Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

[Ichneumonwasp]

I didn't say I considered the universe to be evidence for the existence of God, I said it was a reason. Evidence and reasons are not the same thing, although evidence can be a reason. So why is this a contradiction? And I think that that I should have said, "Science can't find evidence of God's existence...," rather than saying, "You can't have evidence of God's existence...."

You're going to have to explain to me what you mean, then, because I can't follow you. Evidence is anything used to support or deny a proposition. If you say, for instance, that you believe in God because the universe exists then you are using the existence of the universe as evidence for your belief in the existence of God.

 

[laca]

No need to do that, I find it quite amusing. I was trying to use the same sort of language as piggy to put my point across

Yes, it is funny. Not only you failed to put it "across", you also fail at actually having a point.

 

[laca]

Your bowel movements are looking a bit loose, I wouldn't stray far from the toilet if I were you.

Yeah. Instead of resorting to the kindergarten tactics of mimicking me, how about actually showing some of the steps in your "intellectual and critical enquiry", maybe it could be helpful to some.

<chirp> <chirp>

How's that? Oh, you were bluffing. Carry on...

 

[Beth]

I'm sorry, I understood you to be a theist, but that's neither here nor there.

It's okay. I consider myself primarily agnostic. I don't believe in any gods, but neither I am convinced that no gods exist. Some people consider me atheist, others call me deist, still others think of me as Christian. It depends on how they define the terms. I've given up worrying about how other people try to classify me.

At any rate, the issue then becomes the fact that 'god' is a meaningless term and cannot logically refute your stated premise.

God in this instance isn't a meaningless term, it's relatively well-defined as a being that purposefully creates universes. It simply doesn't match up with typical modern definitions of god as I didn't give it any other charactoristics for this thought experiment.

I think this point does refute the premise that that we can determine with a high degree of certainty whether we live in a universe created by some designer or whether we live in a universe created via processes that have no purpose or intelligence. Ich makes an even better argument against that premise in his post above.

 

[Dani]

I don't have a reason to believe such a being exists, nor do I believe it myself. I simply find the concept of such a god sufficient to refute the premise that we can determine whether or not we live in 'purposefully designed' universe.

It depends on what you mean by "determine".

Some time ago, FatyCatty provided me a link to a page where I found a good example of what I want to get across. The text used the example to express something different. The message came across as something similar to "don't mess with untestable hypotheses, we can't waste our scientific resources with these sort of ramblings; this is not the way to do science". But in fact, it was conveyed in a nicer way, so that it was also potentially persuasive to believers. So instead of saying "this is not the proper way to do science", it said something like "science can't do that". The reason why I interpret it this way is the actual example, which seemed intentionally ridiculous, and was as follows:

Consider the fanciful idea that gravity is caused by undetectable, supernatural gnomes connecting everything in the universe together with invisible chewing gum.

The text said afterwards that science can't study that explanation since it's supernatural.

Which is very nicely put, but not entirely true. In fact, it's not the condition of something being supernatural, but the absence of evidence, what prevents science from investigating anything. That's exactly the process by which the supernatural has become part of the natural world: we just found evidence of the causes of what we called supernatural phenomena. Also, scientific resources aren't devoted to discover the inexistence of things, because that would be a literally infinite waste of time. The praxis of the scientific method and a consistently applied epistemology is that, in absence of evidence, this hypothesis is not reasonable because it doesn't explain anything that isn't already explained with lesser assumptions.

We cannot absolutely justify that the idea that these supernatural gnomes connect everything together in the universe with invisible chewing gum is wrong, nor that we aren't connected to the Matrix. Of course not. But we do know (not "absolutely know", because in that sense the verb "to know" would be almost entirely useless) that these ideas are not true.

God? Yeah, of course you can entertain the idea that it might exist, but it's not even a reasonable hypothesis. I claim to know that God doesn't exist. Gods are myths and totally unnecessary and superflous to explain the universe. I could be wrong, but I also could be wrong in assuming that I'm a human being, that the universe I perceive is real or that invisible gnomes cause gravity by chewing gum. The number of theoretically superfluous things that could exist would be infinite, and I don't see a reason to give the concept of God a special treatment.

 

[dafydd]

Yes, it is funny. Not only you failed to put it "across", you also fail at actually having a point.

