Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

[yomero]

Back in post #441 in this thread I wrote about my difficulty in understanding why some persons allege to believe that there could be an inconsequential, non-intervening, immaterial, ill-defined god. The only reasons for that opinion that I could think of were these:

A.-It gives me a warm feeling to know that ''someone'' is always besides me.
B.-I'm convinced that it makes me virtuous. I avoid being an Evil Atheist(™) .
C.-I don't really believe in this unfalsifiable but inconsequential god, rather,I believe in an active God much like the God of The Bible. I just use this argument to frustrate Evil Atheists(™). I win arguments for Jesus and get a golden star glued to my forehead.

There are probably better reasons to be a deist. What are they?

I now repeat my last question. What other reasons are there for believing in a discount, Kmart version of god?

 

[Dani]

FattyCatty:

You are using the universe as evidence of God's existence. I agree that not in all contexts "reason" means "evidence", but in the context of your quote, I can't see how it doesn't.

What does "reason" stand for when you said "I do consider the universe itself to be reason to believe in God", if not?

 

[The Norseman]

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.

I'm sorry, I understood you to be a theist, but that's neither here nor there.

At any rate, the issue then becomes the fact that 'god' is a meaningless term and cannot logically refute your stated premise.

 

[SusanB-M1]

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.

Count me in!!

 

[Chucky]

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?

What if Ichnuemonwasp's hyperdimensional god, just as described, created that second universe to make a perfect copy of the first as an exercise it found pleasing to itself? Again, it would be done in a fashion where someone in the universe could not tell that it wasn't made by anything other than pure chance. They would be unable to see evidence of the god.

Notwithstanding, we on the outside for a moment have some way to define this god now. It finds making perfect copies of universes a value of it that could be considered. And that may be all we would ever know about it.

This god overlaps both universes in the Venn diagram between the one universe it copied from and the one it created. Both were part of the process as original and replica. I don't give a fig that that god's existence can't be proven within either universe (and I don't see how it could be according to this thought experiment). Regardless that this truth would never be proven true in either universe, there it is. Slightly back on topic this might be seen as an agnostic's consolation prize - an unprovable truth which is still false as far as the universe is concerned. And yet in truth, the god exists meaning we deniers would be wrong despite having all evidence against it on our side.

 

[punshhh]

Back in post #441 in this thread I wrote about my difficulty in understanding why some persons allege to believe that there could be an inconsequential, non-intervening, immaterial, ill-defined god. The only reasons for that opinion that I could think of were these:

A.-It gives me a warm feeling to know that ''someone'' is always besides me.
B.-I'm convinced that it makes me virtuous. I avoid being an Evil Atheist(™) .
C.-I don't really believe in this unfalsifiable but inconsequential god, rather,I believe in an active God much like the God of The Bible. I just use this argument to frustrate Evil Atheists(™). I win arguments for Jesus and get a golden star glued to my forehead.

There are probably better reasons to be a deist. What are they?

I now repeat my last question. What other reasons are there for believing in a discount, Kmart version of god?

Some folk, well actually a significant proportion of my friends and acquaintances, describe a deep down feeling or sense, like a long lost memory that there is some undefined higher power behind reality. I also have experienced it for most of my life.

I see it as a harkening back to the dream time, such as the dream time of the Australian aborigines. Which is only a few hundred generations back.

 

[laca]

Some folk, well actually a significant proportion of my friends and acquaintances, describe a deep down feeling or sense, like a long lost memory that there is some undefined higher power behind reality. I also have experienced it for most of my life.

Next time you have that feeling deep down try to use a proper outlet for it (a toilet, perhaps) and spare us from all the crap. Thanks.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Some folk, well actually a significant proportion of my friends and acquaintances, describe a deep down feeling or sense, like a long lost memory that there is some undefined higher power behind reality. I also have experienced it for most of my life.

I see it as a harkening back to the dream time, such as the dream time of the Australian aborigines. Which is only a few hundred generations back.

You are not helping your cause. Do you honestly think that all of us haven't had experiences akin to your own? We don't dismiss your claims out of ignorance; we discuss your claims because we moved beyond them long ago, and we hope to educate others.

 

[punshhh]

Next time you have that feeling deep down try to use a proper outlet for it (a toilet, perhaps) and spare us from all the crap. Thanks.

This isn't the crap I'm feeding you, thats something else. I was describing the reason why many deists hold their views. It is not why I hold my views.

Do you know anyone who has that feeling? have you had it yourself?

 

[laca]

This isn't the crap I'm feeding you, thats something else. I was describing the reason why many deists hold their views. It is not why I hold my views.

Yeah, that's why you said "I also have experienced it for most of my life.". Right...

Do you know anyone who has that feeling? have you had it yourself?

Yes. It's usually caused by some problem in the digestive tract and can mostly be handled without spreading crap all over the place.

 

[punshhh]

Yeah, that's why you said "I also have experienced it for most of my life.". Right...

Yes. It's usually caused by some problem in the digestive tract and can mostly be handled without spreading crap all over the place.

Well don't express you feeling in my direction, I wouldn't want to step in it by accident.


On a more serious note, the feeling I have had most of my life is just that, a feeling. My views are the way they are as a result of many years of intellectual and critical enquiry. Perhaps you have forgotten, I hold no belief in a god.

 

[punshhh]

You are not helping your cause. Do you honestly think that all of us haven't had experiences akin to your own? We don't dismiss your claims out of ignorance; we discuss your claims because we moved beyond them long ago, and we hope to educate others.

I also moved beyond this form of deism long ago.

Do I have a cause? I thought we were just having a friendly chat about theological ideas.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

I also moved beyond this form of deism long ago.

Do I have a cause? I thought we were just having a friendly chat about theological ideas.

I sincerely hope so. Some of your previous posts have led me to believe otherwise.

 

[Belz...]

Some folk, well actually a significant proportion of my friends and acquaintances, describe a deep down feeling or sense, like a long lost memory that there is some undefined higher power behind reality. I also have experienced it for most of my life.

I see it as a harkening back to the dream time, such as the dream time of the Australian aborigines. Which is only a few hundred generations back.

I see it as delusion.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

btw, punshhh, I realize that my signature might be offensive to you, so I'll remove it if you so desire.

 

[laca]

On a more serious note, the feeling I have had most of my life is just that, a feeling.

Yes.

My views are the way they are as a result of many years of intellectual and critical enquiry.

No.

Perhaps you have forgotten, I hold no belief in a god.

Whatever.

 

[laca]

btw, punshhh, I realize that my signature might be offensive to you, so I'll remove it if you so desire.

What did you think when you put it there? Wasn't making him look the fool he is your intent?

 

[punshhh]

btw, punshhh, I realize that my signature might be offensive to you, so I'll remove it if you so desire.

No need to do that, I find it quite amusing. I was trying to use the same sort of language as piggy to put my point across

 

[punshhh]

Yes.



No.



Whatever.

Your bowel movements are looking a bit loose, I wouldn't stray far from the toilet if I were you.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

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.

Yes, you could say all those things.

But you are not replying to what I suggested. I am not suggesting that this god does nothing in the universe. I am suggesting that you, inside this universe, cannot detect its presence because to you everything looks random. But, unbeknownst to you, this god not only created the universe but directs its unfolding; it is intelligent and its actions are intentiontial.

As a being within the universe you can't tell what it is doing because you can't be outside of your environment to view what this god is up to; you cannot see that random is the wrong word to apply from this god's perspective because you don't know its plans.

It is entirely possible that such a god exists. It simply isn't parsimonious to suppose such an entity.