Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

[Ichneumonwasp]

You claim to not be interested in an imaginary being, yet fight for it's possible existence. Please, explain your own reasons for fighting for this irrational belief.

I have given my reasons repeatedly in this thread.

The argument that we can know that god(s) don't exist [full stop] is simply wrong. We have excellent evidence against mythological gods -- namely that it is clear that humans invented them. We have no evidence within the universe that can reliably show that those gods do exist.

However, it is still possible that gods exist for the reasons given.

I think it is better for us to say that gods either don't exist, are evil, or are inconsequential/irrelevant. I do not think that the bare statement that they don't exist is correct. When we go around making that argument I think it makes us look foolish.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

That doesn't mean that you can simply refute OUR arguments, make a logical argument on your own. The "God of the gaps" don't cut it."

Dude, I'm not arguing that there is a god. What logical argument other than the ones I've already offered do you want me to produce to show that the claim that no gods exist is wrong?

 

[tsig]

No. I am not claiming a reality beyond this reality. We already know there is a substance because we know something exists. We see stuff in this world. Stuff in this world is made of this substance. What we don't know is the nature of the substance. We can't know the nature of the substance. We can only know how it is expressed in the world; we can know how things act.

This is not an argument from ignorance. I am not claiming that something is true because we haven't yet proven it false. I am claiming that there is an absolute limit to our knowledge. This limit is not controversial. It has been expressed by numerous philosophers through the ages.

The fallacy is in making a claim to know what the substance *is* -- as in it must be matter or it must be thought or it must be god. We can't possibly determine that any of those propositions are true because of the arguments I have already provided. Richard Rorty decided on neo-pragmatism for the same reason. This argument goes all the way back to the pre-Socratics.

Your continual insistence that there's more to reality than we 'can' know is merely an unbacked assertion without a shred of evidence.


Philosophy might have decided that there's a limit to knowledge but that sounds a lot like theologians asserting that "there are things man was not meant to know'.


Stuff in this world is made of this substance. What we don't know is the nature of the substance. We can't know the nature of the substance


Could you explain what 'the nature of the substance' is and how it differs from the substance itself, generally if I want to know what something is I examine the thing itself, you have invented 'the nature of the substance' and then placed it beyond examination.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Your continual insistence that there's more to reality than we 'can' know is merely an unbacked assertion without a shred of evidence.


Philosophy might have decided that there's a limit to knowledge but that sounds a lot like theologians asserting that "there are things man was not meant to know'.


Stuff in this world is made of this substance. What we don't know is the nature of the substance. We can't know the nature of the substance


Could you explain what 'the nature of the substance' is and how it differs from the substance itself, generally if I want to know what something is I examine the thing itself, you have invented 'the nature of the substance' and then placed it beyond examination.

Look, let's make this simple. Define what everything is made of in the universe and let's look at it.


You cannot do it at the most fundamental level. This is not a claim that there are things men aren't meant to know; it's a claim that there are just things that we can't know. We describe anything in the world only in terms of other things. We can't describe the most fundamental thing in the universe in terms of anything else because it is the most fundamental thing in the universe and there is nothing against which it can be described or understood.

 

[FattyCatty]

I disagree. The complexity and the number of interrelationships and coincidences of nature and of how human beings work becomes more apparent (and increases as our knowledge of it increases). This makes the claim that God created the universe and the processes in it more valid and even opens up the concept of occasional intervention.

How?

As Alister McGrath says in Biology, the Anthropic Principle, and Natural Theology (-42:00):

But the point I want to emphasize is that fine tuning is not limited to cosmic constants, it keeps recurring at every level of the whole system: the chemical, the biochemical, the biological.

and as John Pilbrow says in The Melbourne Anglican:

<snip>
But is the anthropic principle merely a truism? The weak form of the Anthropic Principle, put very simply, is that we are here because we are here! The Strong Anthropic Principle is more robust. It is the idea that the constituents of the material universe that began to emerge in the early stages after the big bang have an in-built order that leads to greater levels of structure and organisation as newer and more complex features of the universe have emerged from elementary particles, through atoms and molecules to stars, planets, galaxies and the stuff of life. The natural world is thus held to possess law-like behaviour and in science we speak in terms of laws of nature. These codify observed regularities, but don’t of themselves cause things to happen! While the laws of physics are well established, laws operating at higher levels of complexity in chemistry, biology or the neurosciences are not nearly so well understood.

