Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

[Piggy]

So god can only be something we can talk about

You shouldn't be confused.

If it were actually something entirely beyond our comprehension, we couldn't be talking about it because we never would have had any thoughts about it.

But people have believed in gods since before recorded history. Obviously, it isn't something that people claim is entirely unknowable.

So an unknowable god is both a Humpty-Dumpty god, and a thing that can't be said to be "real" or to "exist".

 

[Piggy]

Has it occured to you that I am not referring to the mythological Gods?

It has occurred to me that you are not referring to anything at all.

None of your attempt to talk about God make any clear reference to anything.

I think you're relying on your brain's feeling that God has a certain thingyness to it, then de-defining it when you speak of it without even realizing it.

You feel like you're talking about something, but you're not.

 

[Mister Agenda]

You assume pterodactyls are extinct. You don't know it. They could exist on another planet, having been taken to a zoo there by aliens (not that I believe in this scenario, but it exists as a possibility). Your belief that pterodactyls are extinct becomes more likely if you limit it to Earth. However, if there are still undiscovered parts of the world, and if you haven't investigated every part of the discovered world, then again extinction is just a belief, not a certainty. Remember the Coelacanths.

This is an interesting bit, concerning agnosticism and atheism. I am an agnostic atheist regarding pterodactyl survival. I don't believe there are still pterodactyls, because there is no reason to; but I am not certain they don't exist, because there are various possible scenarios that could conceivably allow for their survival to the present day.

On the other hand, I am certain there are no living pterodactyls that are wingless mammals, despite being unable to scour the universe to check every nook and cranny to make sure they don't exist, I can be certain such pterodactyls don't exist because pterodactyls, by definition, are not wingless mammals.

The word 'God' is defined many ways. I cannot be certain the god of Deism doesn't exist, because it has no self-contradictory attributes. I don't believe it exists because I don't find any of the arguments I've heard for it's existence to be convincing, but it isn't logically ruled out. Another god I've heard of is said to be all-knowing and free-willed, but a free-willed being can do other than what it knows it will do in advance, and an all-knowing being cannot, so I can be certain a god that fits this definition does not exist.

In other words, just to complicate the issue up a bit, the same person can be an agnostic atheist toward one concept of God, and a gnostic atheist toward another.

 

[Hokulele]

Are you aware of some god myths? Zeus, Thor, Pele' perhaps?

It is Pele, not Pele'. An 'okina (') represents a glottal stop, and always comes before a vowel, never at the end of a word.

 

[punshhh]

I literally have no idea what that means.

Let me simplify it for you.

If a god exists which we cannot detect scientifically, we as you say cannot say anything about it.

However if this God were to exist and created the known universe. It would create something which it knows about. Or at least its creation would be an expression to some degree of the nature of this creator.

Therefore we may be able to observe evidence of the nature of the creator in nature.

This evidence is provided by the emergence of creators in nature, expressing the principle of intelligent creators emerging naturally in nature.

Now there is a question about the origin of the known universe, it would make sense that it was created. Rather like your computer keyboard was created by an intelligent creator.

Without the input of an intelligent creator keyboards could not exist and yet they can be observed existing in nature.

Perhaps the known universe would not exist without the input of an intelligent creator and yet it can be observed existing in nature.

 

[the PC apeman]

If S ... and if not S ... then ... ???

3. Profit

 

[Mister Agenda]

Punshhh, you're affirming the consequent:

If P, then Q.
Q.
Therefore, P.

It is a fallacy.

If Lulu the goddess of seashells exists, seashells exist.
Seashells exist.
Therefore, Lulu the goddess of seashells exists.

You can't get from Q to P. You have to get to P some other way.

 

[the PC apeman]

(Not to mention his failure to notice more turtles underneath his proposed turtle)

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Some of the atheists on this site are very thoughtful and respectful of others' beliefs, which is much appreciated. However, there are many more on here who do not seem to care at all about being rude, condescending or just plain angry and negative. In all of my 31 years, when discussing religion and faith, I've never encountered such hostility; and this is including people from the entire religious spectrum. (This is including people I've known who thought that only 100,000 people are getting into heaven- something I fervently disagree with but somehow they were able to discuss religion without hurling insults) For that reason this will be the last time I post in the religion forum. It's a waste of my time to try to have a reasonable, logical debate with people whose main argument is that anyone who believes in G-d is a moron.
I urge all of you to actually do what this website is supposed to be about. Weigh evidence but do it with an open mind.

Just had two thoughts no one else addressed:

1) "Thoughtful and respectful" does not imply "nice." You aren't accusing people of disregarding your position, you're accusing them of being big meanie-heads who don't just smile and nod along when you talk about ineffability.

Your ideas about god are not new ones. You have said nothing that anyone here has not heard before. Heard and largely rejected. However, instead of being respectful (though not necessarily nice) enough to listen in return, you're pouting and taking your ball and going home.

2) If *Jehovah's Witness* is the furthest you've ranged afield, you most certainly have not traveled the "entire religious spectrum." Go tell an Inuit or a Hindi that their gods are clearly fictional inventions of mankind, as you've done so condescendingly here; see how well that goes over.

 

[Mister Agenda]

You wrote yet another extremely well thought out post.
The fact of the matter is that many atheists apparently do not want to admit that atheism is a belief; they treat their atheism as if it were scientific fact when it is not. Whereas many theists or agnostics (myself included) admit that the idea of G-d cannot be proven scientifically, at least with our limited means as they are now, nor with our human senses.
The reason that I am leaning more towards believing in G-d comes down to several things. First off, the very fact that we exist, that a universe exists as opposed to nothing should make any reasonably intelligent person at least ask themselves "Why?" Quantum physics has given a possible answer, that there are random fluctuations in a void, and perhaps one of those fluctuations led to a big bang. But was our universe really so random, when every little thing works so perfectly well and in tandem that allowed for us to evolve? Comparing the 2 possibilities; it seems that one would have to have faith in the possibility that we are here due to randomness just as much if not more than the possibility that there is a G-d. Secondly, if you have ever really loved anyone in your life, do you really believe that the love you have is due simply to biology or is it something deeper? Once you get brain damage and you are incapable of the emotion of love anymore, is that it? Logic tells me that there is more to the story than just neurons and electrical pulses.
Some of the atheists on this site are very thoughtful and respectful of others' beliefs, which is much appreciated. However, there are many more on here who do not seem to care at all about being rude, condescending or just plain angry and negative. In all of my 31 years, when discussing religion and faith, I've never encountered such hostility; and this is including people from the entire religious spectrum. (This is including people I've known who thought that only 100,000 people are getting into heaven- something I fervently disagree with but somehow they were able to discuss religion without hurling insults) For that reason this will be the last time I post in the religion forum. It's a waste of my time to try to have a reasonable, logical debate with people whose main argument is that anyone who believes in G-d is a moron.
I urge all of you to actually do what this website is supposed to be about. Weigh evidence but do it with an open mind.

Too bad about you leaving, you started an interesting conversation. I won't think less of you if you change your mind, consistency for consistency's sake is over-rated. Swearing off a whole subforum is a little drastic, maybe you could just swear off the thread?

I don't think anyone who believe in G-d is a moron, far from it.

However, you have again conflated agnostic atheists, who don't believe in God, with gnostic atheists, who believe God doesn't exist. As an agnostic atheist, I find the misrepresentation of my position after it has been clarified, a bit insulting...although not on a level with calling me a moron.

For the record, most of us think our existence can be accounted for by natural processes, which may contain a random element, but are far from completely random. And natural processes do exist, which puts belief in them on an entirely different level from belief in a specific supernatural entity to whom are ascribed specific supernatural acts. It's a little bit insulting to tell us we have faith in randomness when it's such a strawman of our actual position. Not on a level with calling me a moron, but little digs can add up.

If people are rude to you, they are easily ignored. There is even a function that will allow you to not even have to see posts from specific individuals.

Again, I hope you will consider returning to the subforum, if not the thread.

 

[Daald]

Let me simplify it for you.

If a god exists which we cannot detect scientifically, we as you say cannot say anything about it.

However if this God were to exist and created the known universe. It would create something which it knows about. Or at least its creation would be an expression to some degree of the nature of this creator.

Therefore we may be able to observe evidence of the nature of the creator in nature.

This evidence is provided by the emergence of creators in nature, expressing the principle of intelligent creators emerging naturally in nature.

Now there is a question about the origin of the known universe, it would make sense that it was created. Rather like your computer keyboard was created by an intelligent creator.

Without the input of an intelligent creator keyboards could not exist and yet they can be observed existing in nature.

Perhaps the known universe would not exist without the input of an intelligent creator and yet it can be observed existing in nature.

I was with you there for a while but then you made the infinite recursion argument.

I have seen it in many forms. All life must come from life. Nothing can come from nothing etc.

It is a non-sequitor and also false.

The first thing that makes it false is that right after the sentence you posit something that is immune to this all encompassing rule. So the logic goes ALL things happen like this....1 thing does not. That is a contradiction. That 1 thing is covered by the all statement.

You are not making exactly that argument but it can be distilled to it.

Now back to the recursive argument. The nature of this argument is such that only items in the loop can create more items. The problem here is that there can be no outside influence. So if the recursive argument is true then nothing can exist.

So if you say life can only come from life, then logically there can be no life.
Life has been observed, therefore life can only come from life is false.

Same logic with everything is created by something else. Nothing should exist if that is true since no outside factors are allowed.
Things obviously exist so the statement is false.

 

[zooterkin]

How is that relevant ? Did you read the post I was responding to ?

I did, but imperfectly. Yes, I was in error, I missed the opening sentence, and only saw the reference to Baptists (who are not necessarily fundamentalists).

