• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

punshhh said:
I am aware of/acquainted with my physical body without using my mind, I can feel it.

I regard the mind as a separate thinking entity to the brain. The brain is involved in feeling the body, not the mind.
Click to expand...

 
punshhh said:
I am aware of/acquainted with my physical body without using my mind, I can feel it.

I regard the mind as a separate thinking entity to the brain. The brain is involved in feeling the body, not the mind.
Click to expand...
So does your mind ever receive any information about how the brain is feeling the body ? Like, for example .... your mind is informed that you are sore from exercising, and so makes a choice and observation based on that information ?

If so .... "what" tells your mind on behalf of your brain/body/feelings ?
 
punshhh said:
I am aware of/acquainted with my physical body without using my mind, I can feel it.

I regard the mind as a separate thinking entity to the brain. The brain is involved in feeling the body, not the mind.
Click to expand...

Yet if you cut the head from the body the mind will die.
 
punshhh said:
For the small entities I would think the ability to choose would be the dividing line, as for planets stars, galaxies etc who knows, I would not rule it out. They have played their part in manipulating humanity's emergence. The planet earth manipulated us into existence, the sun manipulated the earth into existence, the galaxy likewise etc etc.
Click to expand...

'Manipulate' is not the correct word.
 
Punshhh - you say you don't believe in anything, but you think that, although it may be beyond our knowledge or ability to know, it is possible that there might be an intelligent creator/manipulator (or 'God') involved in the creation of the universe.

Is this just a long-winded way of saying you're agnostic?

If so, appropos the OP, have you felt welcome here?
 
punshhh said:
Yes, from the view point of a human. However something not currently known may well exist regardless.

You are conflating what humanity knows to exist(a) with what actually exists(b). Are these two categories the same?
Click to expand...

I can't go around like this much longer.

Look, God isn't something that nobody ever thought of.

Can we simply observe that fact here?

If you're talking about something nobody ever imagined, then by definition you're not talking about God.

What that means is this: All the stuff we have no clue about? It doesn't matter.

So I repeat:

A God which is utterly unknowable cannot be a God. It can only be an I-don't-know.
Click to expand...
 
punshhh said:
I have defined the god I am referring to, ie an intelligent creator/manipulator, resulting in the known universe.
Click to expand...

Well, let me ask you this, then....

Suppose some of our atom-smashing experiments, unbeknownst to us, create entire universes which span fractions of seconds and fractions of millimeters from our point of view, but which appear much like ours in terms of timespan and physical expansion from the perspective of anyone on the inside.

By your definition, any number of grad students wandering around the globe qualify as "gods" of the universes which their actions beget, despite the fact that they're not even aware those universes exist.

It's not enough to say that whatever created this universe was "intelligent". It must also be a god.
 
Piggy said:
I can't go around like this much longer.

Look, God isn't something that nobody ever thought of.

Can we simply observe that fact here?

If you're talking about something nobody ever imagined, then by definition you're not talking about God.

What that means is this: All the stuff we have no clue about? It doesn't matter.

So I repeat:
Click to expand...

Yes I agree with you regarding the God as understood and discussed by humanity.

Any entities involved in the fact or nature of existence are not addressed by this. Only entities or concepts imagined by people are.
 
Piggy said:
Well, let me ask you this, then....

Suppose some of our atom-smashing experiments, unbeknownst to us, create entire universes which span fractions of seconds and fractions of millimeters from our point of view, but which appear much like ours in terms of timespan and physical expansion from the perspective of anyone on the inside.

By your definition, any number of grad students wandering around the globe qualify as "gods" of the universes which their actions beget, despite the fact that they're not even aware those universes exist.

It's not enough to say that whatever created this universe was "intelligent". It must also be a god.
Click to expand...

Yes the grad students may have manipulated universes. However by "intelligent" I am considering that said entity underwent a creative choice in carrying out the manipulation.
 
punshhh said:
Yes the grad students may have manipulated universes. However by "intelligent" I am considering that said entity underwent a creative choice in carrying out the manipulation.
Click to expand...

