From atheism to agnosticism

[ImaginalDisc]

I always get a kick out of seeing a church with a lightning rod on its steeple. Why is it necessary, I wonder? Paranoia or a nagging subconscious lack of faith?

Actually, it used to be common practice to ring church bells to chase away the demons and devils allegedly responsible for inclement weather during storms. Bell ringers died frequently, and horribly. Even in the face of scientific evidence that flatly contradicted such medieval superstition, most Christian denominations took decades to erect lightning rods on church steeples, and many refused even into the 19th century.

 

[Keneke]

Well I'm not sure not knowing is a belief, you either know or you don't and you either admit that you know or you don't. There are theories on where existence ends. Maybe someday that can be falsified, but not at the moment, I don't believe.

It's the whole problem of "what is knowledge" again. Justified true beliefs, and all that. How can anyone claim to be gnostic on this issue? (This is wandering into NOMA territory.)

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Okay, what if I invent a car that can travel inter-universally, where is your totality now!?

If you can travel to a "separate universe", in what sense is that universe separate?

 

[zombiebex]

I always get a kick out of seeing a church with a lightning rod on its steeple. Why is it necessary, I wonder? Paranoia or a nagging subconscious lack of faith?

Thanks for the giggle.

 

[Keneke]

For all intents and purposes, it is.

I'd disagree. If people are concerned over, say, future humanity escaping entropy (Kurzweil being one), I'd say that's a good example of the necessity (albeit a far out one) of needing to explore the possibility of multi-universiality. (is that a word?)

 

[J. Arthur Hastur]

If you can travel to a "separate universe", in what sense is that universe separate?

I guess first we have to define 'universe' then?

 

[Keneke]

I always get a kick out of seeing a church with a lightning rod on its steeple. Why is it necessary, I wonder? Paranoia or a nagging subconscious lack of faith?

You think that Christians think that bad things do not happen to "good" people?

 

[Solus]

Just thought I'd test my chops in here again, since I've been making a spiritual journey as of late and I really need to temper my steel.

I was atheist for years, but in the face of the possibility of anything existing outside of detectable existence, I want to call myself an agnostic. Perceptible existence is what we know, and in the case of multiverse theory or any sort of theism, I feel like I can say that there's a point past which we cannot currently know, and possibly ever know.

To live as if our lives are our own is easy enough to do. I'm not a subscriber to empirical statements made in the name of miracles. However, I feel that just as a heavenly explanation is called God of the Gaps, that also that imagining nothing beyond the edges of our perception is a nihilism of the gaps.

So, I find that I can wonder and hope and fear if I do think about how to put known existence into context against possible existence, but it's not really my place to dictate my beliefs over someone else's facts.

So anyway, if you think that's cool, you don't have to debate just to be a Devil's Advocate. Just felt like throwing meat in the Lion's Den and seeing if the lions are hungry. No need to call be brave or anything; I'm just masochistic.

So you don't deny the existence of some kind of deity then?

I have to say it's possible, in the same way it's possible a invisible pink unicorn is sitting next to me right now. You can't disprove that there isn't one, ergo irrelevant. I'm god but I refuse to show you my power, disprove my statement... If it can't be falsified you have to take it on faith.

I was the opposite of you, I was agnostic for years but I started to do some deeper thinking and research on the subject. I had my "spiritual" experiences and they mean nothing; all signals from within the mind. I've been closer to "god" than most believers could ever dream of.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

I'd disagree. If people are concerned over, say, future humanity escaping entropy (Kurzweil being one), I'd say that's a good example of the necessity (albeit a far out one) of needing to explore the possibility of multi-universiality. (is that a word?)

Then I pose to you the same question I asked Mr. Hastur, and will reach the same impasse, I am sure (the definition of universe): in what sense is it separate if you can travel (escape) to it?

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

I guess first we have to define 'universe' then?

I'm good with the standard "the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space".

Once something becomes known, it is a de facto part of the universe, by definition. Anything that affects the universe is in principle detectable and discoverable, and so to be classed as part of it. Anything that does not affect the universe is--for all intents and purposes--non-existent.

Other definitions of universe may well yield different answers, but then it dissolves into semantics, and I shall step out. For the common definition of the term, however, considering things outside the universe is meaningless.

 

[J. Arthur Hastur]

Then I pose to you the same question I asked Mr. Hastur, and will reach the same impasse, I am sure (the definition of universe): in what sense is it separate if you can travel (escape) to it?

Well, mister smarty pants , let's tart with this. We can both agree that Indiana and Illinois are separate states, in the sense that we refer to 'states' within the United States of America. Even though you can reach one from the other easily, they are contiguous and so on and so forth. So it matters therefore how we define 'universe' that will give us a signpost for when we leave one or enter another.

Just as we define galaxy, or star system, of Federation, or Romulan Space Empire..................

 

[J. Arthur Hastur]

I'm good with the standard "the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space".

Once something becomes known, it is a de facto part of the universe, by definition. Anything that affects the universe is in principle detectable and discoverable, and so to be classed as part of it. Anything that does not affect the universe is--for all intents and purposes--non-existent.

Other definitions of universe may well yield different answers, but then it dissolves into semantics, and I shall step out. For the common definition of the term, however, considering things outside the universe is meaningless.

Well I prefer to think of a universe as a distinct field or province of thought or reality that forms a closed system or self-inclusive and independent organization.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Well, mister smarty pants , let's tart with this. We can both agree that Indiana and Illinois are separate states, in the sense that we refer to 'states' within the United States of America. Even though you can reach one from the other easily, they are contiguous and so on and so forth. So it matters therefore how we define 'universe' that will give us a signpost for when we leave one or enter another.

Just as we define galaxy, or star system, of Federation, or Romulan Space Empire..................

Wow. You get 1/6 from all the judges but the Ukranian judge. He's sending you a dead cat.

MdC wins!

 

[Macoy]

As an agnostic, i have no evidence of god, and so "god" is a meaningless word, except for the meanings given by the various believers, none of which have managed to convince me.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Well I prefer to think of a universe as a distinct field or province of thought or reality that forms a closed system or self-inclusive and independent organization.

How do you propose leaving a "closed system or self-inclusive and independent organization" and getting into another one?

 

[J. Arthur Hastur]

Wow. You get 1/6 from all the judges but the Ukranian judge. He's sending you a dead cat.

MdC wins!

My POINT is that human experience defines existence, it does not exist until we define it. It was the star trek stuff at the end, wasn't it?

 

[J. Arthur Hastur]

How do you propose leaving a "closed system or self-inclusive and independent organization" and getting into another one?

I don't know, do you have any ideas?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

My POINT is that human experience defines existence, it does not exist until we define it. It was the star trek stuff at the end, wasn't it?

No, it was the total disregard for the definition of universe.

The universe is all that ever was, is and will be. It's everything. It may be an arbitrary definition, but it's certainly inclusive.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

I don't know, do you have any ideas?

Only that a system you can leave is not closed.

 

[Macoy]

No, it was the total disregard for the definition of universe.

The universe is all that ever was, is and will be. It's everything. It may be an arbitrary definition, but it's certainly inclusive.

Does this include any modern thinking on "pre-big bang" events?