLE FFR;--
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,334
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#44 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 788
|
Quote:
If that's really the case, try to answer directly to my arguments in the first post.
__________________
jnbidevniuhyb scores: Nomina Nuda Tenemus 1-0-0-0, Anti-Ares 1-0-0-0 Best AAA: Frictional Nevada (Done while FFR was out, so it doesn't show in my level stats) Resting. I might restart playing FFR seriously someday. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#45 |
|
x'); DROP TABLE FFR;--
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,334
|
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). |
|
|
|
|
|
#46 |
|
x'); DROP TABLE FFR;--
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,334
|
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). Last edited by Reincarnate; 11-29-2010 at 01:30 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#47 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 788
|
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:
__________________
jnbidevniuhyb scores: Nomina Nuda Tenemus 1-0-0-0, Anti-Ares 1-0-0-0 Best AAA: Frictional Nevada (Done while FFR was out, so it doesn't show in my level stats) Resting. I might restart playing FFR seriously someday. Last edited by mhss1992; 11-29-2010 at 03:58 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#48 |
|
x'); DROP TABLE FFR;--
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,334
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#49 | |
|
x'); DROP TABLE FFR;--
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,334
|
Quote:
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? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#50 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 788
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
jnbidevniuhyb scores: Nomina Nuda Tenemus 1-0-0-0, Anti-Ares 1-0-0-0 Best AAA: Frictional Nevada (Done while FFR was out, so it doesn't show in my level stats) Resting. I might restart playing FFR seriously someday. Last edited by mhss1992; 11-30-2010 at 10:11 AM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#51 |
|
x'); DROP TABLE FFR;--
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,334
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#52 | |
|
x'); DROP TABLE FFR;--
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,334
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#53 | ||
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 788
|
Quote:
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:
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.
__________________
jnbidevniuhyb scores: Nomina Nuda Tenemus 1-0-0-0, Anti-Ares 1-0-0-0 Best AAA: Frictional Nevada (Done while FFR was out, so it doesn't show in my level stats) Resting. I might restart playing FFR seriously someday. Last edited by mhss1992; 11-30-2010 at 02:09 PM.. |
||
|
|
|
|
|
#54 | |
|
x'); DROP TABLE FFR;--
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,334
|
Quote:
God's a non-falsifiable concept. This doesn't make it a valid scientific hypothesis. Please read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#55 | |
|
x'); DROP TABLE FFR;--
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,334
|
Quote:
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? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#56 |
|
(For Great Justice!)
|
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
#57 |
|
x'); DROP TABLE FFR;--
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,334
|
Showing an example comparing the difference between nonexistence and unobservable entities is a logical concept that you can find just about anywhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#58 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Lower Hutt, New Zealand
Age: 37
Posts: 7
|
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". Last edited by fishbone528; 11-30-2010 at 07:24 PM.. Reason: spelling, missing words, etc. |
|
|
|
|
|
#59 |
|
FFR Simfile Author
|
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.
__________________
Patashu makes Chiptunes in Famitracker: http://soundcloud.com/patashu/8bit-progressive-metal-fading-world http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v216/Mechadragon/smallpackbanner.png Best non-AAAs: ERx8 v2 (14-1-0-4), Hajnal (3-0-0-0), RunnyMorning (8-0-0-4), Xeno-Flow (1-0-0-3), Blue Rose (35-2-0-20), Ketsarku (14-0-0-0), Silence (1-0-0-0), Lolo (14-1-0-1) http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee301/xiaoven/solorulzsig.png |
|
|
|
|
|
#60 | |||||
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 788
|
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
Patashu: Why are atheists so attached to the specific Christian God?
__________________
jnbidevniuhyb scores: Nomina Nuda Tenemus 1-0-0-0, Anti-Ares 1-0-0-0 Best AAA: Frictional Nevada (Done while FFR was out, so it doesn't show in my level stats) Resting. I might restart playing FFR seriously someday. Last edited by mhss1992; 12-1-2010 at 10:24 AM.. |
|||||
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|