Doesn't this mean that this manipulator must be more complicated than the thing it manipulated? You know where I am going with this by now I think.

Also by definition your manipulator is not a god because there was something preceding it. The matter it is manipulating.
 
Are you guys basically going around in circles simply because of the definition of "KNOW"? Is this "god" being created to show the possibility that such a being can exist outside our knowledge so therefore Piggy is wrong in saying there is no god? Is this all it is?
 
Daald said:
Doesn't this mean that this manipulator must be more complicated than the thing it manipulated? You know where I am going with this by now I think.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily, however this is an obstacle. An obstacle which is as I see it a product of "regression"

Also by definition your manipulator is not a god because there was something preceding it. The matter it is manipulating.
Click to expand...
Again an obstacle presented by the concept of regression. By the way I am not considering "god" to mean a first cause.

Like "turtles all the way down", regression is inescapable, unless one is suggesting the alternative of existence popping into existence. Which itself is problematic.

Regression if inescapable from the view point of the human mind must be flawed or incomplete as it presents a paradox.
 
Daald said:
Are you guys basically going around in circles simply because of the definition of "KNOW"? Is this "god" being created to show the possibility that such a being can exist outside our knowledge so therefore Piggy is wrong in saying there is no god? Is this all it is?
Click to expand...

Yes it appears to be. I cannot see on what basis Piggy can say there is no god given my definition of god. I can understand his reasoning regarding the mythological God, I agree with that.
 
punshhh said:
Yes it appears to be. I cannot see on what basis Piggy can say there is no god given my definition of god. I can understand his reasoning regarding the mythological God, I agree with that.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry to have to put words in the mouth of the strong atheist position but my take is simply that they use a more useful version of know. When we are debating god, you are using the definition of knowledge that includes everything that could ever be or has ever been. That definition is useless to us humans because we will never know everything and some things will have happened in the past and will be forever lost to us.

Now in the god case we have a definition for god. They are the definitions put up so far by the majority of the population. All those gods are bunk (a claim which you support I think). A strong atheist takes that and says....screw having to prove a negative. As far as we know or have seen there is no god. Period. Whatever it is out there will be something other than god if it exists.

An analogy would be big foot. I can say there is no big foot. Your counter claim will be there there could be a planet it some galaxy which has a big foot so it would be stupid of me to say there is no big foot. I hope you see the problem now. The big foot concept on earth is bunk. If there is a creature out there in the universe that is like a big foot it will be something else when we meet it (Wookie :) ) so I can comfortably say that there is no big foot.

What often happens though is that a concept is created and when it fails its scope is increased or moved outside our boundary. You are trying to do that with your god example. A big foot believer could do the same thing. Do we now have to accept every crackpot idea because there are things we don't know? Isn't that completely useless? Isn't it better to simply accept things on evidence?
 
punshhh said:
Yes, from the view point of a human. However something not currently known may well exist regardless.

You are conflating what humanity knows to exist(a) with what actually exists(b). Are these two categories the same?
Click to expand...

Are you saying that gods actually exist?

can understand his reasoning regarding the mythological God, I agree with that.
Click to expand...

All gods are mythological. If they really existed some proof of their existence would have been found by now.
 
Last edited:
dafydd said:
All gods are mythological. If they really existed some proof of their existence would have been found by now.
Click to expand...

Gravitons are mythological. If they really existed some proof of their existence would have been found by now.
 
I guess we have to face it. God is a graviton. :eek:

I see no other possibility.

This would also explain mystical experiences. And free will.
 
punshhh said:
Yes the grad students may have manipulated universes. However by "intelligent" I am considering that said entity underwent a creative choice in carrying out the manipulation.
Click to expand...

Ok, let me get this straight.

So these grad students aren't gods, because they're not choosing to create universes.

But then let's suppose that someone figures out that their actions are in fact generating entire universes which seem like spacetime specks to us, but which would seem similar to ours in scope to anyone on the inside.

Now, according to you, whenever they run their experiment again, they are gods.

What's going on in their heads makes them gods or not.

Is this really what you intend to assert?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom