Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

[Piggy]

I disagree that the only answer for belief is to "push God completely outside...meaningless or absurd)." That's too much of a blanket statement. Many people manage to believe in their God in many different ways, only some of which are "outside of everything we know" or are "annulling the 'exists' part of the claim 'God exists')."

Can you describe a belief in God which doesn't make "God" or "exist" either meaningless or absurd, and which does not at the same time violate what we observe about the world around us?

 

[Piggy]

Why should we have evidence when, as in your analogy above, we haven't looked everywhere and we don't have the tools to see everything.

Because we don't need to look everywhere and see everything.

God has never been, for example, a rock on the far side of a distant planet.

It's like I've said before, you don't need to check behind the fridge in order to know that your apartment isn't infested with galaxy clusters.

When we look at the cosmos, do we see any indication of God? No.

When we look at religious rituals, prayer, and such, do we see any evidence of divine or supernatural response? No.

When we examine the human body and mind, do we find any evidence that there's a soul? No.

When we examine scriptural claims about God, do they turn out to be accurate? No.

In fact, when we look at all claims about God ever made, do we find even one which holds up when tested against modern knowledge? No.

In fact, everywhere we look, and with every test that is possible to perform, we find that God is absent. The best that its defenders can do is to assert that God looks exactly like not-God, or retreat into their own individual mental experience, which isn't evidence for anything.

We do not need to test to see if God might actually be ensconced in a sand dune on a distant planet, because that's not the kind of thing that God has ever been.

We have tested the things that God was supposed to have been, and God has failed.

Why can we not simply admit this and move on?

 

[Piggy]

I have defined two attributes which X may have( reason and creation(not first cause)). There may be many reasons why I don't or can't know what it is if I run into it. However if it satisfies my definition it is god like and I can file it in the set of (god like entities) which I will call (g). There are members of this set already, humans and AI(or at least there soon will be AI)

But we've already shown why your definition doesn't work. And if you lump human beings and smart robots into the God group, then it's a Humpty-Dumpty god you're after, which is pointless.

It's like looking for gold and deciding that you're going to call all metals "gold".

 

[Piggy]

Can you link me to the "grad student god" example?

The "grad student god" was the thought experiment about a grad student in a physics lab who is routinely running experiments that, unbeknownst to him, create mini-universes which exist in minute spaces and times from our perspective, but which are as vast in time and space as ours is from the point of view of any beings inside them.

Your "intelligent maniuplator" definition would make the grad student a god of that universe, but such a being would not qualify as "God" for actual believers on earth, none of whom worship a hyperdimensional grad student who is ignorant of the existence of our entire world.

 

[Piggy]

But that is an argument from consequence; it has nothing to do with what actually *is*. Let's say there is a god; and this god works in such a way as to produce exactly what we see before us -- what we call random chance occurrences. Sure, it's of no consequence to believe or not believe in this god, but that sort of argument doesn't tell us if there is or isn't a god. A hyper-dimensional being could be a part of the structure of the multiverse. It could even direct the formation of certain species on Earth through subtle means that we could not detect because it appears to us as random chance.

So the world with and without this god is identical?

There are no qualities or behaviors of this god which make the world with it appear different from the world without it?

In that case, its existence is the same as its non-existence, and "God exists" means exactly the same thing as "God doesn't exist".

Under those conditions, claiming "God exists" is meaningless, a non-claim.

If "God exists" is to be an actual claim, then there has to be something to distinguish that situation from "God doesn't exist".

 

[Piggy]

You can't have evidence of God's existence; it's outside the realm of science.

No, it's not.

Why do people continue to repeat that assertion when it's not true, and when they have no reason why it should be true?

If God is what God has always been... if God makes itself known to people... if God works within the world... then of course it's amenable to scientific inquiry.

God cannot be immune from scientific inquiry if you claim that it is something which exists.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

So the world with and without this god is identical?

There are no qualities or behaviors of this god which make the world with it appear different from the world without it?

In that case, its existence is the same as its non-existence, and "God exists" means exactly the same thing as "God doesn't exist".

Under those conditions, claiming "God exists" is meaningless, a non-claim.

If "God exists" is to be an actual claim, then there has to be something to distinguish that situation from "God doesn't exist".

Again, you are arguing consequences and not *what is*. The difference would be that in one instance god doesn't exist and in the other god does exist. The fact that the world looks the same regardless of that god's existence or non-existence simply means that it doesn't matter if god exists or not; it isn't an argument about his actual existence.

Your argument seems more about the ways that we know rather than what actually *is*.

 

[catsmate]

As for your point about logic, no it absolutely does not seem ridiculous to me in the slightest. Why would anything in the universe be "evil"? I may not be sure if G-d exists but I am 110% sure there is no devil or hell.

Why? How do you know this?
And have you tried applying the same process that led to this certainty about the non-existence of a devil or hell to the question of the existence of a god?

 

[catsmate]

I am "using a definition of knowledge" that includes what is beyond human perception. Not to consider such a realm of knowledge in discussing this subject is rather short sighted.

Not nearly as short sighted as assuming that such knowledge exists without any evidence or justification.

 

[Piggy]

Again, you are arguing consequences and not *what is*. The difference would be that in one instance god doesn't exist and in the other god does exist. The fact that the world looks the same regardless of that god's existence or non-existence simply means that it doesn't matter if god exists or not; it isn't an argument about his actual existence.

Your argument seems more about the ways that we know rather than what actually *is*.

No, you're falling into the de-defining trap. Which is easy to do, because our brains feel like the term "god" has a kind of thinginess about it, even when our arguments strip it of all possible reality.

If you're proposing a god which literally has no qualities or behaviors that could possibly distinguish it from not-god, then you're not talking about anything that could be said to be real, or to exist.

What is it about this god you're proposing which makes a world with it different from a world without it?

If the answer is "nothing", then there's literally nothing to talk about, and no claim to reality to be made... or refuted.

 

[punshhh]

But we've already shown why your definition doesn't work. And if you lump human beings and smart robots into the God group, then it's a Humpty-Dumpty god you're after, which is pointless.

It's like looking for gold and deciding that you're going to call all metals "gold".

You said that to be described as a god an entity should exhibit the attributes commonly understood or recognised by believers(the mythological God).

Also that to group humans with gods is ridiculous/pointless.

Neither of which addresses what I have been saying.

Firstly any actually existing gods would be unlikely to fit the attributes commonly understood by believers as these attributes will be coloured by human mythology and anthropomorphism.

Secondly to claim it is ridiculous or pointless to group humans with gods is verging on an argument from incredulity. Whatever entity fits the definition is in the group by definition irrespective of how daft it might seem to be.

I have defined god as an intelligent creator because these are the principle attributes expected of gods and are the minimum requirement for an entity which is capable of intelligently bringing about existence as we know it

 

[Belz...]

You don't need to check behind the fridge in order to know that your apartment isn't infested with galaxy clusters.

Quote of the day.

 

[punshhh]

The "grad student god" was the thought experiment about a grad student in a physics lab who is routinely running experiments that, unbeknownst to him, create mini-universes which exist in minute spaces and times from our perspective, but which are as vast in time and space as ours is from the point of view of any beings inside them.

Your "intelligent maniuplator" definition would make the grad student a god of that universe, but such a being would not qualify as "God" for actual believers on earth, none of whom worship a hyperdimensional grad student who is ignorant of the existence of our entire world.

Thanks

This grad student is an unintelligent creator and does not fit my definition. He may be intelligent, but is oblivious of the things he is creating.

Interestingly humans create/manipulate both intelligently and unintelligently. However in order to create AI due to the complexity it would have to be intelligent.

 

[Belz...]

Again, you are arguing consequences and not *what is*. The difference would be that in one instance god doesn't exist and in the other god does exist. The fact that the world looks the same regardless of that god's existence or non-existence simply means that it doesn't matter if god exists or not; it isn't an argument about his actual existence.

So aether may indeed exist after all ? Seems like a very time-consuming way to look at possibilities.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

No, you're falling into the de-defining trap. Which is easy to do, because our brains feel like the term "god" has a kind of thinginess about it, even when our arguments strip it of all possible reality.

If you're proposing a god which literally has no qualities or behaviors that could possibly distinguish it from not-god, then you're not talking about anything that could be said to be real, or to exist.

What is it about this god you're proposing which makes a world with it different from a world without it?

If the answer is "nothing", then there's literally nothing to talk about, and no claim to reality to be made... or refuted.

But that is not what I am doing.

We are stuck with what we experience. We see the world in a particular way based on our composition and our experiences; we are not privy to all sorts of possible knowledge because, to use a simple example, we haven't the sensory apparatus for it. We don't see in the X-ray spectrum. We know it exists and we can use it, but we don't extract that info from the environment generally.

If you imagine a god that works in such a way that his actions appear like random chance but which actually direct the world toward certain outcomes (we don't know the difference because we can't see the other potential options), then we can say that there is no god and the world works by means of random chance. But we would be wrong. We can't know the difference between how the world might work if everything were actually random chance and if it just looked that way to us even though it was being subtly directed toward some goal.

All we can do is model the world and try to understand it. We can't make that jump to understand ontology. When you make a claim about the existence or non-existence of god(s) you are making an ontological claim. I'm saying that you can't get there.

FattyCatty wants to believe that the universe is directed by some force. We have no way to prove that she is wrong just as she cannot prove that she is right. She assumes a particular ontology. I don't see a reason to follow her but not because I can prove that there is no god; I simply see no reason to assume that the universe is directed; that does not look parsimonious to me.

As to what is different in the one world vs the other -- one is intentional and the other isn't. The fact that we can't tell the difference because we are privy only to what our senses provide tells us something about us, not about the universe.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

So aether may indeed exist after all ? Seems like a very time-consuming way to look at possibilities.

Entirely beside the point, but aether apparently does exist according to some physicists nowadays.

Again, I am trying to draw a distinction here between two different kinds of reasoning because the two sides in this argument are using vocabulary in subtly different ways that creates the confusions, I think.

I am completely behind you that we can be 99.99999999999999999...9999% sure that the god(s) we generally speak of don't exist. That's as close as we can get with any provisional knowledge.

 

[Belz...]

I am completely behind you that we can be 99.99999999999999999...9999% sure that the god(s) we generally speak of don't exist. That's as close as we can get with any provisional knowledge.

And that remaining 0.00000000000000...0001%, does it warrant always adding "but I'm not 100% sure about that" ? No ? That's why I don't usually mention it. I'm open-minded if new evidence is presented, but not a second before.

 

[Leumas]

You can't have evidence of God's existence; it's outside the realm of science. I do consider the universe itself to be reason to believe in God, however.

And this God is so imbecilic as to hold a grudge against Adam and Eve and their descendants to the umpteen’s generation because they fell for the tricks of the snake that he made and ate from a tree that he made to become wise which he does not like us to be.

But one day decides to let go of this grudge and forgive.

So instead of saying Ok... I forgive.

He decides that he cannot do it unless someone gets tortured and dies.

Then he says...AHA.... I got it..... instead of just clicking my fingers to forgive I will:

• Split myself in two
• Have the other half go rape and commit adultery with a 13 year old married girl.
• That way she can give birth to my son
• Aha...but that son is in fact me pretending to be my son.
• Mmmm.....but won't that be incest too on top of the adultery? Never mind.... no one will notice....if they are stupid enough to accept the rest of the story for sure they are retarded enough to not notice this either.
• Then I will gestate inside my mother and try to convince her husband not to stone her to death.
• I will also send a star to guide some kings to come all the way to where I will be born so as to give me some gold..... my precious.... I wants it.
• Ah...but to add to the drama, I will make sure they got lost and that they would therefore alert Herod to my birth.
• I will of course just run away but then I will enjoy watching Herod massacre thousands of children.....my precious....me loves massacres of children.
• Then I come back and wait for thirty years.
• Then I will insult every Jew that wants to maintain my previous lies.
• Then I will send Satan to posses Judas to snitch on me....what a nice plot twist.
• Then I will pretend to be in pain while they torture me and pretend to die and then I will pretend to wake up and then I will disappear.
• I will then expect people to fight and kill each other for thousands of years over whether I did forgive their sins and what method of wetting themselves they should use so as to assure that.
• My precious....me loves mayhem and chaos caused by my Amazing script.
• I think this bloody farce should keep me amused for a few millennia before they GROW UP and realize that I am an utter BASTARD.

Great plot says Homer....why didn't I think of it.
Just the right mix of mayhem and death says Kali... I like it.
Wonderful tricks says the god Coyote..... even I could not be that tricky.


Yes I can see how the above farce can be a warrant for belief, says Plantinga. My argument is that if this is all true then it is warranted….thus there is a warrant for it. Anyone who dismisses the above as a load of claptrap because of the preconceived assumption that it is twaddle is committing a logical fallacy. I am going to assume it is true and show how it is warranted…..just read my trilogy of books repeating over and over the fallacy of circular “reasoning” and repeating trite arguments made centuries ago by Aquinas and Calvin ignoring the fact that they have been trashed by countless others long before I was born. But this of course will not matter to people who are looking for anything that enables them to alleviate their Cognitive Dissonance and I will laugh all the way to the bank. You see I have just found a way to peddle philosophy to the rabble in the good old tradition of Snake Oil Peddlers…..just buy my books and see how your lack of ability to realize the fallacies in them can help you shed the pain of all that Cognitive Dissonance you suffer from…..Come one….Come All…..just a few dollars and you can reinforce your wishful-thinking while I realize mine.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

And that remaining 0.00000000000000...0001%, does it warrant always adding "but I'm not 100% sure about that" ? No ? That's why I don't usually mention it. I'm open-minded if new evidence is presented, but not a second before.

Don't think you have to add that, but it doesn't hurt to tell your opponent that your argument is not the one she is arguing against.

 

[Complexity]

Entirely beside the point, but aether apparently does exist according to some physicists nowadays.

Citations?