 

[zooterkin]

It is Pele, not Pele'. An 'okina (') represents a glottal stop, and always comes before a vowel, never at the end of a word.

She probably meant Pelé, who is a living God.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Well, it was a pity, but I guess not unexpected that Nicole decided she did not want to engage in debate on what she thinks and why. This topic did get me thinking though.

I am an atheist and as sure as it is possible to be about anything that there are no gods. And yet still I hear sensible people argue that we can only ever be agnostic so I thought I would try a bit of an experiment and see if I can determine using what I know where I am prepared to concede uncertainty - i.e. what I cannot rule out - to try to understand where we don't agree. The conclusion I came to is that the difference is only in what one is prepared to accept as a definition of a God.

If you define God only as 'something that we don't know' then there's probably a non-zero chance it exists but is that a God?

This is where I struggled with Nicole's 'philosophy' as she was prepared only to offer a definiton of God as a higher intelligence and yet somehow derived from this definition that it's existence would give purpose and meaning to her life, and would be a source of absolute morality in the universe. Those things cannot be derived from just 'something'

Its just a shell game with definitions of God.

 

[punshhh]

Punshhh, you're affirming the consequent:

If P, then Q.
Q.
Therefore, P.

It is a fallacy.

If Lulu the goddess of seashells exists, seashells exist.
Seashells exist.
Therefore, Lulu the goddess of seashells exists.

You can't get from Q to P. You have to get to P some other way.

Yes I realise this, I am not constructing a logical argument here.

I am proposing that we can suppose something about a god that might actually exist, by analysis of nature. Even when it is a god which we cannot say anything about.

 

[punshhh]

I was with you there for a while but then you made the infinite recursion argument.

I have seen it in many forms. All life must come from life. Nothing can come from nothing etc.

It is a non-sequitor and also false.

Thank you for your response, you raise some interesting points here. I was already aware of them and was progressing in that direction my self.

The first thing that makes it false is that right after the sentence you posit something that is immune to this all encompassing rule. So the logic goes ALL things happen like this....1 thing does not. That is a contradiction. That 1 thing is covered by the all statement.

I have not posited something that is immune that I am aware of. I would be interested if you could point out more precisely what is immune in your eyes?

Now back to the recursive argument. The nature of this argument is such that only items in the loop can create more items. The problem here is that there can be no outside influence. So if the recursive argument is true then nothing can exist.

So if you say life can only come from life, then logically there can be no life.
Life has been observed, therefore life can only come from life is false.

Same logic with everything is created by something else. Nothing should exist if that is true since no outside factors are allowed.
Things obviously exist so the statement is false.

The problem here is that you are assuming that nature is somehow logical as viewed from our perspective. I am discussing something which may be different to this or paradoxical.

Can you see any alternative to the infinite regress in nature?

 

[punshhh]

(Not to mention his failure to notice more turtles underneath his proposed turtle)

Who has no turtles all the way down? does anyone?

 

[the PC apeman]

If a god exists which we cannot detect scientifically, we as you say cannot say anything about it.

I am proposing that we can suppose something about a god that might actually exist, by analysis of nature. Even when it is a god which we cannot say anything about.

Um, how is scientific detection different from supposing something by means of analysis of nature?

Yes I realise this, I am not constructing a logical argument here.

Clearly, seeing as how you so openly contradict yourself. Are you trying to be persuasive?

 

[the PC apeman]

Who has no turtles all the way down? does anyone?

Yes, those who say I don't know. Also, theoretically, those who demonstrate a foundational (or perhaps circular) explanation. I haven't seen any of those yet. Incomplete, infinitely regressing, foundational, and circular are the only topologies of explanations I am aware of. I'm open to others.

 

[Daald]

I have not posited something that is immune that I am aware of. I would be interested if you could point out more precisely what is immune in your eyes?

The quote below:

Now there is a question about the origin of the known universe, it would make sense that it was created. Rather like your computer keyboard was created by an intelligent creator.

Without the input of an intelligent creator keyboards could not exist and yet they can be observed existing in nature.

What I read into that sounded something akin to: We create stuff, so it would make sense if we were also created by something like us.

You call that something before us a "god". Now I assumed you stopped there. If so my criticism up there stands since my argument is basically "so what then created your god?".

If you meant an intelligent alien which was in turn created somehow, then you only added a unneeded variable since we now need to find out how that being was created. (Hopefully you don't mean turtles all the way down here)

If you say that god was always there then it has the undesired effect of existing without being created breaking your cycle of creation. If you allow this then you have to allow for non-intelligent rules to simply exist as well.

The problem here is that you are assuming that nature is somehow logical as viewed from our perspective. I am discussing something which may be different to this or paradoxical.

Can you see any alternative to the infinite regress in nature?

Unfortunately I can not. My answer is simply this. I do not know. What we can't do though is place something in front of that knowledge boundary. That is basically god of the gaps.


Hope that made sense