When did punshhh ever have a point?

 

[Piggy]

What if Ichnuemonwasp's hyperdimensional god, just as described, created that second universe to make a perfect copy of the first as an exercise it found pleasing to itself? Again, it would be done in a fashion where someone in the universe could not tell that it wasn't made by anything other than pure chance. They would be unable to see evidence of the god.

Notwithstanding, we on the outside for a moment have some way to define this god now. It finds making perfect copies of universes a value of it that could be considered. And that may be all we would ever know about it.

This god overlaps both universes in the Venn diagram between the one universe it copied from and the one it created. Both were part of the process as original and replica. I don't give a fig that that god's existence can't be proven within either universe (and I don't see how it could be according to this thought experiment). Regardless that this truth would never be proven true in either universe, there it is. Slightly back on topic this might be seen as an agnostic's consolation prize - an unprovable truth which is still false as far as the universe is concerned. And yet in truth, the god exists meaning we deniers would be wrong despite having all evidence against it on our side.

All that, yet you don't do what I asked for w/ the Venn diagram experiment... Describe what's in the non-overlapping bit. Give me some features, some qualities, some behaviors. Tell me what's there.

 

[Piggy]

Yes, you could say all those things.

But you are not replying to what I suggested. I am not suggesting that this god does nothing in the universe. I am suggesting that you, inside this universe, cannot detect its presence because to you everything looks random. But, unbeknownst to you, this god not only created the universe but directs its unfolding; it is intelligent and its actions are intentiontial.

As a being within the universe you can't tell what it is doing because you can't be outside of your environment to view what this god is up to; you cannot see that random is the wrong word to apply from this god's perspective because you don't know its plans.

It is entirely possible that such a god exists. It simply isn't parsimonious to suppose such an entity.

You're right... I'm not replying to what you suggested... because you haven't yet addressed what I'm pointing out.

Unless you have something to say about what's in the unshared Venn space, then you're (still) talking about nothing.

This can be difficult to see because of how our brains work, but nonetheless, it's there.

If you note, in your post that I've quoted here, you still haven't even attempted to tell me what "it" is, only what it supposedly has done, which is another version of the deistic fallacy.

So I have to ask you again... what is in the non-overlapping space in the Venn diagram... describe that thing to me.

Until and unless you can do that, I cannot respond to anything you're saying, because it's meaningless.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

You're right... I'm not replying to what you suggested... because you haven't yet addressed what I'm pointing out.

Unless you have something to say about what's in the unshared Venn space, then you're (still) talking about nothing.

This can be difficult to see because of how our brains work, but nonetheless, it's there.

If you note, in your post that I've quoted here, you still haven't even attempted to tell me what "it" is, only what it supposedly has done, which is another version of the deistic fallacy.

So I have to ask you again... what is in the non-overlapping space in the Venn diagram... describe that thing to me.

Until and unless you can do that, I cannot respond to anything you're saying, because it's meaningless.

What Venn diagram?

I told you. This is a hyperdimensional being that acts intentionally. It shapes the world to its liking changing what might have been to what it desires. We, stuck here in the universe, see its actions as random chance occurrence from our vantage point because we can't see outside of our limits. But that is our limitation. From another perspective -- the god's eye view -- god is changing things to fit her own wishes. That we view things as chance occurrence does not disprove the existence of a deity. That deity is inconsequential to us, but it could exist. We may simply mislabel what occurs as chance, random action when it is really the workings of a hyperdimensional being.

I agree fully that it is a useless thing to propose; it is non-parsimonious. But we cannot demonstrate that this being does not exist. That is the whole point that I am trying to make to you -- you are arguing based on consequences (what difference it makes for the world) not what actually is. It is the case that that is how we decide about the existence of things within the universe. You cannot use that reasoning for something that causes the universe to exist and fashions it to discuss its actual existence because you don't have two Venn diagrams to work with. You have only your limited perspective from within this universe.


ETA:

I see the Venn diagram bit now. OK, for purposes of this discussion, let's say that without this god there would be utter chaos; it would be a universe of pure energy with no actual particles. With this god we see the universe we see today.

 

[Belz...]

What Venn diagram?