McGrath correctly argues that Chemistry, for example, cannot be understood solely from the properties of the constituent atoms. The fact that water is liquid between 0-100°C. cannot be fully predicted from the properties of the single oxygen atom and the two hydrogen atoms that constitute a water molecule. It depends in part on the particular angle between the two hydrogen-oxygen bonds and the weak bonds between the two hydrogen atoms.

In outlining the nature of fine-tuning in biology in some detail, considering the role of DNA and RNA and the remarkable role played by photosynthesis, he turns to the work of Professor Simon Conway Morris from Cambridge University who has provided much evidence from the fossil record that evolution “converges on a relatively small set of possible solutions for the problems and opportunities that the environment offers to life” (McGrath, 2009, p.193). That is, there is directionality in evolution. This is consistent with anthropic arguments that appropriate constraints have operated in all aspects of the evolution of the universe.
<snip>

The more scientists discover, the more unlikely all the coincidences appear, the more likely that there was a creator. And, an idea mentioned in this thread, occasional interventions by that creator would not be distinguishable from random occurrences in nature.

God concepts are certainly not outside the realm of science. But, at any rate it doesn't matter in certain respects.

A new addition to my list of sites that put gods outside the realm of science and say science doesn't deal with everything, only some things. From Introduction to Earthquakes, "What Is Science?," St. Louis University:

Science is a means of studying the physical world, it is not an approach that can answer all important questions. Those who offer science as the answer to all questions are as mislead as those who blame science for all our problems. Fundamental questions about art, religion, the meaning of life, and our personal lives are simply outside the realm of science.

If god-concepts are not disproven via science, they are very much disproven logically. Epicurus's short rationale is probably the most famous example of this though by no means the only example.

I'm guessing you mean this?

The "Epicurean paradox" is a version of the problem of evil. It is a trilemma argument (God is omnipotent, God is good, but Evil exists); or more commonly seen as this quote:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”[^14]
This argument was a type favoured by the ancient Greek skeptics, and may have been wrongly attributed to Epicurus by Lactantius, who, from his Christian perspective, regarded Epicurus as an atheist.^[15] It has been suggested that it may actually be the work of an early skeptic writer, possibly Carneades.^[16] According to Reinhold F. Glei, it is settled that the argument of theodicy is from an academic source which is not only not epicurean, but even anti-epicurean.^[17] The earliest extant version of this trilemma appears in the writings of the skeptic Sextus Empiricus.^[18]
Epicurus didn’t deny the existence of gods. Instead, he stated that what gods there may be do not concern themselves with us, and thus would not seek to punish us either in this or any other life.^[19]

When I look up the Epicurean paradox, it appears to have logical arguments made against it, which have arguments made against them, and so on. So it looks like it's back to belief for God's existence, not proof.

 

[tsig]

Look, let's make this simple. Define what everything is made of in the universe and let's look at it.


You cannot do it at the most fundamental level. This is not a claim that there are things men aren't meant to know; it's a claim that there are just things that we can't know. We describe anything in the world only in terms of other things. We can't describe the most fundamental thing in the universe in terms of anything else because it is the most fundamental thing in the universe and there is nothing against which it can be described or understood.

You haven't shown there is a 'most fundamental thing in the universe' for us to describe. You merely assert there must be one then demand that everyone else try to prove your assertion.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

You haven't shown there is a 'most fundamental thing in the universe' for us to describe. You merely assert there must be one then demand that everyone else try to prove your assertion.

Cogito ergo sum, right? Something that thinks exists. So there is at least one fundamental substance. There could be more but that is a less parsimonious proposal. Are you arguing for more than one thing? If so, how do they interact? You can't argue against there being at least one because if there were not at least one you couldn't argue in the first place.

What possible point are you guys trying to make here?

ETA:

You can't doubt that something that thinks exist because you prove its existence by doubting. So there is a substance (existence). Are you caught up on the word fundamental? That simply means that it can't be reduced to anything more fundamental -- we have chairs, made of wood, made of cells, made of proteins, made of atoms, made of quarks, made of strings possibly, etc. There must be some base or we have an infinite regress, which is a logical contradiction. I'm not blithely spouting unsupportable facts. This stuff is pretty basic.

But if you want to go for the infinite regress, then fine with me because you've just made it more incomprehensible and strengthened my point further.

 

[Piggy]

There's a manufacturers name on them.

Doesn't matter per the definition I was responding to, which claimed that things are what they do.

 

[Piggy]

Speak for yourself.

