Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

[slingblade]

There is no evidence either way.

The utter lack of evidence, over centuries, actually is a form of evidence.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

As I have stated previously, saying about someone that "Interesting intelligence and/or integrity is not to be expected in people who use 'g-d'" is arrogant, no matter what one's views are on religion. Saying that "Someone who uses 'g-d' rather than 'god' is either exhibiting or catering to superstitious beliefs, neither of which is acceptable to me" is arrogant in its assumption that what is acceptable to him is important or matters to others. And I didn't say it wasn't honest; it was honestly pretentious and arrogant.

Complexity stated his opinion of her beliefs; I don't recall him making any assumptions about the importance of that opinion. I also don't think he cares if it matters to others. It may be arrogant, but some of us think that the belief in a higher power for which there is no evidence is also arrogant, when those believers also insist on defining the intent and attributes of this higher power. It's like me saying that Superman might exist, and if he does he's definitely a Yankees fan.

 

[SusanB-M1]

In other words... what in the world does omitting a vowel when writing have to do with respect?

It will be interesting to read an answer to this, but I doubt that one will be forthcoming!

 

[punshhh]

I know there's no bigfoot out there b/c we've overrun this country and we have no actual sightings, no bones, no fossils, no poop, no roadkill... and this is supposed to be a large land mammal.

If it were real, we'd have something by now.

And no, I'm not sidestepping anything.

It's you who are avoiding this very issue you say I'm trying to duck.

I've asked you repeatedly to say what it is you're talking about. All you'll say is something like "I'm not talking about myths".

That's like saying mastodons aren't extinct, and when given the explanation of why we know they are, responding with "But I'm not talking about the extinct mastodons".

Ok, I'm talking about the consideration that reason (logic) is or was actively involved in our known universe being the way it is.

Let me define the god I am considering here more precisely.

god = intelligent manipulator

intelligent = exhibiting reason or logic.

manipulator = modifying/influencing the fabric of existence in how natural law plays out.


An example, a god/entity may have a reason to bring AI* into existence.

He has a problem there is no mechanism in nature which results in the existence of AI. The entity then manipulates the course of natural events to result in the evolution of humans so that they will bring into existence AI.

Problem solved.



*you could substitute spruce goose for AI.

 

[slingblade]

Ok, I'm talking about the consideration that reason (logic) is or was actively involved in our known universe being the way it is.

Let me define the god I am considering here more precisely.

god = intelligent manipulator

intelligent = exhibiting reason or logic.

manipulator = modifying/influencing the fabric of existence in how natural law plays out.


An example, a god/entity may have a reason to bring AI* into existence.

He has a problem there is no mechanism in nature which results in the existence of AI. The entity then manipulates the course of natural events to result in the evolution of humans so that they will bring into existence AI.

Problem solved.

Logically? No, problem not solved; problem introduced.

Logically, you beg the question from the off. You can't assume a god or attribute a god until you show a god exists. After you do that, you can speak of its logic. But you can't logically grant any attributes or intent to an agency you can't show.

 

[laca]

Ok, I'm talking about the consideration that reason (logic) is or was actively involved in our known universe being the way it is.

Let me define the god I am considering here more precisely.

god = intelligent manipulator

intelligent = exhibiting reason or logic.

manipulator = modifying/influencing the fabric of existence in how natural law plays out.

fabric of existence = ?

 

[punshhh]

fabric of existence = ?

Fabric of existence = matter/energy/spacetime, what it is thats doing the doing which can be detected as matter and energy.

 

[laca]

Fabric of existence = matter/energy/spacetime, what it is thats doing the doing which can be detected as matter and energy.

OK, please show how anything except the "natural laws" is able to influence "matter/energy/spacetime". By definiton they behave according to natural laws. You need to show evidence of when they didn't. Until then, you're just talking out of your ass.

 

[tsig]

How so?


No, I don't consider those to be opinions. They are statements of positive knowledge or informed judgment.
And I should correct myself; concerning judicial rulings, the formal opinion by the judge about the ruling carries more weight than the opinion of other people.


I'm sorry, I thought my reply did explain it. Whether or not you hold religion in contempt, it is arrogant to assume that you know someone has neither "interesting intelligence" nor "integrity" merely because they use g-d, especially because that can be a cultural practice as opposed to a religious practice.

It also is arrogant to assume you know why someone does something; as I said above, g-d can be a cultural practice and does not necessarily indicate "religious belief or unreasonable respect for religious beliefs." Also, adding the phrase "neither of which are acceptable to me" gives a supercilious, arrogant tone to the whole thing.

It depends on whether you are making a statement based on actual knowledge or are saying I just believe that's the way it is with no reasons. I don't consider the former to be an opinion. The latter is an opinion, and my opinion (if it also is just belief with no basis or reason) is just as good as yours.

Reading the responses to my statement about opinions, I realize that I may use the word in a different way than others. I don't consider opinions to be beliefs backed by facts; with facts, positive knowledge, they cease to be opinions and become statements or arguments. Opinions, to me, are just what one thinks about something; e.g., blue is nicer than orange or I like Clapton better than Hendrix. The rightness or wrongness is only in the eye of the opinion-holder. Because it is just what someone thinks about something, different opinions have equal weight.

