• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

Ichneumonwasp said:
But that is not what I am doing.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is what you are doing.

To show that it is not, you'll need to tell me the qualities and behaviors of this thing which allow us to distinguish a world with it from a world without it.

As it stands, you propose that:

(Reality + this thing) - (Reality without this thing) = 0

So again... what are the actions and features of this thing which distinguish it from not-it?
 
Piggy said:
Yes, it is what you are doing.

To show that it is not, you'll need to tell me the qualities and behaviors of this thing which allow us to distinguish a world with it from a world without it.

As it stands, you propose that:

(Reality + this thing) - (Reality without this thing) = 0

So again... what are the actions and features of this thing which distinguish it from not-it?
Click to expand...


How does our inability to distinguish a world with or without it determine if it exists or not? For all we know reality is this thing. We haven't a way to determine that isn't the case.


ETA: And, no, I did not say (Reality + this thing) - (Reality without this thing) = 0. Let's say for the sake of argument that it directed what looks to us like the blooming buzzing mess of reality to produce human beings.
 
Last edited:
Ichneumonwasp said:
How does our inability to distinguish a world with or without it determine if it exists or not? For all we know reality is this thing. We haven't a way to determine that isn't the case.


ETA: And, no, I did not say (Reality + this thing) - (Reality without this thing) = 0. Let's say for the sake of argument that it directed what looks to us like the blooming buzzing mess of reality to produce human beings.
Click to expand...

Does reality really look like that to you? Do you think humans are special?
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
How does our inability to distinguish a world with or without it determine if it exists or not? For all we know reality is this thing. We haven't a way to determine that isn't the case.


ETA: And, no, I did not say (Reality + this thing) - (Reality without this thing) = 0. Let's say for the sake of argument that it directed what looks to us like the blooming buzzing mess of reality to produce human beings.
Click to expand...

Still not willing to say what it is you're talking about?

OK.

When you are, let me know.

Until then, there's literally nothing to talk about.
 
tsig said:
Does reality really look like that to you? Do you think humans are special?
Click to expand...


No, of course not. This is just a silly exercise. I could have chosen evolution of wolves or evolution and subsequent destruction of hallucinogenia for some perceived slight to the deity. Evolution of humans is a favorite choice of the religious, so it's an easy target to pick out.
 
Piggy said:
Still not willing to say what it is you're talking about?

OK.

When you are, let me know.

Until then, there's literally nothing to talk about.
Click to expand...


Wait, what? I just said suppose this deity subtly changed the course of events to produce humans. That is not the same as random events alone. But there is no way that we could detect such a change.
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
Wait, what? I just said suppose this deity subtly changed the course of events to produce humans. That is not the same as random events alone. But there is no way that we could detect such a change.
Click to expand...

Who are you talking about?

You don't seem to have noticed that you've omitted that crucial bit.

Let me put it this way....

Let's do a Venn diagram. Draw a circle to represent the world without this thing. Then draw another to represent the world with it.

Now place the circles so that everything they have in common overlaps.

Describe to me what's left in the portion that doesn't overlap.

For instance, if I do that for a world with and without water, what's in the non-overlapping portion is H2O. (We live in the world with it.)

If I do that for a world with and without Santa Claus, what's in the non-overlapping portion is an immortal man who lives at the North Pole and delivers presents via a flying sleigh at Christmas. (We live in the world without it.)

So do that for this God you say you're talking about.

What's in the leftover bit of the circle that includes this thing?
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
Wait, what? I just said suppose this deity subtly changed the course of events to produce humans. That is not the same as random events alone. But there is no way that we could detect such a change.
Click to expand...

Or to put it another way....

I could say that "something I don't understand and can't comprehend" created this universe.

There's no arguing that, it's obviously true.

On the other hand, I could say "My aunt Aleen" created this universe.

Well, that's obviously false, because she lived and died in the 20th century, and the universe is billions of years old. (Unless I start re-defining things in Humpty-Dumpty fashion to mean things they never meant, in which case anything you care to say is both true and false and all conversation is nonsense.)

Or I could say "p-branes" created this universe.