I use concepts in my thinking, these are separate from words. They can be described with words, but the idea expressed by the concept often cannot be described with one word. Or there isn't a word for it in the vocabulary.

Do you think only in plain English?

If I can't render my thoughts in English, or math, or pictures, or some such... if I try to wrestle them down into something representable but I can't... then I have no choice but to conclude that my thinking is incoherent.

Your thinking is obviously incoherent.

 

[Piggy]

However, it is still possible that gods exist for the reasons given.

Do you have a reason that hasn't been refuted?

I must have missed that.

 

[Piggy]

Look, let's make this simple. Define what everything is made of in the universe and let's look at it.


You cannot do it at the most fundamental level. This is not a claim that there are things men aren't meant to know; it's a claim that there are just things that we can't know. We describe anything in the world only in terms of other things. We can't describe the most fundamental thing in the universe in terms of anything else because it is the most fundamental thing in the universe and there is nothing against which it can be described or understood.

But what does this have to do with gods?

 

[annnnoid]

What possible point are you guys trying to make here?

…the point ‘you guys’ are trying to make, if it is not obvious, is that some skeptics simply cannot stomach any inference, suggestion, or implication that there could be any possibility of anything remotely related to ‘God’. Thus, your very clear arguments are a threat of some kind. Simply put, it must be possible to establish that God does not exist. End of argument. Anything less is inadmissible for the uber skeptic. That this is metaphysically inconsistent is merely inconvenient…there must be something wrong with philosophy.

In other words…you may be practicing quite acceptable and elementary philosophy, but you are blatantly betraying the skeptic cause. Shame on you.

 

[Piggy]

The more scientists discover, the more unlikely all the coincidences appear, the more likely that there was a creator.

Precisely the opposite.

The more we discover, the more apparent it becomes that this isn't the only universe.

Just as it turned out we were wrong to think this is the only planet, then the only galaxy, our specialness is once again kicked into the dust.

In this mind-blowingly enormous universe of ours, there are certain zones -- like the surface of the clot of supernova effluvient we're on -- where the mix of elements and the amount of energy is sufficiently balanced to create an area of intense complexity.

That's all life is... just one particular type of intense complexity.

In other universes, there won't be any such zones. In still others, there will be more or fewer.

For us to look around and say, "Hey, this place is fine-tuned for us!" is ridiculous. First, it is overwhelmingly hostile to us on the whole, and second (as has been pointed out) we're only here to ask because ours is the kind of universe where this type of complexity can happen.

After the big tornadoes swept through here earlier this year, I found someone's photograph in my back yard. It would be absurd for me to attempt to trace that photo's journey to that spot in my yard and declare that the universe was fine-tuned to put it there.

 

[Piggy]

…the point ‘you guys’ are trying to make, if it is not obvious, is simply that certain skeptics simply cannot stomach any inference, suggestion, or implication that there could be any possibility of anything remotely related to ‘God’. Thus, your very clear arguments simply are a threat. Simply put, it must be possible to establish that God does not exist. End of argument. Anything less is inadmissible for the uber skeptic. That this is metaphysically inconsistent is merely inconvenient…there must be something wrong with philosophy.

In other words…you may be practicing quite acceptable and elementary philosophy, but you are blatantly betraying the skeptic cause. Shame on you.

This is entirely wrong.

As has been explained, since the mythic world view has been debunked, the only choice is to re-define this thing to mean something it never meant (Humpty-Dumpyism) or make false assertions or de-define it so that claims for its existence or reality are nonsensical.

If you have a way out of that bind, I'd like to hear it.

 

[tsig]

You haven't shown there is a 'most fundamental thing in the universe' for us to describe. You merely assert there must be one then demand that everyone else try to prove your assertion.

Cogito ergo sum, right? Something that thinks exists. So there is at least one fundamental substance. There could be more but that is a less parsimonious proposal. Are you arguing for more than one thing? If so, how do they interact? You can't argue against there being at least one because if there were not at least one you couldn't argue in the first place.

What possible point are you guys trying to make here?

ETA:

You can't doubt that something that thinks exist because you prove its existence by doubting. So there is a substance (existence). Are you caught up on the word fundamental? That simply means that it can't be reduced to anything more fundamental -- we have chairs, made of wood, made of cells, made of proteins, made of atoms, made of quarks, made of strings possibly, etc. There must be some base or we have an infinite regress, which is a logical contradiction. I'm not blithely spouting unsupportable facts. This stuff is pretty basic.

But if you want to go for the infinite regress, then fine with me because you've just made it more incomprehensible and strengthened my point further.