I told you. This is a hyperdimensional being that acts intentionally. It shapes the world to its liking changing what might have been to what it desires. We, stuck here in the universe, see its actions as random chance occurrence from our vantage point because we can't see outside of our limits. But that is our limitation. From another perspective -- the god's eye view -- god is changing things to fit her own wishes. That we view things as chance occurrence does not disprove the existence of a deity. That deity is inconsequential to us, but it could exist. We may simply mislabel what occurs as chance, random action when it is really the workings of a hyperdimensional being.

I agree fully that it is a useless thing to propose; it is non-parsimonious. But we cannot demonstrate that this being does not exist. That is the whole point that I am trying to make to you -- you are arguing based on consequences (what difference it makes for the world) not what actually is. It is the case that that is how we decide about the existence of things within the universe. You cannot use that reasoning for something that causes the universe to exist and fashions it to discuss its actual existence because you don't have two Venn diagrams to work with. You have only your limited perspective from within this universe.


ETA:

I see the Venn diagram bit now. OK, for purposes of this discussion, let's say that without this god there would be utter chaos; it would be a universe of pure energy with no actual particles. With this god we see the universe we see today.

Wasp, if something is impossible to detect or interact with, even in principle, then there is no point musing about it, as it cannot possibly ever affect our lives or be inquired. It's as good as non-existent, so why call it anything else ?

 

[punshhh]

It depends on what you mean by "determine".

Some time ago, FatyCatty provided me a link to a page where I found a good example of what I want to get across. The text used the example to express something different. The message came across as something similar to "don't mess with untestable hypotheses, we can't waste our scientific resources with these sort of ramblings; this is not the way to do science". But in fact, it was conveyed in a nicer way, so that it was also potentially persuasive to believers. So instead of saying "this is not the proper way to do science", it said something like "science can't do that". The reason why I interpret it this way is the actual example, which seemed intentionally ridiculous, and was as follows:

Consider the fanciful idea that gravity is caused by undetectable, supernatural gnomes connecting everything in the universe together with invisible chewing gum.

The text said afterwards that science can't study that explanation since it's supernatural.

Which is very nicely put, but not entirely true. In fact, it's not the condition of something being supernatural, but the absence of evidence, what prevents science from investigating anything. That's exactly the process by which the supernatural has become part of the natural world: we just found evidence of the causes of what we called supernatural phenomena. Also, scientific resources aren't devoted to discover the inexistence of things, because that would be a literally infinite waste of time. The praxis of the scientific method and a consistently applied epistemology is that, in absence of evidence, this hypothesis is not reasonable because it doesn't explain anything that isn't already explained with lesser assumptions.

We cannot absolutely justify that the idea that these supernatural gnomes connect everything together in the universe with invisible chewing gum is wrong, nor that we aren't connected to the Matrix. Of course not. But we do know (not "absolutely know", because in that sense the verb "to know" would be almost entirely useless) that these ideas are not true.

God? Yeah, of course you can entertain the idea that it might exist, but it's not even a reasonable hypothesis. I claim to know that God doesn't exist. Gods are myths and totally unnecessary and superflous to explain the universe. I could be wrong, but I also could be wrong in assuming that I'm a human being, that the universe I perceive is real or that invisible gnomes cause gravity by chewing gum. The number of theoretically superfluous things that could exist would be infinite, and I don't see a reason to give the concept of God a special treatment.

Good point, I had been grappling with the word "know".

I agree, for all practical purposes unless you are actively seeking God, gods can be regarded as not existing.

 

[punshhh]

Wasp, if something is impossible to detect or interact with, even in principle, then there is no point musing about it, as it cannot possibly ever affect our lives or be inquired. It's as good as non-existent, so why call it anything else ?

That does not follow, I will leave it to wasp to give an explanation.

 

[yomero]

Some folk, well actually a significant proportion of my friends and acquaintances, describe a deep down feeling or sense, like a long lost memory that there is some undefined higher power behind reality. I also have experienced it for most of my life.

I see it as a harkening back to the dream time, such as the dream time of the Australian aborigines. Which is only a few hundred generations back.

Thank you for your answer, Punshhh. Having a profound feeling that ''something else'' exists could be motive D in my list. I don't accept it as a valid reason for belief in god. An analogous feeling, just as deep, held by some visitors to Las Vegas has made casino owners millionaires.

