Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

[Ichneumonwasp]

I can parsimoniously dismiss God the same way I dismiss the Matrix, I can logically examine God claims and I can inductively conclude that gods are myths.

God is either falsifiable and falsified, meaningless or a trivial redundance (nature? Ok, this god exists).

Yes. A much better way of saying what I did very long-windedly.

 

[Piggy]

There is simply no way to get to 100% ironclad certainty on this or any other matter when discussing the real world (as opposed to the world of definitions). But, as with all other fields of endeavor, I think it is safe for us to ignore our limitations in knowledge.

There's nothing to ignore.

This philosophical gambit is beyond the last refuge. It's standing out in the field behind the refuge and simply imagining that you have a refuge around you.

Rhetorically, it's the equivalent of "Nuh-UH!"

In fact, there's no reason to believe that we can't be certain about anything at all, and every reason to believe that such a stance is totally bogus.

So if you have a real objection to make, then, by all means....

 

[Piggy]

It would be a copy. Why should I care what happens to a copy of 'me' in a putative afterlife?

Exactly. This destroys the argument. If I somehow made an identical copy of you right now, it would still not be you.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

In fact, there's no reason to believe that we can't be certain about anything at all, and every reason to believe that such a stance is totally bogus.

So if you have a real objection to make, then, by all means....

Real objection? No. It's just an epistemological issue. I don't think we can be certain about anything that is not true by definition.

When it comes to gods, I am almost as sure about their non-existence as I am convinced about the actual shape of the earth. I think the evidence for the shape of the earth is a little better than the evidence against the existence of gods, but that's a fairly trivial point.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Exactly. This destroys the argument. If I somehow made an identical copy of you right now, it would still not be you.

That's where they bring in magic. The religious types are all substance dualists when examined closely. This is when they start using logic games like -- you cannot exclude the possibility of the divine, or mind, or whatever. That's where I think the real argument lies; and we both think they are wrong. Spinoza probably did the best job of 'proving' it.

 

[Naive1000]

As I said this is the difficult one for the religious to deal with, but..............
God recreates you after death in all your intricacy, neuron here and there with the same pathways, same reactions to what occurs in the world, same underlying neural processing. But he does so with some new magical substance that doesn't die; or, he keeps recreating you with the same substance over and over with each additional death. It is even possible to construct such a scenario with almost virtual continuity -- at the very moment of death you are recreated in a new body somewhere, so the experience would be dying and awakening in the next instant. This is the transporter problem recast.

There are all sorts of problems with this -- from the fact that magic is involved to the very real problem that the feeling of being 'me' is a very localized process that occurs only in my body; that's where my emotions are, where my valuing occurs. So, it is not clear that any recreation of 'me' would be 'me'. It would be a copy. Why should I care what happens to a copy of 'me' in a putative afterlife?

Just up front I'm an atheist, so I do not believe this, but just to be a devils advocate: They believe that the soul is the "real" you and the body is just a vessel for it. The soul is undying and represents the true person. The energy being part of us that is brought to heaven or sent to hell. So, their is no recreation. In pseudoscience techie kind of terms it would be an eternal energy WORM(write once read many) RAID drive of you as a person. And, since energy is neither created nor destroyed by natural law you could claim eternal existence .

Of course, this is stretching even pseudoscience, but since I was challenged, a long time ago, to come up with a way, any way, that a heaven could exist this was my solution to it. I've even seen it (or at least close to it) in other places -- kind of sad I thought of it.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Just up front I'm an atheist, so I do not believe this, but just to be a devils advocate: They believe that the soul is the "real" you and the body is just a vessel for it. The soul is undying and represents the true person. The energy being part of us that is brought to heaven or sent to hell. So, their is no recreation. In pseudoscience techie kind of terms it would be an eternal energy WORM(write once read many) RAID drive of you as a person. And, since energy is neither created nor destroyed by natural law you could claim eternal existence .

Of course, this is stretching even pseudoscience, but since I was challenged, a long time ago, to come up with a way, any way, that a heaven could exist this was my solution to it. I've even seen it (or at least close to it) in other places -- kind of sad I thought of it.

I think that's the best job anyone could do with without using magic as an explanation. And magic isn't an explanation.


Just asking, but were there really 999 Naives before you? Welcome to forum. I hope you have a great experience here.

 

[Naive1000]

LOL ... I sure hope not!

 

[Leumas]

Cogitat ergo in universum est et non deus est.

I am going to outline later (as I did here) why God(s) is/are Paradoxes.

Here is my reasoning

The whole train of thought about the BEGINNING of the universe, in my opinion is fallacious….a PARADOX.

If the pursuit is to find out what started our CORNER of the HYPERVERSE (which we call the universe) then that is fine....that is like trying to understand how the sun or our galaxy started.

However, if the pursuit is to find out how the Hyperverse started then it is a fruitless quest; as fruitless and meaningless as trying to find a god….it is like trying to calculate the result of n divided by 0.