I can't see how you get that out of my post nor how the fact that something that thinks exists proves there's a fundamental substance.

The point I'm trying to make is that there's no 'fundamental substance' underlying the universe we see. You keep claiming there must be without a shred of proof.

The universe is wysiwyg*, if you wish to add things like a fundamental substance that can never be know then it's entirely up to you to define it and prove it's existence.

*what you see is what you get.

 

[annnnoid]

This is entirely wrong.

As has been explained, since the mythic world view has been debunked, the only choice is to re-define this thing to mean something it never meant (Humpty-Dumpyism) or make false assertions or de-define it so that claims for its existence or reality are nonsensical.

If you have a way out of that bind, I'd like to hear it.

Essentially, all Wasp is doing is pointing out the obvious. Everything is made of something. We do not know what that something is. Until we do, we do not have the means to establish definitively that this ‘something’ is not God.

You can claim any number of arguments against various interpretations of God but, since we do not have any definition of the fundamental substance of everything, and everything must have some kind of fundamental substance, you cannot have any argument against this ultimate God condition.

Wasp is not suggesting that this ‘something’ is God, just that it cannot be possible to prove that it is not. Thus, the possibility does exist that God is a fact.

I do not think that the bare statement that they don't exist is correct. When we go around making that argument I think it makes us look foolish.

Some here seem somehow threatened by this obvious fact (I’m not suggesting you are one of them). Why might be an interesting question for another thread....perhaps not unlike why so many skeptics are so determined to insist that the historical Jesus is a lie despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary (but lets not start that one again).

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Do you have a reason that hasn't been refuted?

I must have missed that.

A reason that gods could possibly exist? Yes. Haven't you been keeping up? What is your refutation?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

This is entirely wrong.

As has been explained, since the mythic world view has been debunked, the only choice is to re-define this thing to mean something it never meant (Humpty-Dumpyism) or make false assertions or de-define it so that claims for its existence or reality are nonsensical.

If you have a way out of that bind, I'd like to hear it.

That denies the history of philosophy and theology. God has been defined in numerous ways historically including the deistic god and the caretaker god not to mention the god that is beyond any human comprehension from the middle ages. This isn't a new creation.


ETA; You can pretend that none of that ever occurred, but the historical record is very clear about it.

 

[Piggy]

Essentially, all Wasp is doing is pointing out the obvious. Everything is made of something. We do not know what that something is. Until we do, we do not have the means to establish definitively that this ‘something’ is not God.

Sure we can.

Just like we can know it's not a pine tree.

Words have meaning, you know.

What you're doing is emptying your word of meaning, then making the obvious claim that it's now not inconsistent with anything you care to dream up.

All I-don't-know gods are Humpty-Dumpty gods by definition.

That's because the idea of god, like the idea of anything else that's not nothing, originated with a notion of something.

In the ancient worldview, gods had a place. They had qualities and actions.

So the I-don't-know gods -- whether you're talking about "the unknowable" or a deistic god or an ineffable god or a hyperdimensional god -- cannot be anything besides a radical re-definition of the term to mean something it could not have meant.

It's like I said before, you can't simply declare that, actually, phlogiston didn't have any of the qualities everyone said it did, but in fact it's something we simply can't know, and by that maneuver salvage the claim that phlogiston is real.

It's the same for anything else, including gods.

A Humpty-Dumpy god is no god at all. It's like me saying I've got a pet bird, as long as you don't mind that it's got no feathers, beak, wings, feet, or body.

I-don't-know gods are mere Humpty-Dumptyisms, by definition, and so have nothing to do with an actual discussion about whether gods are real or not.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I can't see how you get that out of my post nor how the fact that something that thinks exists proves there's a fundamental substance.

The point I'm trying to make is that there's no 'fundamental substance' underlying the universe we see. You keep claiming there must be without a shred of proof.

The universe is wysiwyg*, if you wish to add things like a fundamental substance that can never be know then it's entirely up to you to define it and prove it's existence.

*what you see is what you get.

There is no logical way out of a fundamental substance as the words are defined and used. Substance refers to a mode of existence. We know that something exists because of the cogito. You simply cannot deny it without refuting your very denial. Fundamental simply means that it is the lowest base of being. You can claim anything as the lowest base -- the self in the cogito, etc. but you cannot deny that there is a fundamental substance without denying existence itself, which is self-refuting.


I'm sorry but this is one of the stupidest discussions I have ever encountered.