Oh good, then you accept my statement "there is no g-d" since that is an informed judgment.

 

[tsig]

Ok, I'm talking about the consideration that reason (logic) is or was actively involved in our known universe being the way it is.

Let me define the god I am considering here more precisely.

god = intelligent manipulator

intelligent = exhibiting reason or logic.

manipulator = modifying/influencing the fabric of existence in how natural law plays out.


An example, a god/entity may have a reason to bring AI* into existence.

He has a problem there is no mechanism in nature which results in the existence of AI. The entity then manipulates the course of natural events to result in the evolution of humans so that they will bring into existence AI.

Problem solved.



*you could substitute spruce goose for AI.

So your god is pretty much a human with a bigger tool chest.

 

[punshhh]

So your god is pretty much a human with a bigger tool chest.

Yes it has two things in common with humans, reason and manipulation.

 

[punshhh]

OK, please show how anything except the "natural laws" is able to influence "matter/energy/spacetime". By definiton they behave according to natural laws. You need to show evidence of when they didn't. Until then, you're just talking out of your ass.

I can only speculate, the fact that I don't know or humanity has not detected it does not necessarily mean it does not happen, only that it has not been observed.

I realise this and continue to speculate.

Perhaps it was done during the big bang event. A bias in the spin of the universe as it emerged like a googly in cricket.

 

[punshhh]

Ok let me stick to this analogy and hopefully we can get clear on this point and not torture the analogy.

Your position could be correct. There could be a race of wookies out there that resemble big foot closely enough and saying there is no big foot is completely wrong. The problem is here. You don't know either. There could be millions upon millions of species out there that resemble big foot in some way. To have to take them all into consideration would be asinine. We must have some standard and that standard is non-belief until proof.

We will believe in big foot or a wookie when we run into them. Doing so before is useless, wasteful and could lead us in the wrong direction.

Yes this is the bottom line and is the only way to be certain, I agree. This practice is fundamental to science and how we go about our physical lives.

However it is not very usefull when considering questions regarding existence itself. It can help to outline the issues through formal logic, but little more.

It certainly cannot state that there is no wookie on another planet, in another galaxy or in another universe. Or for that matter on the end of our noses.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

I can only speculate.

Is that the polite form of 'I just pulled it from between my buttocks'?

 

[punshhh]

Is that the polite form of 'I just pulled it from between my buttocks'?

Sounds like a good analogy for the big bang.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Or for that matter on the end of our noses.

I think I would notice if there was a 7ft tall furry creature on the end of my nose and we could certainly test for it provided we have a testable definition of wookie.

Of course the differences between a wookie and a God are significant. Wookies are not supernatural creatures. Wookies are imaginary creatures which, if they existed, would be wholly natural. There is nothing in the definition of wookie which prevents it's existence. The same cannot be said for many God hypotheses.

 

[Piggy]

Yes a precursor to the particular form of reality we are familiar with. Or at least to consider that there may be such a thing out there or in here.

What do you mean "such a thing"?

You have yet to describe what sort of "thing" you're talking about.

Up til now, you've literally been talking about nothing.

 

[Piggy]

There is no evidence either way.

Baloney.

In fact, we have so much conclusive evidence against God that the only way to salvage it is to un-define either God or existence, which then makes the claim "God exists" meaningless.

Go back to my long post and you'll see an extensive argument against God, for instance.

 

[Piggy]

Ok, I'm talking about the consideration that reason (logic) is or was actively involved in our known universe being the way it is.

Let me define the god I am considering here more precisely.

god = intelligent manipulator

intelligent = exhibiting reason or logic.

manipulator = modifying/influencing the fabric of existence in how natural law plays out.


An example, a god/entity may have a reason to bring AI* into existence.

He has a problem there is no mechanism in nature which results in the existence of AI. The entity then manipulates the course of natural events to result in the evolution of humans so that they will bring into existence AI.

Problem solved.



*you could substitute spruce goose for AI.

No, problem not solved.

By this definition, we're all gods.

Start over.

 

[Belz...]

I'm sorry, I thought my reply did explain it. Whether or not you hold religion in contempt, it is arrogant to assume that you know someone has neither "interesting intelligence" nor "integrity" merely because they use g-d, especially because that can be a cultural practice as opposed to a religious practice.

We may not be using the same definition of "arrogant", then.

Also, adding the phrase "neither of which are acceptable to me" gives a supercilious, arrogant tone to the whole thing.

No. It's simply a statement of fact. Intolerance, for example, is unacceptable to me. Is that arrogant ?

It depends on whether you are making a statement based on actual knowledge or are saying I just believe that's the way it is with no reasons.

No, it doesn't. One of the two choices is clearly wrong and the other clearly agrees with the evidence. The two are beliefs in the sense that the conclusion might NOT be based on evidence either way (the person who beliefs the Earth orbits a star called "the sun" might do so only because he was told so), but they are NOT equal.

I don't consider the former to be an opinion.

Well... if you redefine the terms you use, of course you can consider whatever you like. But let's make my point clearer:

Lamarckism was not a stupid theory. But it is now known to be wrong. Was it an opinion ? Was it a belief ? Was it equal to the alternative ?