How can there be a beginning for the universe? If there is then what was there before? WHERE was there before?

For anything to exist there has to be SOMEWHERE for it to exist. This somewhere is the universe even if there is NOTHING in it. Even if there is absolutely nothing in the universe it is still the universe. No beginning and no end and no limits; infinite in time and space.

If the pursuit is to comprehend how matter started then fine, but the universe did not start with matter. The universe contains matter but matter is NOT the universe. The universe is everything, everywhere and everytime even if there is nothing or no time in it.

Whether there are multiverses or one big hyperverse, it is immaterial. The universe is the container in time and space of ALL "universes" and all time and space….everything that was, is, or will ever be….everything in this dimension or other dimensions…EVERYTHING.

So there cannot be a beginning or an end to the universe (or hyperverse if you prefer) and a quest for the beginning is a PARADOX.


For theists reading this...think of it as your god....you are more than able to fathom no beginning or end or limits to something you call god. The problem is then you attribute intelligence and intent to this thing. So why are you not able to comprehend the same for a lower level of existence. Why can't you envision a no start or end or limit to a THING that does not have any purpose or conscience? If god can exist out of nothing without limits then why cannot the universe which is infinitely less complicated? It is WHERE your god exists.

For the atheists reading this.... why do we need to have a beginning or end or limits. If the universe is limited in any way then what lies beyond the limits? You can see that this pursuit is a PARADOX and thus meaningless. The only reason we can think of a limited universe is because of our inability to comprehend infinity. We just do not have the mental or linguistic tools to describe or fathom infinity.

Now herein lies a little catch for theists. If a god does exist then s/he/it exists in the universe. That is the hyperverse which contains all dimensions or levels of existence one may care to define. Regardless of what you may contrive or envision… multiverses…multi-dimensions… outside space-time or whatever you may contort….it is CONTAINED WITHIN the hyperverse (extended universe).

So if a god does exist then s/he/it is nothing but a BEING. This god is just another thing in the universe. Therefore s/he/it is not the creator of the universe. Even if s/he/it created the matter from which we exist or manipulated matter to create us….s/he/it is PART of the universe and is not anything more special than the atoms from which we are made. EVEN IF s/he/it is not made out of the same atoms from which we are made s/he/it STILL SHARES SPACE in the universe with the matter from which we are made.

Thus this god becomes no more special in relationship to us than we are in relationship to the bacteria in our lower intestines. You may argue that the bacteria and us are of the same matter and we did not make them. Regardless, even if this god made us from different matter just like we would make an android say, s/he/it is still not anything more than we are when we make an android.

Whichever way you would like to think about it this god is just a being within the universe and thus as far as we are concerned is AN ALIEN.

If anything exists…..it is automatically not outside the universe and the universe contains it….thus it is not a god.

So by existing or thinking any “god” becomes just an Alien….. no more worthy of worship than John Frum.

Cogitat ergo in universum est et non deus est.
It thinks therefore it is in the universe and not a god.

 

[Piggy]

Real objection? No. It's just an epistemological issue. I don't think we can be certain about anything that is not true by definition.

When it comes to gods, I am almost as sure about their non-existence as I am convinced about the actual shape of the earth. I think the evidence for the shape of the earth is a little better than the evidence against the existence of gods, but that's a fairly trivial point.

Maybe it's my CDO, but I never could make it a trivial point.

To me, a chance is a chance -- it's just the way my brain views it, or feels about it maybe -- so I see it as two different ways of viewing the world where the difference isn't a continuum once you ask if something ain't.

The answer to that question is either yes or no or can't tell. So it's like I'm looking at doors 1, 2, and 3 and the quantity behind the "maybe" door is only real if it's the door with something behind it. And even if that ends up being the right door, the ratios don't change the "maybe".

Deciding against the "maybe" door, the world looks (and feels) different to me. It really is a different place if you open up the other two doors and there's nothing behind them.

Once you get over the implications, though, I find it actually makes it easier to breathe. Most of the time.

 

[Piggy]

Here is my reasoning

I don't know about that.

We've surprised ourselves before at how much we've been able to find out about far out stuff by studying what's around us.

When you think about it, everything we see in the entire universe clear back to the cosmic microwave background is gleaned from the light touching the surface of our eyeballs.

It's just we've figured out how to capture that light and bounce copies of it off our heads.

There's no way to know what all we'll be able to determine about the wider hyperverse. Surely, the shape of our universe reveals something about the nearby neighborhood at least.

I wouldn't give up on the quest so fast.

I can only regret how much of it I won't be here to enjoy.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Maybe it's my CDO, but I never could make it a trivial point.

To me, a chance is a chance -- it's just the way my brain views it, or feels about it maybe -- so I see it as two different ways of viewing the world where the difference isn't a continuum once you ask if something ain't.

The answer to that question is either yes or no or can't tell. So it's like I'm looking at doors 1, 2, and 3 and the quantity behind the "maybe" door is only real if it's the door with something behind it. And even if that ends up being the right door, the ratios don't change the "maybe".

Deciding against the "maybe" door, the world looks (and feels) different to me. It really is a different place if you open up the other two doors and there's nothing behind them.

Once you get over the implications, though, I find it actually makes it easier to breathe. Most of the time.

I don't think we see it all that differently.


To use the usual philosophical language, knowledge is justified true belief, where true is defined as what really is -- so, it's the same as what's behind a door.

The problem is that we can't open the door fully for some situations. We are stuck with partial views. I don't see how we can know for sure, if the other two doors are opened and there is nothing behind them that the maybe door is empty (because we can't know that we have a full look into the 'no' room). I have every reason to believe that it is, but there is no way I can prove it, just as that damn cat is still alive and dead in some sense. It has to be one or the other, but we can't know until we look.

 

[Nicole Friedman]

Why are multiple gods off the table? What is the basis for a belief that IF gods exist, there can be only one? How can an agnostic reach such a conclusion? By definition, an agnostic does not know anything about the potential god or gods he or she is agnostic about.

It again sounds as though you are not so much agnostic about gods, but agnostic about the Judeo-Christian god (i.e. the god of monotheistic religions).

Note, I am not doubting or attacking your agnosticism. I am genuinely curious and my posts should be taken as friendly debate.

The very definition of G-d would mean that there cannot be more than one, at least according to the Judeo-Christian belief. As for myself, when I refer to G-d I'm thinking of any higher intelligence. That is a possibility for myself; multiple Gods just simply does not make any sense to me.

 

[Nicole Friedman]

I agree 100% but also define myself as an atheist. I don't quite make it to a 7 on Dawkins' scale. I put the probability of the existence of god even with the probability that I'm a brain in a vat or that I live in the matrix, very unlikely but, as an open minded, scientifically oriented individual, I cannot rule it out completely.


I don't understand what the issue is with the falsification of the definition of god. God is an abstract idea that people feel with their guts and their hearts. Its not really a concept meant to be held up to scientific scrutiny.


I've actually never had the chance, but my first question to an agnostic would be "what god or gods are you agnostic towards and why?". Robert Oz asked that earlier and did not get a good response, imho. She said:


She did not explain why only the jewish god and not the others.

Actually, I explained that I'm not just talking about a Jewish G-d, but any form of higher intelligence that may exist in this universe.

 

[Nicole Friedman]

Why do you feel more comfortable spelling it that way?

It seems more respectful to me. As I've said, I hope that there is something out there; maybe it's a signifier of my hope.

 

[Nicole Friedman]

But why didn't you write Z--s and Th-r?

Because I am 100 % they do not exist.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

... multiple Gods just simply does not make any sense to me.

Why? Can you present a good argument for this?

Because I am 100 % they do not exist.

Really? 100% sure? What if you have a permanent psychosis and the world is actually abounding with evidence for Zeus and Thor?

 

[Nicole Friedman]

Agnostics are welcome here!

Jewish people who have some questions and who come onto the forum pretending to be agnostic....

Not so much.



Critical"Happy to have a foreskin"Sock

So because I have strong cultural ties to my Jewish culture and hope to believe in G-d one day, I cannot say that I'm agnostic... even though I am unsure if G-d exists or not, which is the very definition of agnosticism? Do you really think that all agnostics can fit into the same standard box? I will even go so far as to say that I go to synagogue every few weeks now- I started last year with my husband, who as I said before is very religious. I actually let my rabbi know before he married us that I was agnostic- I felt it was only fair since he would be conducting a religious ceremony. You know what he said? That agnosticism is perfectly normal. Maybe you think that a "proper" agnostic should never go to church, synagogue or any religious institution, or have any deep rooted cultural beliefs or practices, but life is just not always that simple. And in case you're wondering why I or anyone else who claims to be agnostic would bother going attending religious services, the answer at least for myself is that I do not want to remain in a state of limbo. I'm giving myself to expose myself to spirituality, something that I have never really done. I'm hoping that it will cause me to lean more towards belief in G-d, or at least to strengthen my ties to my culture, but who knows? For the record, I exposed myself to the "other side" for years; I used to subscribe to Skeptic Magazine for years.

 

[Nicole Friedman]

Mazel tov and long and happy life together. Not religious myself but have been to a load of Bars and Bats and weddings and related with my wife's relatives and others. And introduced to great kosher foods in DC/Baltimore/Norfolk area. Not to mention (though I will) Ft. Lauderdale/Miami
(and, not to mention great Chinese and Indian food in same areas!).

Thank you:}

 

[kerikiwi]

Actually, I explained that I'm not just talking about a Jewish G-d, but any form of higher intelligence that may exist in this universe.

If you were speaking to us rather than typing, how would you pronounce G-d?