 

[Resume]

Thank you for your answer, Punshhh. Having a profound feeling that ''something else'' exists could be motive D in my list. I don't accept it as a valid reason for belief in god. An analogous feeling, just as deep, held by some visitors to Las Vegas has made casino owners millionaires.

Also, it could be gas. Punshhh, you and your friends should try some Beano.

 

[laca]

Good point, I had been grappling with the word "know".

That made my day. Thanks.

I agree, for all practical purposes unless you are actively seeking God, gods can be regarded as not existing.

So much fail, so little time.

 

[laca]

That does not follow, I will leave it to wasp to give an explanation.

But why? Shine the light of your wisdom and intellectual enquiry on us, oh most elusive of mystics!

 

[Beth]

It depends on what you mean by "determine".

True

Consider the fanciful idea that gravity is caused by undetectable, supernatural gnomes connecting everything in the universe together with invisible chewing gum.

We cannot absolutely justify that the idea that these supernatural gnomes connect everything together in the universe with invisible chewing gum is wrong, nor that we aren't connected to the Matrix. Of course not.

Correct

But we do know (not "absolutely know", because in that sense the verb "to know" would be almost entirely useless) that these ideas are not true.

We assume those ideas are not true. You may say that you 'know', but I realize I'm only assuming those things. The invisible supernatural gnomes is very unlikely to be true given certain assumptions about gnomes and chewing gum. On the other hand, it might be that it makes an appropriate metaphore for how gravity actually works that can be understood by those of us not cognizant of the more difficult mathematical equations that attempt to explain how gravity works.

God? Yeah, of course you can entertain the idea that it might exist, but it's not even a reasonable hypothesis. I claim to know that God doesn't exist. Gods are myths and totally unnecessary and superflous to explain the universe. I could be wrong, but I also could be wrong in assuming that I'm a human being, that the universe I perceive is real or that invisible gnomes cause gravity by chewing gum. The number of theoretically superfluous things that could exist would be infinite, and I don't see a reason to give the concept of God a special treatment.

I may assign different probabilities to the Matrix, God and supernatural gum-chewing gnomes, but I'm treating them all the same in that I realize I'm making assumptions if I choose to believe anything about any of those postulated scenarios because they are not falsifiable. I give assumptions like 'I'm a human being' much higher probabilities, but the available evidence is considerably stronger for that one and it is falsifiable.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Wasp, if something is impossible to detect or interact with, even in principle, then there is no point musing about it, as it cannot possibly ever affect our lives or be inquired. It's as good as non-existent, so why call it anything else ?

Isn't that what I said in the very post to which you replied?

If you want to call it non-existent, that's fine with me; but I don't think that's really proper. I think it is much more honest to say -- we can't go there, so we can't know, so who cares? Alternatively you could say, honestly -- we can't know if such a being exists, so I choose to believe that it doesn't. One could also say -- we can't know if such a being exists, so I choose to believe that it does and that it directs the world.

This is metaphysics we're talking about; we can't get there, we can't know what *is*. We can make all sorts of comments about proposed gods, mythical gods, etc. -- we have excellent evidence that they do not exist.

But this sort of entity -- what I think FattyCatty and punshhh were talking about -- we simply cannot prove or disprove. It might not exist. It might direct everything that does exist. It might be all of existence. We can't possibly know.

What we can say is that it is much less parsimonious to propose another entity that directs the world as opposed to the world just being and doing it all on its own because a single substance involves fewer entities than does two substances (and a god plus the universe requires two substances). And we can say that if the universe is god, then we are just actions/thoughts in the mind of god and that's the exact equivalent, at least for us, of there just being 'stuff'.


ETA:

I think the best answer to all of this is the old "I have no need of that hypothesis."

 

[dafydd]

I agree, for all practical purposes unless you are actively seeking God, gods can be regarded as not existing.

Oh dear. Did you really mean to say that?

 

[TheGoldcountry]

The number of theoretically superfluous things that could exist would be infinite, and I don't see a reason to give the concept of God a special treatment.

I think there are many here who don't recognize that simple fact. All imaginary things are possible; that DOES NOT mean that they should all be treated with equal regard. Those who say that they hold all beliefs and possibilities equally are either hypocrites or willfully disingenuous. Otherwise, they should be looking in their garden for the evil faeries I left there.