That might be true or it might not, but it's different from saying "something I don't understand and can't comprehend" created this universe, because p-branes can be mathematically described. They are not simply an I-don't-know. They are something, real or not.

Or you could say "Whatever created the universe" created the universe, which is a tautology.

So, if you propose to me that a god might have created the universe to look exactly like one not created by a god, what are you saying?

Well, given the fact that there is not one single solitary quality or behavior that is universally agreed upon as being necessary to gods (which should raise enough red flags by itself to make you think you're in a May Day parade) you're going to have to tell me what this god is.

And it's going to have to be a god, by God, once you get done describing it.

If you don't, you're just saying "something I don't understand and can't comprehend created this universe", which is true. But you're then slapping the label "God" onto it, which you cannot do, because you haven't yet proposed any god. You have only proposed an I-don't-know.

I could say flurble created the universe.

If asked what that means, I can either say "I don't know" in which case I'm not making any claim about anything, or I can say what flurble is.

So if you say that it's possible that a god created this universe to look identical to one that has no god, I'm going to have to ask you what god this is which you are proposing to have done that.

It is now up to you to describe a being which could do such a thing and which would still be "real", still "exist", and still be (a non-Humpy-Dumpty) god.

Otherwise, you're talking about nothing.
 
I like the idea of Venn diagrams.

Piggy said:
Let's do a Venn diagram. Draw a circle to represent the world without this thing. Then draw another to represent the world with it.
Click to expand...
I like Venn diagrams. This sounds like fun.
Now place the circles so that everything they have in common overlaps.

Describe to me what's left in the portion that doesn't overlap.
Click to expand...
Picture one circle that is relatively small (all possible universes created without purpose or creator) lying within a much larger circle (all possible universes both 'naturally' and 'artifically' (purposeful) created).

A purposeful being able to craft a universe to it's own desires would also be able to craft universes that mimic 'naturally' arising ones. I do not think it is possible to determine whether we live in a purposefully or randomly generated universe.
 
Beth said:
Picture one circle that is relatively small (all possible universes created without purpose or creator) lying within a much larger circle (all possible universes both 'naturally' and 'artifically' (purposeful) created).

A purposeful being able to craft a universe to it's own desires would also be able to craft universes that mimic 'naturally' arising ones. I do not think it is possible to determine whether we live in a purposefully or randomly generated universe.
Click to expand...

Well, that's not quite what I asked, but if you want an answer to that, see the post just above yours.
 
Beth said:
A purposeful being able to craft a universe to it's own desires would also be able to craft universes that mimic 'naturally' arising ones. I do not think it is possible to determine whether we live in a purposefully or randomly generated universe.
Click to expand...

An honest question for you: in light of the quoted statement, what would be the reason for believing in the existence of this purposeful being which crafts a universe that mimics a 'naturally' arising one?
 
If I thought there were a deity around, I'd feel compelled to devote part of my life to squashing it.

In the absense of any evidence to the contrary, it is much more fun to live one's life not believing in silliness.
 
The Norseman said:
An honest question for you: in light of the quoted statement, what would be the reason for believing in the existence of this purposeful being which crafts a universe that mimics a 'naturally' arising one?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
FattyCatty said:
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.
Click to expand...
That is a contradiction. You consider the universe as evidence of God's existence, hence your belief. That is your evidence. You may also have personal evidence that no one else will consider evidence of anything but what transpires in your own brain; many folks quote such personal evidence.
Click to expand...
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...."
 
FattyCatty said:
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...."
Click to expand...


There are no gods, and you should stop believing that there are.

It is unseemly and damaging to the rest of us.

As for your advice on the putative distinction between 'evidence' and 'reason', please stop wasting our time.
 
FattyCatty said:
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...."
Click to expand...

What is the difference between the two? If science can't find evidence of a god's existence, then you can't have evidence of that god's existence. If you can't have evidence of a god's existence, then science can't find evidence of that god's existence. Sounds like the two are equivalent. If you want to propose something else than science for acquiring knowledge, then that something will either turn out to be equivalent or it will be guaranteed to be inferior in terms of acquiring knowledge. Of course, this depends on the definition used for "knowledge" and "reality". Would you care to take it from there?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom