NationStates Jolt Archive

I know we've seen our fair share of God-related threads on this forum, and it pains me to be the author of another one; but considering that religion and politics are one of the two things I am not allowed to speak of at the dinner table, I thought I might dump my ponderings here. Forgiveness if I may annoy.

As a fence-sitting agnostic, I do believe that I lack both the wisdom and the convictions strong enough to make persuade myself unto either faction. My only true conviction on the subject is that a question of this magnitude should not merely be an overnight decision. I hold this standard only for myself, of course. The rest of you will do what you will; I shall not preach my morays.

Now I know that the evangelicals will demand of me to read my bible to find the answer; conversely, so may the atheists. But in all truth, I have no interest in reading the bible. I think that the acquisition of faith, like any true conviction, yields to a higher understanding than that which is read in a simple tome. I believe that besides a copious amount of personal searching, the best manner in which to find an answer is to seek out practitioners who employ their beliefs in everyday life. Thus, I am here.

One question of particular interest I have on my mind I deliver unto the atheists: One of the cardinal rules of science is that "Energy cannot be created or destroyed". Now I do not profess to hold any understanding of astrophysics, (or physics in general) but if this statement is true, how did we come to be? What employed the origin of the universe? If energy cannot be created, how did the universe begin? Has it always been? I doubt it, not since everything else (life, planets, stars and galaxies) has a origin and a demise. What set off the universe? And more importantly, how do we explain the perfections of life on earth? The exact angle of a water molecule, the exact location of the earth in relevance to the sun? Is this all merely an accident of nature?

Now, to be fair, a question to the theists: The last time a man arrived on earth declaring to be the Messiah, we destroyed him. Only after his death (and supposed resurrection) did he receive a true following. Ever since, anyone claiming to be the savior has been mocked, ridiculed and destroyed as well. How will the faithful be able to recognize their true messiah, and follow him. When the Second Coming arrives, will he be known as the Christ, or simply a fraud like Apollonius of Tyranus. How will he be able to unite all mankind? How will you know?

Feel free to respond in whatever way you wish. I await responses with anticipation.

Simple answer - our physical laws apply only to the universe as it exists today. Under our current theories, the very early universe (we're talking femtoseconds) operated under somewhat different rules.

Oh, and as a fellow Agnostic, I've read the bible. You're not missing much.

I could give a scientific answer to your first question, but I'll leave it to an atheist.

As for the second question: I'm not sure. The details of the Second Coming aren't as set-in-stone as a lot of Christians would like to believe. It's probably one of the most disputed doctrines in all of Christian theology. That said, I think we're just supposed to know...a true Christian would be able to discern the real Messiah from an impostor, or something like that. I don't really know.

so the only thing keeping you potentially in the theist camp is the possibilty that the universe has an intelligent creator?

its an interesting question but , as always, im left with the question of "so what?"

what if there WAS an intelligent creator to the universe? does that mean anything about how you will live your life? does it mean that anyone has ever had any true understanding about the who what why where when and how of the creation of the universe?

if there is a "god" and he takes no notice of us and expects nothing of us, what difference does his existance make to us? its of no more importance than the concept of the big bang, interesting but ....who do you think will win survivior this year?

And more importantly, how do we explain the perfections of life on earth? The exact angle of a water molecule, the exact location of the earth in relevance to the sun? Is this all merely an accident of nature?

Reading you a bit more closely...

Why do you descirbe these things are perfect? They are as they are, because if they weren't they would be different. The earth is a convenient distance from the sun because life arose on it. If life hadn't arisen on it, we wouldn't be asking such a question.

Think about it. If life requires specific circumstances to arise, isn't it vastly more likely that a planet with life satisfies those criteria?

And doesn't the same apply to the universe? If you consider all possible universes, aren't the ones that contain life going to be the ones constructed such that they are conducive to life?

Have you read at all about Brane Theory? Goggleit, as to the second coming, *sigh* why is it that when people start talking about God it is always the Christian concept? You can't learn until you look at all sides, and why need a messiah, or anybody for that matter to interced with God on your behalf?

Religion should be a highly personal quest to find God. Be selfish about it, after all we are talking about the future YOUR imortal soul, not mine, not anybody elses, damn me but why be religous if YOU don't want to be saved?

Sorry sorry, rant rant hahahahah:eek:

One question of particular interest I have on my mind I deliver unto the atheists: One of the cardinal rules of science is that "Energy cannot be created or destroyed". Now I do not profess to hold any understanding of astrophysics, (or physics in general) but if this statement is true, how did we come to be? What employed the origin of the universe? If energy cannot be created, how did the universe begin? Has it always been? I doubt it, not since everything else (life, planets, stars and galaxies) has a origin and a demise. What set off the universe? And more importantly, how do we explain the perfections of life on earth? The exact angle of a water molecule, the exact location of the earth in relevance to the sun? Is this all merely an accident of nature?
Simply answer: to this date, that is unknown. 'Science' has found no answer, and speculation and theories (such as the Big Bang) explain how, but few can address why. However, to use such an uncertainty as support for a theistic belief is fallacious, most obviously because: if everything needs a creator, and if God (or Allah, or whoever) created the universe, who created him? If everything does not need a creator, then there is no need to imagine a god.

Your question about the perfection of our world cannot be used either. If these conditions were different, life might be different. There is nothing to compare.

so the only thing keeping you potentially in the theist camp is the possibilty that the universe has an intelligent creator?

its an interesting question but , as always, im left with the question of "so what?"

what if there WAS an intelligent creator to the universe? does that mean anything about how you will live your life? does it mean that anyone has ever had any true understanding about the who what why where when and how of the creation of the universe?

if there is a "god" and he takes no notice of us and expects nothing of us, what difference does his existance make to us? its of no more importance than the concept of the big bang, interesting but ....who do you think will win survivior this year?

The basis of most religions is the belief that God is NOT like this, obviously.

Both those who claim and who deny the existence of God make claims that are ultimately unsupportable.

My present view as a agnostic isn't actually one as a fence-sitter as I make a statement: Were God to exist, he has shown no interest in the lives, ideas, and works of man, therefore definitive statements on the existence of God are pointless, therefore the best method is to not ponder the issue at all.

so the only thing keeping you potentially in the theist camp is the possibilty that the universe has an intelligent creator?

its an interesting question but , as always, im left with the question of "so what?"

what if there WAS an intelligent creator to the universe? does that mean anything about how you will live your life? does it mean that anyone has ever had any true understanding about the who what why where when and how of the creation of the universe?

if there is a "god" and he takes no notice of us and expects nothing of us, what difference does his existance make to us? its of no more importance than the concept of the big bang, interesting but ....who do you think will win survivior this year?

To be fair, I would suffice that religion and theism are two different establishments. To me, thiesm is beleif in an intelligent creator. Religion is a personification and reverance to that creator. I beleive the line is blurred between the two. You can beleive in a God, but need not worship him.

To Lelwdor: With all the things that help to establish life on earth, does it not seem as if they are all beyond the realm of simple coincidence?

Not all religions are theistic, either.

Not all religions are theistic, either.

Undoubtedly true. I mean not to exclude the religions without a deity. But the fact of the matter is, theism and religious theism are two different subjects. At least in my book.

By the way, I use the Christian concept of religion solely because Christianity and Athiesm seem to be the natural yin and yang around here. Again, I do not mean to exclude the other religions; just as a matter of debate.

To be fair, I would suffice that religion and theism are two different establishments. To me, thiesm is beleif in an intelligent creator. Religion is a personification and reverance to that creator. I beleive the line is blurred between the two. You can beleive in a God, but need not worship him.

To Lelwdor: With all the things that help to establish life on earth, does it not seem as if they are all beyond the realm of simple coincidence?
so to acknowlege that there was some intellegence behind the big bang that happened billions of years ago makes a difference because....

im saying that on a practical level having an intelligence behind the big bang and having it be a happy accident are the same.

IF there is an ulitimate creator, he wants nothing of us.

To be fair, I would suffice that religion and theism are two different establishments. To me, thiesm is beleif in an intelligent creator. Religion is a personification and reverance to that creator. I beleive the line is blurred between the two. You can beleive in a God, but need not worship him.
[QUOTE]

Actually, deism is the belief in an intelligent creator, and theism is the belief that that creator takes an active role in our world. Religion is simply a prescribed set of rites and practices, and actually has very little to do with belief.

[QUOTE]To Lelwdor: With all the things that help to establish life on earth, does it not seem as if they are all beyond the realm of simple coincidence?

Not at all. Look to the countless examples of stars which do not appear to be capable of supporting life as we know it. If there were a designer, why make all those 'useless' worlds? Why not make every planet capable of churning out little minions?

The basis of most religions is the belief that God is NOT like this, obviously.
well yes but the OP's question seemed to focus on the ultimate creation of the universe and some problems with the logic of christianity

there being an ultimate creator does not lead you to any particular religious belief and the logical problems of christianity fade away once you are a believer.

so to acknowlege that there was some intellegence behind the big bang that happened billions of years ago makes a difference because....

im saying that on a practical level having an intelligence behind the big bang and having it be a happy accident are the same.

IF there is an ulitimate creator, he wants nothing of us.

According to whom?

According to whom?
Here's your chance, God.

I don't get it.

I don't get it.
Wait for it...

Geez, more of them.

As a fence-sitting agnostic, I do believe that I lack both the wisdom and the convictions strong enough to make persuade myself unto either faction.

One question of particular interest I have on my mind I deliver unto the atheists:

Now, to be fair, a question to the theists:

Both christianity and atheism make claims that are ultimately unsupportable.

My present view as a agnostic isn't actually one as a fence-sitter as I make a statement: Were God to exist, he has shown no interest in the lives, ideas, and works of man, therefore definitive statements on the existence of God are pointless, therefore the best method is to not ponder the issue at all.

What's with the folks that identify themselves as Agnostic these days?

Geez, more of them.




What's with the folks that identify themselves as Agnostic these days?
Logic?

Logic?

*sigh* Most people that identify themselves as Agnostic. The ones with a skewed view of what Atheist means, and that think they're above everyone by being Agnostic.

*sigh* Most people that identify themselves as Agnostic. The ones with a skewed view of what Atheist means, and that think they're above everyone by being Agnostic.
I don't think I'm better. I'm on the defensive about the subject.

I don't think I'm better. I'm on the defensive about the subject.

The ones I quoted, more specifically.

What's with the folks that identify themselves as Agnostic these days?
Uh-oh, do I sense that the chart is about to make another appearence? :p

Uh-oh, do I sense that the chart is about to make another appearence? :p

Nah, I need to fix it up a bit. I'll just have to stick with Wiki if it becomes necessary.

*sigh* Most people that identify themselves as Agnostic. The ones with a skewed view of what Atheist means, and that think they're above everyone by being Agnostic.

Alright hit me with it, what is the problem?

Alright hit me with it, what is the problem?
Oh dear. The can has been opened and the worms are escaping.

I think I'll just watch this time...

Oh dear. The can has been opened and the worms are escaping.

I think I'll just watch this time...

I will gladly refer to another thread to save this particular thread from a hijack.

I will gladly refer to another thread to save this particular thread from a hijack.
The thread I'm thinking of has long since died, I'm afraid. It was a few weeks ago, and had about 2,000 posts by the time the mods closed it.

Drat.

Well when what's his name posts a reply, I will either accept his reasoning or start a new thread.

Alright hit me with it, what is the problem?

Well, chances are that you're atheist too, considering you probably don't believe in a god, but I believe the most telling with you is how much meaning you put with the term Atheist. Atheism makes no claims other than not being Theism. You basically sound like "both sides are stupid, but I'm smart". The other guy, pretty much seems to look down on Christians and "Atheists" rather contemptuously. Obviously I can't hear him say it, but the tone and voice of his post seem to be those of superiority.

Drat.

Well when what's his name posts a reply, I will either accept his reasoning or start a new thread.

Woohoo! Another thread I've influenced into creation! Assuming it happens...It'd be like an assist. ^_^

The ones I quoted, more specifically.
I'm agnostic and I don't lean towards theism or athiesm.

I'm agnostic and I don't lean towards theism or athiesm.

There's no "lean" room in Theism/Atheism. It's essentially a dichotomy. B or not B. Theist or Not Theist. Agnostic is a different kind of philosophy, unrelated to Theism and Atheism.

Well, chances are that you're atheist too, considering you probably don't believe in a god, but I believe the most telling with you is how much meaning you put with the term Atheist. Atheism makes no claims other than not being Theism. You basically sound like "both sides are stupid, but I'm smart". The other guy, pretty much seems to look down on Christians and "Atheists" rather contemptuously. Obviously I can't hear him say it, but the tone and voice of his post seem to be those of superiority.

I defined atheists as denying God, not simply non-belief in God.

By your definition all agnostics are atheists and there is absolutely no need for the term. Because of this, I think that most self-described agnostics you run into will go by the definition I used, otherwise they would be calling themselves atheists.

But by your definition of atheist, I have no disagreement with you.

I'm agnostic and I don't lean towards theism or athiesm.

Thats the way I look at it. I say the whole argument is pointless, but by saying that I am automatically shuffled into Dinaverg's definition of atheist.


Also, I think we may need a mod separation at this point.

I defined atheists as denying God, not simply non-belief in God.

By your definition all agnostics are atheists and there is absolutely no need for the term. Because of this, I think that most self-described agnostics you run into will go by the definition I used, otherwise they would be calling themselves atheists.

But by your definition of atheist, I have no disagreement with you.

I don't think all agnostics are atheists, although only the atheistic ones tend to refer to themselves as agnostic, while theistic will refer to themselves by their beliefs. Chances are "self-described agnostics" are Agnostic Atheists. But I don't have a problem with them refering to themselves as Agnostic, of the two, that's probably the part more important to them anyways. It's when they begin to feel separate and above that bothers me.

There's no "lean" room in Theism/Atheism. It's essentially a dichotomy. B or not B. Theist or Not Theist. Agnostic is a different kind of philosophy, unrelated to Theism and Atheism.
The logic expressed here is undeniable. *nods*

Thats the way I look at it. I say the whole argument is pointless, but by saying that I am automatically shuffled into Dinaverg's definition of atheist.


Also, I think we may need a mod separation at this point.

Yeah...I'm not saying you're not agnostic, I'm saying you're as atheistic as I am, you just don't see it as the more important part. Which I'm totally okay with, you're just not above anyone, based on that.

The actual definition of "agnostic" is - somebody who believes that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists.
Obviously, this is different from an atheist (somebody who believes that there is no God). I think some trouble comes from confusion in terms. People who do not believe in a god can be placed in three general categories.
The Strong Atheist says it has been proven that God does not exist.
The Weak Atheist says there is no proof that God does exist.
The Agnostic says that no one can know whether or not God exists.

The actual definition of "agnostic" is - somebody who believes that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists.
Obviously, this is different from an antheist (somebody who believes that there is no God). I think some trouble comes from confusion in terms. People who do not believe in a god can be placed in three general categories.
The Strong Atheist says it has been proven that God does not exist.
The Weak Atheist[b] says there is no proof that God does exist.
The [b]Agnostic says that no one can know whether or not God exists.
It's true. It's in green.

*Nods*

I don't think all agnostics are atheists, although only the atheistic ones tend to refer to themselves as agnostic, while theistic will refer to themselves by their beliefs. Chances are "self-described agnostics" are Agnostic Atheists. But I don't have a problem with them refering to themselves as Agnostic, of the two, that's probably the part more important to them anyways. It's when they begin to feel separate and above that bothers me.

You are correct, agnosticism is a epistemological statement, not a religious one.

I editted my first post.

People can believe in God and still claim that it's impossible to know for a fact that He exists.

The actual definition of "agnostic" is - somebody who believes that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists.
Obviously, this is different from an atheist (somebody who believes that there is no God). I think some trouble comes from confusion in terms. People who do not believe in a god can be placed in three general categories.
The Strong Atheist says it has been proven that God does not exist.
The Weak Atheist says there is no proof that God does exist.
The Agnostic says that no one can know whether or not God exists.

To dinaverg, these definitions show that agnostics must by their definition be weak atheists.

If they say it is impossible to know of God's existence, they must also say that there is no proof of God's existence.

[COLO]The actual definition of "agnostic" is - somebody who believes that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists.
Obviously, this is different from an antheist (somebody who believes that there is no God). I think some trouble comes from confusion in terms. People who do not believe in a god can be placed in three general categories.
The Strong Atheist says it has been proven that God does not exist.
The Weak Atheist[b] says there is no proof that God does exist.
The [b]Agnostic says that no one can know whether or not God exists.[/COLOR]

The "Strong Atheist" is what a lot of self-proclaimed agnostics consider the only kind of Atheist; the one who actively believes ther is no god. The "Weak Atheist" is just as much an Atheist, and is simply one who does not believe in a god, for whatever reason. Both of these people can be an agnostic, which attests to the unknowability of a god.

To Lelwdor: With all the things that help to establish life on earth, does it not seem as if they are all beyond the realm of simple coincidence?

Not at all.

If you were to choose a specific planet and ask, "What are the odds that THIS planet will satisfy all of the conditions to support life?" then those odds would be extremely long, yes.

But we're not doing that. We're looking at billions of planets and asking whether its likely that even one of them satisfies those conditions. If just one planet does, then it's guaranteed to be the one we're on, because we're the living thing.

*sigh* Most people that identify themselves as Agnostic. The ones with a skewed view of what Atheist means,

I used to proclaim myself an atheist before I completely explained my beliefs on a forum that we cannot know whether or not there's a god, all the while proclaiming myself an atheist, until someone corrected me and told me I'm an agnostic.

and that think they're above everyone by being Agnostic.

Umm... excuse me? I could get some quotes... there are millions of quotes out there, but EVERYONE thinks they're above everyone the way you're taking it. Religious people think they're above everyone since they're going to heaven and others are going to hell. Atheists think they're above everyone since they're smart and the others are blind followers.

People think they're above everyone simply because they have an opinion which does not coalesce with others, especially when they're very strong in their opinion, they can get it in their minds that they're better than the other person.


Well, chances are that you're atheist too, considering you probably don't believe in a god, but I believe the most telling with you is how much meaning you put with the term Atheist. Atheism makes no claims other than not being Theism.

That is the weakness in the term "atheist". To me an atheist would be someone who openly claims that there's no god. It should not be simply lack of belief, because it would then be difficult to differentiate between atheist and agnostic.

You basically sound like "both sides are stupid, but I'm smart".

As opposed to "religion is stupid, smart people don't believe in fairy tales" or "atheists will burn in hell for they reject God". You are taking one of the sides in this debate and placing an immature, moronic debater to represent it. An agnostic would not say "both sides are stupid, but I'm smart", but an immature, moronic agnostic might.

The other guy, pretty much seems to look down on Christians and "Atheists" rather contemptuously.

Once again, I ask you, how is this hating agnostic any different from a hating religious zealot or a hating atheist cynic? Do not take a few debaters and extrapolate to find out what the whole "X" is like.

Obviously I can't hear him say it, but the tone and voice of his post seem to be those of superiority.

You seem to lack the belief (ha-ha-ha) the agnosticism is a true position on this. Agnosticism is the belief that we can't know whether or not there is a god.

"Neither of you can assert anything on this issue. In fact, no-one can say anything about this issue since they have no idea about whether or not is a god. We can't know that, and any discussion on it is therefore pointless."

To dinaverg, these definitions show that agnostics must by their definition be weak atheists.

If they say it is impossible to know of God's existence, they must also say that there is no proof of God's existence.

However, I don't go by those definitions, *points up*. And realize you can believe without thinking you can know.

LoL...it's "impossible to know for a fact" that anything exists. All you can ever do is attempt to prove something beyond reasonable doubt...and after that, one must have faith. Faith in "logic" and "common sense" and "personal experience".
((therefore, you can never prove to me what I do not believe:p ))

The Agnostic says that no one can know whether or not God exists.

I'm going to argue that. An agnostic claims not to have knowledge on the subject. That would preclude him being confident that other people don't (or can't) have knowledge. I would assert that an Agnostic is simply someone who says that he doesn't know whether God exists, and leaves it at that. Your definition would cover a subset of those people.

Global sceptics must be agnostics.

That said, Dinaverg's Athiest definition is excellent. It is the negation of Theist.

I don't think all agnostics are atheists, although only the atheistic ones tend to refer to themselves as agnostic, while theistic will refer to themselves by their beliefs. Chances are "self-described agnostics" are Agnostic Atheists. But I don't have a problem with them refering to themselves as Agnostic, of the two, that's probably the part more important to them anyways. It's when they begin to feel separate and above that bothers me.
Seperate but equal :).

An agnostic claims not to have knowledge on the subject. That would preclude him being confident that other people don't (or can't) have knowledge.
I was just giving the "correct" dictionary definition...
The word agnostic means what I've stated. How it is used, however, is much more important. But, we can assume that anyone who claims not to have knowledge about something either 1) believes such knowledge cannot be found, or 2) cannot be bothered to find it. Agnostics would much rather be known as the former, is it not so?

I'm going to argue that. An agnostic claims not to have knowledge on the subject. That would preclude him being confident that other people don't (or can't) have knowledge. I would assert that an Agnostic is simply someone who says that he doesn't know whether God exists, and leaves it at that. Your definition would cover a subset of those people.

Global sceptics must be agnostics.

That said, Dinaverg's Athiest definition is excellent. It is the negation of Theist.

It's both. Dictionaries define agnostics as EITHER "I don't know if there is a god or not" OR "No-one can know whether there's a god or not".

I used to proclaim myself an atheist before I completely explained my beliefs on a forum that we cannot know whether or not there's a god, all the while proclaiming myself an atheist, until someone corrected me and told me I'm an agnostic.

By that sentence, yeah you're an Agnostic. Doesn't mean you can't be Atheist,

Umm... excuse me? I could get some quotes... there are millions of quotes out there, but EVERYONE thinks they're above everyone the way you're taking it. Religious people think they're above everyone since they're going to heaven and others are going to hell. Atheists think they're above everyone since they're smart and the others are blind followers.

*shrug* True. but, I leave that to them to deal with. I'm simply saying that those who think they abstain from and rise above the Theist/Atheist thing by being Agnostic, don't.

People think they're above everyone simply because they have an opinion which does not coalesce with others, especially when they're very strong in their opinion, they can get it in their minds that they're better than the other person.

And chances are they're no better a person, like some self-proclaimed agnostic.

That is the weakness in the term "atheist". To me an atheist would be someone who openly claims that there's no god. It should not be simply lack of belief, because it would then be difficult to differentiate between atheist and agnostic.

It's not really, considering there's not much need to distingush between the two. Atheism is that which is not Theism. Agnostic is a seperate type of philosophy, which can be held along with Theism and Atheism, and do nothing to affect the beliefs or lack thereof.

As opposed to "religion is stupid, smart people don't believe in fairy tales" or "atheists will burn in hell for they reject God". You are taking one of the sides in this debate and placing an immature, moronic debater to represent it. An agnostic would not say "both sides are stupid, but I'm smart", but an immature, moronic agnostic might.

Have ever suggested either "religion is stupid, smart people don't believe in fairy tales" or "atheists will burn in hell for they reject God" are any better? and I'm refering to specifically the two agnostics I quoted that implied such a statment.



Once again, I ask you, how is this hating agnostic any different from a hating religious zealot or a hating atheist cynic? Do not take a few debaters and extrapolate to find out what the whole "X" is like.

They aren't, and I've said nothing to suggest they were. I've simply noticed a lot of self-proclained agnostics implying similar veiw recently.

You seem to lack the belief (ha-ha-ha) the agnosticism is a true position on this. Agnosticism is the belief that we can't know whether or not there is a god.

I like to think I understand what it means, and that sounds about right. Agnosticism is a position on the knowability of a god. Theism/Atheism is a position on your belief or lack thereof in a god.

I believe in all things that are real. I don't know where that leaves God in my belief system because She won't answer my calls even though many people seem to have Her phone number.

Basically, if I believe in all things which are real, do I or do I not believe in God?

However, I don't go by those definitions, *points up*. And realize you can believe without thinking you can know.

The "Strong Atheist" is what a lot of self-proclaimed agnostics consider the only kind of Atheist; the one who actively believes ther is no god. The "Weak Atheist" is just as much an Atheist, and is simply one who does not believe in a god, for whatever reason. Both of these people can be an agnostic, which attests to the unknowability of a god.

An agnostic cannot "actively believe there is no god", as an agnostic must deny that any evidence can point in either direction. An agnostic MUST be ambivelent to the existence of god and all evidence of his existence or none existence.

They cannot form any belief on the subject.

EDIT: Perhaps my definition of agnostic is too restrictive as well.

LoL...it's "impossible to know for a fact" that anything exists. All you can ever do is attempt to prove something beyond reasonable doubt...and after that, one must have faith. Faith in "logic" and "common sense" and "personal experience".
((therefore, you can never prove to me what I do not believe:p ))

Yeah, cept for maths, you can't prove much of anything. I could ask you, and hope you tell the truth, but I'd be sure about my question first...What does this post respond to again?

An agnostic cannot "actively believe there is no god", as an agnostic must deny that any evidence can point in either direction. An agnostic MUST be ambivelent to the existence of god and all evidence of his existence or none existence.

They cannot form any belief on the subject.

Not true.
Agnosticism is distinct from, but compatible with, atheism. It is also compatible with theism. This is because agnosticism is a view about knowledge concerning God, whereas theism and atheism are beliefs (or lack thereof) concerning God. For example, it is possible to believe in God but to believe that knowledge about God is not obtainable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
Don't like Wiki? There's an External Links section for you at the bottom.

LoL...define "real".
*Hits you over the head with a rock* Now that rock is in your mind, Kemosabe.

I believe in all things that are real. I don't know where that leaves God in my belief system because She won't answer my calls even though many people seem to have Her phone number.

Basically, if I believe in all things which are real, do I or do I not believe in God?

Well...Let's see...Yanno. I must go with Mr. Green on this one. What do you define as real?

*rubs head* Owie...okay, so, real as in it can be experienced through the senses. What about...loyalty? Or freedom?

In reply to Dinaverg:

I understand where you're coming from then.

I am definitely an agnostic.

As to either theist or atheist, I am (controversy!) neither. I'm not sure and think of both as theories. I neither think that there is no god, nor think that there is a god. I can imagine the universe with both possibilities, and I frequently do. You're giving me a question that I cannot answer. I can't answer yes (theist) or no (atheist), since I do not know.

Well...Let's see...Yanno. I must go with Mr. Green on this one. What do you define as real?
One thing I would define as real is something that looks like a chair and behaves like one when I put my ass on it.

One thing I would define as real is something that looks like a chair and behaves like one when I put my ass on it.
How do you know how a chair ought to behave? By this standard, the only things that are real are those that match your imagination of how things should be.

One thing I would define as real is something that looks like a chair and behaves like one when I put my ass on it.
I was expecting an explanation and not an example.
Anyhow, what behaves like a chair? Rocks, stumps or wooden boxes?

In reply to Dinaverg:

I understand where you're coming from then.

I am definitely an agnostic.

As to either theist or atheist, I am (controversy!) neither. I'm not sure and think of both as theories. I neither think that there is no god, nor think that there is a god. I can imagine the universe with both possibilities, and I frequently do. You're giving me a question that I cannot answer. I can't answer yes (theist) or no (atheist), since I do not know.

Except for the part where Atheism is generally any answer other than "yes", considering "yes" would equate to Theism. DM is a little vexing however, but I'll think of something, gimme a moment....

I was expecting an explanation and not an example.
Anyhow, what behaves like a chair? Rocks, stumps or wooden boxes?
All the above. I put my ass on lots of things.

How do you know how a chair ought to behave? By this standard, the only things that are real are those that match your imagination of how things should be.
Sometimes, my imagination is wrong. Like that time those kids sawed a 2/3 of that chair leg. But that chair acted exactly like a broken chair should.

One question of particular interest I have on my mind I deliver unto the atheists: One of the cardinal rules of science is that "Energy cannot be created or destroyed". Now I do not profess to hold any understanding of astrophysics, (or physics in general) but if this statement is true, how did we come to be? What employed the origin of the universe? If energy cannot be created, how did the universe begin? Has it always been? I doubt it, not since everything else (life, planets, stars and galaxies) has a origin and a demise. What set off the universe? And more importantly, how do we explain the perfections of life on earth? The exact angle of a water molecule, the exact location of the earth in relevance to the sun? Is this all merely an accident of nature?

It's my layman's impression that the laws of thermodynamics and other laws of the universe don't apply in this case. Time began at the instant of the big bang. There was no time "before" the big bang, therefore there was no time when the matter/energy that expanded to become the universe didn't exist

What set it off? We don't know for sure. Fluctuations in the quantum field produce particle/antiparticle pairs that mutually destroy each other in tiny fractions of a second. Perhaps the universe is just a massive quantum fluctuation. Perhaps there is another explanation. For now we've got to settle for "We don't know".

Conditions for life on earth are not perfect. They seem well suited to life as we know it becasue life evolved to make use of those conditions. The earth wasn't shaped to fit life, life shaped itself through evolution to fit the earth. Also if you consider how many planets exist in the universe it's statistically very likely that at least a few will be conducive to life as we know it.

All the above. I put my ass on lots of things.
If you can sit on something, then it is real. Your reality lacks the ability to express the nature of God.
All in all, I slate you under a weird Plato-like philosophy.

If you can sit on something, then it is real. Your reality lacks the ability to express the nature of God.
All in all, I slate you under a weird Plato-like philosophy.
I guess I'm ok with that.

If God manifests, I'll let you know how She feels under the rump.

Not true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
Don't like Wiki? There's an External Links section for you at the bottom.

How does one believe without evidence?

How does one believe without evidence?

*shrug* Don't ask me, it's why I'm an Atheist. Ask someone who believes something.

If God manifests, I'll let you know how She feels under the rump.
The situation is not, "if God manifests". The situtation is, "has God manifested". Is God present in that chair, stone, stump or wooden box that your rump is so pleasantly perched upon?

It's hard to hold my own in this particular argument because of the plethora of material (mostly written by athiests) that is out there against it. I really enjoy learning more about it, though.

The situation is not, "if God manifests". The situtation is, "has God manifested". Is God present in that chair, stone, stump or wooden box that your rump is so pleasantly perched upon?
I don't know. But if this chair talks... it's not God that will be first to come to mind.

I don't know. But if this chair talks... it's not God that will be first to come to mind.
You probably sat on grandma. Remember how you define reality? :)
Anyhow, it is something to ponder.

The question that you pose to Atheists amounts to what is known as the Cosmological argument.

The argument goes as such.

1. Everything has a cause(s).
2. Nothing can cause itself.
3. Therefore, everything is caused by another thing(s).
4. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
5. Therefore, there must be a first cause.

The suggested theist argument is that God is the First Cause and stands outside the universe and therefore does not need a cause.

And as asked for here is the Ateist argument.

1. There is no proof that a causal chain cannot be of infinite length
2. It is not necessarliy proven that everything has to have a cause.
3. If there was an outside First Cause who says it still exists or still interacts with the physical universe

Ok lets get a little technical.

1. What existed before the Big Bang? Stephen Hawking says that is like asking what is north of the North Pole. Did time exist? Was time created by the Big Bang? We do not even have a consistent theory of quantum gravity nor what happened immediately before Planck Time.

2. Modern quantum physics is sometimes interpreted show the validity of this argument (that everything does not need a cause), showing that subatomic particles such as electrons, positrons, and photons, can come into existence, and perish, by virtue of spontaneous energy fluctuations in a vacuum. Though such occurrences do not violate the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy, Bell's theorem shows that these are impossible to predict. Because the "nothingness" from which the subatomic particles arise from a sea of fluctuating vacuum energy, it may be that such processes contradict the assertion that all effects have causes.

3. If ( a Christian)God is still in contact with this universe his publicist is laying down on the job. All we have to prove that he is is an old book that has glaring inconsistencies and errors. The proposed author of this document is supposed to be the creator of the universe but did not know that the Earth does not have four corners and edges(Isa. 11:12, Rev. 7:1), (Job 37:3), the Earth does not rest on pillars and can be moved, (1 Sam. 2:8), (1Chron. 16:30).

One question of particular interest I have on my mind I deliver unto the atheists: One of the cardinal rules of science is that "Energy cannot be created or destroyed". Now I do not profess to hold any understanding of astrophysics, (or physics in general) but if this statement is true, how did we come to be? What employed the origin of the universe? If energy cannot be created, how did the universe begin? Has it always been? I doubt it, not since everything else (life, planets, stars and galaxies) has a origin and a demise. What set off the universe? And more importantly, how do we explain the perfections of life on earth? The exact angle of a water molecule, the exact location of the earth in relevance to the sun? Is this all merely an accident of nature?

The scientific answer is that matter and energy can not be created nor destroyed (not QUITE true...the proper restatement would be that the sum total of matter and energy throughout the universe can not be altered...some theoretical physics suggests that energy can be created, along with a corresponding value of "negative" energy). Therefore, the amount of matter/energy in the universe has been constant, and never changed. How the universe came to be is not a violation of those rules, because universal laws of physics play no part prior to the creation of the universe. In other words, the creation of the universe does not violate any universal rules because prior to its creation there was no universe, and thus no universal rules to violate.

*shrug* Don't ask me, it's why I'm an Atheist. Ask someone who believes something.

This refers to agnostics who claim that there is no god as well.

If you are an agnostic (at least my type of agnostic), you must claim that no person can take any empirical evidence and interpret it to imply the existence or non-existence of a god.

An agnostic cannot claim any belief in the existence or non-existence of god, whatsoever, as their epistemological statement precludes it.

In reply to Dinaverg:

I understand where you're coming from then.

I am definitely an agnostic.

As to either theist or atheist, I am (controversy!) neither. I'm not sure and think of both as theories. I neither think that there is no god, nor think that there is a god. I can imagine the universe with both possibilities, and I frequently do. You're giving me a question that I cannot answer. I can't answer yes (theist) or no (atheist), since I do not know.

Law of Excluded Middle. You can't be neither.

You said yourself, you do not think that there is a God. In answer to the question "Do you believe in God?", you say no. Whether you're confident that there isn't a God is irrelevant. As long as you don't believe, you're an Athiest.

You probably sat on grandma. Remember how you define reality? :)
Anyhow, it is something to ponder.
That's what it's all about. Pondering 'pon whatnot.

The suggested theist argument is that God is the First Cause and stands outside the universe and therefore does not need a cause.



But science can give an equal answer outside god. These rules about cause and effect are universal for this universe. The events that lead to the foundation of this universe obviously existed before, and outside the universe, and thus those rules do not apply. Yet these were simply pr-universe governing rules, which need not in any way reflect rules in this universe, absent any sentience or presence that would require "god".

In other words, it is true in this universe that nothing happens without action, however prior to the universe it may well be true that something (the birth of the universe) can happen before nothing. In fact given the idea of time before time would be both infinite and non existance, something must happen given that everything, and nothing, happens all at once.

Law of Excluded Middle. You can't be neither.

You said yourself, you do not think that there is a God. In answer to the question "Do you believe in God?", you say no. Whether you're confident that there isn't a God is irrelevant. As long as you don't believe, you're an Athiest.

That is not how the definition of the word is used.

Those who have a belief in a god or god is a theist.

Those who have a belief in no god is atheist

Those that can not claim a belief one way or the other are agnostic.

To say claim the "law of excluded middle" is incorrect, it is saying you either hold a pen with your right hand, or your left, you can't be both. This fails to assume the possibility I have no hands.

To say you either are a theist or an atheist presumes you must believe in something, rather than a lack of belief one way or the other.

This refers to agnostics who claim that there is no god as well.

If you are an agnostic (at least my type of agnostic), you must claim that no person can take any empirical evidence and interpret it to imply the existence or non-existence of a god.

An agnostic cannot claim any belief in the existence or non-existence of god, whatsoever, as their epistemological statement precludes it.

Not really...An Agnostic would consider it for some reason unknowable. they don't have to reject evidence pertaining to it. The only thing an agnostic can't really do is prove or disprove a god, or claim to understand it.

The question that you pose to Atheists amounts to what is known as the Cosmological argument.

The argument goes as such.

1. Everything has a cause(s).
2. Nothing can cause itself.
3. Therefore, everything is caused by another thing(s).
4. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
5. Therefore, there must be a first cause.

The suggested theist argument is that God is the First Cause and stands outside the universe and therefore does not need a cause.

And as asked for here is the Ateist argument.

1. There is no proof that a causal chain cannot be of infinite length
2. It is not necessarliy proven that everything has to have a cause.
3. If there was an outside First Cause who says it still exists or still interacts with the physical universe

Ok lets get a little technical.

1. What existed before the Big Bang? Stephen Hawking says that is like asking what is north of the North Pole. Did time exist? Was time created by the Big Bang? We do not even have a consistent theory of quantum gravity nor what happened immediately before Planck Time.

2. Modern quantum physics is sometimes interpreted show the validity of this argument (that everything does not need a cause), showing that subatomic particles such as electrons, positrons, and photons, can come into existence, and perish, by virtue of spontaneous energy fluctuations in a vacuum. Though such occurrences do not violate the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy, Bell's theorem shows that these are impossible to predict. Because the "nothingness" from which the subatomic particles arise from a sea of fluctuating vacuum energy, it may be that such processes contradict the assertion that all effects have causes.

3. If ( a Christian)God is still in contact with this universe his publicist is laying down on the job. All we have to prove that he is is an old book that has glaring inconsistencies and errors. The proposed author of this document is supposed to be the creator of the universe but did not know that the Earth does not have four corners and edges(Isa. 11:12, Rev. 7:1), (Job 37:3), the Earth does not rest on pillars and can be moved, (1 Sam. 2:8), (1Chron. 16:30).

The Athiests make a much stronger case, there.

I would also expect them to question the validity of Theistic point #2, that nothing can cause itself. Also, the entire group of Theistic points assumes linear time.

3. If ( a Christian)God is still in contact with this universe his publicist is laying down on the job. All we have to prove that he is is an old book that has glaring inconsistencies and errors. The proposed author of this document is supposed to be the creator of the universe but did not know that the Earth does not have four corners and edges(Isa. 11:12, Rev. 7:1), (Job 37:3), the Earth does not rest on pillars and can be moved, (1 Sam. 2:8), (1Chron. 16:30).

That's kinda missing the point. To a Christian, God's interaction and input in our day-to-day lives seems evidence enough. Not all Christians believe in the infallibility of the Bible, or that God is its author, by the way.

VO2, why can't somebody believe something without knowing it? I believe my next visit to Taco Bell will yield delicious results, and I have evidence to justify this belief, but I would not claim to know it for a fact (they could forget to put baja sauce on my gordita).

That is not how the definition of the word is used.

Those who have a belief in a god or god is a theist.

Those who have a belief in no god is atheist

Ehhhh...No. Those who are not Theist are Atheist. You can hold the pen in your right hand, or you can not hold it in your right hand.

That is not how the definition of the word is used.

That's not particularly relevant.

Those who have a belief in a god or god is a theist.

Those who have a belief in no god is atheist

Those that can not claim a belief one way or the other are agnostic.

All three statement are correct.

And yet, they do nothing to advance your point.

Dinaverg - I think you need to link to your chart, again.

To say claim the "law of excluded middle" is incorrect, it is saying you either hold a pen with your right hand, or your left, you can't be both. This fails to assume the possibility I have no hands.

You're misrepresenting my point. The law of exlcuded middle applies if we say that you are either holding the pen in your left hand, or you are not holding the pen in your left hand. Whether you have a pen in your right hand, or even have hands at all, is irrelevant. Either you have a pen in your left hand, or you don't. There's no middle ground.

All three statement are correct.

And yet, they do nothing to advance your point.

Dinaverg - I think you need to link to your chart, again.

Actually, I disagree with the second two...and as to the chart, I'd rather not...It was done in like, 30 seconds, could use some straightening, and I need to replace some of the wording...

Law of Excluded Middle. You can't be neither.

You said yourself, you do not think that there is a God. In answer to the question "Do you believe in God?", you say no. Whether you're confident that there isn't a God is irrelevant. As long as you don't believe, you're an Athiest.

The fact that there is no middle ground doesn't mean that you can't be neither. It is quite simple that the categories don't apply.

According to whom?
according to all evidence.

one might be able to come up with a bit of inductive proof of an ultimate intelligent creator but there is no evidence that any religion on earth represents that being in any way.

Not really...An Agnostic would consider it for some reason unknowable. they don't have to reject evidence pertaining to it. The only thing an agnostic can't really do is prove or disprove a god, or claim to understand it.

If you claim that you can't understand god, you also must claim that you can't understand how something can imply god.

For me to show that tire tracks are evidence of the existence of a car, I must have some understanding of what the concept of a car actually is. If the concept of "car" is not understandable, then those tire tracks are meaningless.

The fact that there is no middle ground doesn't mean that you can't be either. It is quite simple that the categories don't apply.

Are you wearing a hat?

It's a yes/no question, and there's no middle ground. Works the same way.

Unless you're gong to argue that someone might be unaware of whether he believes in God.

The fact that there is no middle ground doesn't mean that you can't be either. It is quite simple that the categories don't apply.

A dichotomy is any splitting of a whole into exactly two non-overlapping parts.

In other words, it is a mutually exclusive bipartition of elements. i.e. nothing can belong simultaneously to both parts, and everything must belong to one part or the other. They are often contrasting and spoken of as "opposites." The term comes from dichotomos (divided): dich- ([in] two) temnein (to cut).

* The above applies directly when the term is used in mathematics, philosophy or linguistics. For example, if there is a concept A, and it is split into parts B and not-B, then the parts form a dichotomy: they are mutually exclusive, since no part of B is contained in not-B and vice-versa, and they are jointly exhaustive, since they cover all of A, and together again give A.

I'm not totally sure if I needed to say this to you in paticular, but I feel it can be useful later on, so you're my excuse for posting it.

VO, agnostics still understand things ABOUT God even if they don't purport to understand Him fully. I can recognize tire tracks while admitting that I don't know what kind of car it is and that they could actually be from a fleet of motorcycles anyway.

If you claim that you can't understand god, you also must claim that you can't understand how something can imply god.

For me to show that tire tracks are evidence of the existence of a car, I must have some understanding of what the concept of a car actually is. If the concept of "car" is not understandable, then those tire tracks are meaningless.

By not understand I mean something along the lines of the common Christian statment "his methods are unfathomable"...

...wait, let's back up a bit.

Agnosticism is the belief that a god or gods are for some reason unknowable, right?

Actually, I disagree with the second two...and as to the chart, I'd rather not...It was done in like, 30 seconds, could use some straightening, and I need to replace some of the wording...

But...

The second sentence was:

"Those who have a belief in no god is atheist"

I don't see how you describe those people as anything but athiests.

The third sentence was:

"Those that can not claim a belief one way or the other are agnostic."

And those people would be Agnostics.

Agnostic and Atheism are certainly broader categories than that, but in both cases the people described were properly labelled.

But science can give an equal answer outside god. These rules about cause and effect are universal for this universe. The events that lead to the foundation of this universe obviously existed before, and outside the universe, and thus those rules do not apply. Yet these were simply pr-universe governing rules, which need not in any way reflect rules in this universe, absent any sentience or presence that would require "god".

In other words, it is true in this universe that nothing happens without action, however prior to the universe it may well be true that something (the birth of the universe) can happen before nothing. In fact given the idea of time before time would be both infinite and non existance, something must happen given that everything, and nothing, happens all at once.

But we are not at all certain that cause and effect are universal. We do not know what existed before the Big Bang or what Laws applied.

And yes maybe time is just here to keep everything from happening all at once. ;)

Saladsylvania there is as much evidence that God has absolutely no part in the day to day events in the lives of anybody. Especially considering the proposed attributes of God which are Omnibenevolence, Ominscience, and Omnipotence and the question of Evil. In other words if he is all of those things why ain't he doin something about all the things going on in the world. And don't throw "free will" at me because if God is the "First Cause" and Omniscient then he knew exactly what was going to happen and every choice that I would make before he created the universe. Where is the free will?

But...

The second sentence was:

"Those who have a belief in no god is atheist"

I don't see how you describe those people as anything but athiests.

The third sentence was:

"Those that can not claim a belief one way or the other are agnostic."

And those people would be Agnostics.

Agnostic and Atheism are certainly broader categories than that, but in both cases the people described were properly labelled.

True, the second would not be the only atheists. The third however, would be Atheists along with Agnostic. And looking at the post as a whole, he obviously intended for Agnostic to be a middle ground between Theist and Atheist.

I've talked about free will extensively on other threads.

Anyway, I don't really have much interest in arguing over whether the evidence points to the existence or non-existence of God.

Are you wearing a hat?

It's a yes/no question, and there's no middle ground. Works the same way.

I don't have a head.

Law of Excluded Middle. You can't be neither.

You said yourself, you do not think that there is a God. In answer to the question "Do you believe in God?", you say no. Whether you're confident that there isn't a God is irrelevant. As long as you don't believe, you're an Athiest.

Is there a blade of grass at coordinates 152.412345123 west, 43.25352523 north?

You are telling me that I can either answer yes or no to the question. I have no idea.

Tell you what, you pick randomly for me, because I don't know.

Is there a God?

I don't know. I don't have enough evidence (and never will) to give you either a yes or a no. However, you are imposing on me that I cannot say anything other than yes or no. Well then choose for me. I have theories for the universe with both, so I can't choose. Flip a coin, better yet.

I've talked about free will extensively on other threads.

Anyway, I don't really have much interest in arguing over whether the evidence points to the existence or non-existence of God.


I am sorry it was not meant as an attack just a way to head off a reply that would have been off target. You implied that you had evidence that God had contact with this universe and I was just trying to point out that there IMHO there is no evidence of this.

With a couple sentances on the end to forestall the next line of the old argument. :)

I don't have enough evidence (and never will)

Pretty presumptuous, isn't it?

I'm not totally sure if I needed to say this to you in paticular, but I feel it can be useful later on, so you're my excuse for posting it.

It only constitutes the whole of people who state a level of belief in God. Agnostics do not fall into that whole.

Now, either you can accept that, or you can accept that an agnostic, by saying "I cannot believe in God," must fall under the atheist category.

I am sorry it was not meant as an attack just a way to head off a reply that would have been off target. You implied that you had evidence that God had contat with this universe and I was just trying to point out that there IMHO there is no evidence of this.



I didn't interpret it as an attack, don't worry. As far as having evidence that God exists...well, yeah, I'd say that I do (it would have been pretty absurd for me to convert to Christianity for no reason), but it's almost entirely based on subjective personal experience and doesn't really belong in a debate. I'm not one of those people who just can't fathom how someone might not believe in God.

I don't have a head.

Then you're not wearing a hat, and the answer is no.

It only constitutes the whole of people who state a level of belief in God. Agnostics do not fall into that whole.

Now, either you can accept that, or you can accept that an agnostic, by saying "I cannot believe in God," must fall under the atheist category.

"I cannot believe in God" is not an agnostic statement.

VO, agnostics still understand things ABOUT God even if they don't purport to understand Him fully. I can recognize tire tracks while admitting that I don't know what kind of car it is and that they could actually be from a fleet of motorcycles anyway.

I do believe that the central agnostic argument is that the human mind is based on natural knowledge, and as such cannot understand that is supernatural.

There is nothing about god that is bound by natural forces or even logic. Therefore an agnostic must state that they know nothing of god.

It only constitutes the whole of people who state a level of belief in God. Agnostics do not fall into that whole.

Now, either you can accept that, or you can accept that an agnostic, by saying "I cannot believe in God," must fall under the atheist category.

That's because agnosticism has nothing to do with your belief (or lack therof) in a god. However, agnostics are still Theist or Athiest. Ask them if they believe in a god. If the answer is "Yes." or some other affirmative, then they are Agnostic Theists. If the answer is something else, they're Agnostic Atheists.

Then you're not wearing a hat, and the answer is no.

At least admit that it would be impossible for me to answer yes.

I do believe that the central agnostic argument is that the human mind is based on natural knowledge, and as such cannot understand that is supernatural.

There is nothing about god that is bound by natural forces or even logic. Therefore an agnostic must state that they know nothing of god.

Agnostic is simply that it's unknowable, not necessarily because of limitations of the human mind, though it is a possible reason.

"I cannot believe in God" is not an agnostic statement.

It is a logical extension of "I cannot understand god," if we make the assumption that belief cannot be created without evidence.

Ehhhh...No. Those who are not Theist are Atheist. You can hold the pen in your right hand, or you can not hold it in your right hand.
But the God pen cannot be seen, felt, heard, has no odor and no taste. Some people say that everyone is holding a God pen and other people say that the God pen doesn't exist.

At least admit that it would be impossible for me to answer yes.

True, it would be. Which is why it's definitely no. (unless you wear hats on your neck, in which case the answer is yes.)

I don't have a head.

That would make the answer no. Unless you're wearing a hat somewhere else.

It is a logical extension of "I cannot understand god," if we make the assumption that belief cannot be created without evidence.

Why do you make that assumption?

That's because agnosticism has nothing to do with your belief (or lack therof) in a god. However, agnostics are still Theist or Athiest. Ask them if they believe in a god. If the answer is "Yes." or some other affirmative, then they are Agnostic Theists. If the answer is something else, they're Agnostic Atheists.

Explain to me how an agnostic can form belief in god, also how he can deny god.

It is a logical extension of "I cannot understand god," if we make the assumption that belief cannot be created without evidence.

For your own benefit, make a list of everything you don't understand but still believe in.

Furthermore, not understanding something does not mean you see no evidence of its existence; it simply means that that you do not know how conclusive that evidence is, or that you don't understand the nature of that thing's existence. If I see a bigass footprint, I might view that as evidence of Bigfoot's existence. I might even choose to adopt a belief in Bigfoot based on that evidence; at the same time, I might still be agnostic about Bigfoot in that I admit that the evidence I see does not prove for a fact that that Bigfoot exists, and that if Bigfoot IS in fact real, I know little about him other than the size of his foot.

At least admit that it would be impossible for me to answer yes.



Only because you have no brain, as you have no head. Or if you do, but still have not head, you may not comprehend the idea of "hat", but that doesn't mean the question cannot be answered.

I don't know. I don't have enough evidence (and never will) to give you either a yes or a no. However, you are imposing on me that I cannot say anything other than yes or no. Well then choose for me. I have theories for the universe with both, so I can't choose. Flip a coin, better yet.

Rather than "yes or no", to make it better understandable, it's more like "yes or other".

Explain to me how an agnostic can form belief in god, also how he can deny god.

*shrug* Because they find a personal reason to believe, or they don't.

Is there a blade of grass at coordinates 152.412345123 west, 43.25352523 north?

You are telling me that I can either answer yes or no to the question. I have no idea.

Tell you what, you pick randomly for me, because I don't know.

Is there a God?

I don't know. I don't have enough evidence (and never will) to give you either a yes or a no. However, you are imposing on me that I cannot say anything other than yes or no. Well then choose for me. I have theories for the universe with both, so I can't choose. Flip a coin, better yet.

But the question isn't "Is there a God?" The question is "Do you believe there is a God?"

You've as much as said that you don't believe there's a blade of grass at those exact coordinates. You have no idea whether there's a blade of grass there. So I'm thinking you don't believe there is.

Which makes the answer No.

Explain to me how an agnostic can form belief in god, also how he can deny god.
Ok, I don't know for certain whether or not my friends are actually sleeper agents for Al Qaeda, but I don't believe that they are. Also I don't know that my food is still in my refrigerator because I'm at work, but I believe that it's still in there.

Cosmological Arguments are at best highly debateable. Logical arguments are usually circular or from false premises. Arguments from testimony are worse. Right now, thats about it...

Why do you make that assumption?

Because I cannot think of any way that belief can be formed without evidence.

But the question isn't "Is there a God?" The question is "Do you believe there is a God?"

You've as much as said that you don't believe there's a blade of grass at those exact coordinates. You have no idea whether there's a blade of grass there. So I'm thinking you don't believe there is.

Which makes the answer No.
i think the question should be "do you believe in god enough to have it affect your life?"

if you believe but dont ACT, what kind of belief is that?

Agnostic is simply that it's unknowable, not necessarily because of limitations of the human mind, though it is a possible reason.

What other reasons are there? Certainly the only reason one could not find reason to believe in a god is the lack of ability to find evidence. His fingerprints are everywhere.

Agnosticism only implies a lack of knowledge, not a lack of evidence. Maybe you missed this:


Furthermore, not understanding something does not mean you see no evidence of its existence; it simply means that that you do not know how conclusive that evidence is, or that you don't understand the nature of that thing's existence. If I see a bigass footprint, I might view that as evidence of Bigfoot's existence. I might even choose to adopt a belief in Bigfoot based on that evidence; at the same time, I might still be agnostic about Bigfoot in that I admit that the evidence I see does not prove for a fact that that Bigfoot exists, and that if Bigfoot IS in fact real, I know little about him other than the size of his foot.

For your own benefit, make a list of everything you don't understand but still believe in.

Furthermore, not understanding something does not mean you see no evidence of its existence; it simply means that that you do not know how conclusive that evidence is, or that you don't understand the nature of that thing's existence. If I see a bigass footprint, I might view that as evidence of Bigfoot's existence. I might even choose to adopt a belief in Bigfoot based on that evidence; at the same time, I might still be agnostic about Bigfoot in that I admit that the evidence I see does not prove for a fact that that Bigfoot exists, and that if Bigfoot IS in fact real, I know little about him other than the size of his foot.

It is impossible to have no understanding of something and believe in it. There must be a concept to believe in, and as such there must be an understanding to define a concept.

*shrug* Because they find a personal reason to believe, or they don't.

What exactly would they be finding? Unless of course you are saying that 'reasons' float around independently until a person stumbles upon it.

What exactly would they be finding? Unless of course you are saying that 'reasons' float around independently until a person stumbles upon it.

Ask some of the people who have some of those personal reasons. We've got plenty, I imagine.

Ok, I don't know for certain whether or not my friends are actually sleeper agents for Al Qaeda, but I don't believe that they are. Also I don't know that my food is still in my refrigerator because I'm at work, but I believe that it's still in there.

Both of your beliefs rely on evidence. I am presently trying to show that an agnostic must deny that evidence can point towards the existence of a god.

Ask some of the people who have some of those personal reasons. We've got plenty, I imagine.

I'm not asking for particulars, I am asking how you would classify what they are finding.

In other words, are they basing their beliefs on personal evidence?

I'm not asking for particulars, I am asking how you would classify what they are finding.

In other words, are they basing their beliefs on personal evidence?

That's what they tend to call it.

That's what they tend to call it.

Exactly, say that any christian holds their belief without evidence, and they will tell you that they have their own evidence, even if you can't observe it.

This is because evidence and logic are universal justifications for belief.

Exactly, say that any christian holds their belief without evidence, and they will tell you that they have their own evidence, even if you can't observe it.

This is because evidence and logic are universal justifications for belief.

Hmmm...I think a quick look back to Wiki is in order...

* Strong agnosticism (also called hard agnosticism, closed agnosticism, strict agnosticism)—the view that the question of the existence of deities is unknowable by nature or that human beings are ill-equipped to judge the evidence.
* Weak agnosticism (also called soft agnosticism, open agnosticism, empirical agnosticism)—the view that the existence or nonexistence of God or gods is currently unknown but isn't necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgement until more evidence is available.
* Apatheism—the view that the whole question of God's existence or nonexistence is beneath consideration or concern.
* Apathetic agnosticism—the view that the whole question of God's existence or nonexistence cannot yet be properly answered, and therefore one should free oneself from a fruitless search.
* Ignosticism—the view that the concept of God as a being is scientifically meaningless because it has no verifiable consequences, therefore it cannot be usefully discussed as having existence or nonexistence.
* Model agnosticism—the view that philosophical and metaphysical questions are not ultimately verifiable but that a model of malleable assumption should be built upon rational thought. Note that this branch of agnosticism differs from others in that it does not focus upon the question of a deity's existence.
* Agnostic theism-the view of those who do not claim to know God's existence, but still believe in his existence. Whether this truly is agnosticism is disputed.


I guess they were spot on about it still being disputed.

I believe that Agnostics are saying that all arguments about God are a priori arguments. Without any particular facts or experience how can you say what is true about such a subject?

Therefore we can say that agnostics are empiricists while theists and atheist tend to be rationalist.

Hmmm...I think a quick look back to Wiki is in order...

I guess they were spot on about it still being disputed.

That they were.

This is really the first time I have truly engaged in a discussion on this topic, and have never read any discription on the different levels of agnosticism.

Their definition of strong agnostic fits my belief perfectly (as you can probably tell), and I am an apatheist (a new term for me) as well.

It is also good to know that the dispute over agnostic-theists is established, and that I am not going out and being a lone idiot.

i think the question should be "do you believe in god enough to have it affect your life?"

if you believe but dont ACT, what kind of belief is that?

That's a different sort of question. That's the sort of question that turns me toward Ignosticism.

If the true answer to the question "Does God exist?" has no measurable consequences, who cares?

I believe that Agnostics are saying that all arguments about God are a priori arguments. Without any particular facts or experience how can you say what is true about such a subject?

Therefore we can say that agnostics are empiricists while theists and atheist tend to be rationalist.

When did you last know a rationalist to accept an a priori argument?

When did you last know a rationalist to accept an a priori argument?

Rationalists believe that reason, in principle and without prior experience (a priori) can be the source of all knowledge.

That's a different sort of question. That's the sort of question that turns me toward Ignosticism.

If the true answer to the question "Does God exist?" has no measurable consequences, who cares?
thats kinda my thought too. if believing in god doesnt change your behavior, then you might as well be an atheist. what do you really believe in?

too many theists and christians are functional atheists. if you listed their behaviors and MY behaviors and asked a stranger which of us is an atheist, they wouldnt have any way to tell.

However, under the String Theory, physics isn't the same as it is at that small low of a piece of matter as it is to planets and atoms.
One example would be how an electron can sometimes be in two places at once. It's not suppose to be possible, but it can happen.

It is impossible to have no understanding of something and believe in it. There must be a concept to believe in, and as such there must be an understanding to define a concept.

You are blowing my mind.

Agnostics don't claim to have "no concept" of God.

They don't necessarily claim to have no understanding of God, either.

Agnostics believe simply that they can not (or do not) know whether there is a God or not.

Some people, MYSELF INCLUDED, believing in God without claiming to know for a fact whether He exists.

That makes me and people like me agnostics.

Every one of your posts basically consists of you telling agnostics what they are allowed to believe, when the only belief necessary for agnosticism is the belief that you don't know whether your beliefs about God (whatever they may be) are correct.

We are not even sure what matter is. When you get past sub-attomic particles things appear to be made of waves. We are all just energy at a slow vibration. I think I have that one correct.

If you want a slightly cleare and more fun version of that try Cosmic Banditos (http://www.aweisbecker.com/banditos/)

Pretty presumptuous, isn't it?

I've thought long and hard about it and decided that only inifinite evidence will convince me of an infinite being (by that I mean any or all of Omnipotence, Omniscience, Ubiquitousness). However, only an infinite being would be able to comprehend infinite evidence.

Therefore, no amount of evidence (possible) could ever convince me of the existence of a deity.

Rather than "yes or no", to make it better understandable, it's more like "yes or other".

I disagree.

The question "Do you have belief in God?" is too ambiguous.

You declare it to be "Do you have a complete religious belief in God with absolutely no uncertainty?" where you can either answer yes that you have total religious belief, or no for anything else.

I take it as any degree of belief. I have half belief. Half of my theories involve a god, while the other half doesn't. They're all I have on this topic, so I guess you could say they are my "beliefs". Therefore, I half believe in a god, and half don't.

Or you could let me say I don't know.

But the question isn't "Is there a God?" The question is "Do you believe there is a God?"

I believe there is a possibility of there being a god.

I disagree.

The question "Do you have belief in God?" is too ambiguous.

You declare it to be "Do you have a complete religious belief in God with absolutely no uncertainty?" where you can either answer yes that you have total religious belief, or no for anything else.

I take it as any degree of belief. I have half belief. Half of my theories involve a god, while the other half doesn't. They're all I have on this topic, so I guess you could say they are my "beliefs". Therefore, I half believe in a god, and half don't.

Or you could let me say I don't know.

Do you support any of your theories? I mean, if you're following theories that say a god exist, along with ones that don't, I guess you're practacing double-think. It depends on what you actually support, but just because you can fathom something doesn't mean you believe it. Personally, if you actually have "half-belief", that's not "no belief", so I'd say Theist.

I believe there is a possibility of there being a god.

Sure. Then again, most reasonable people believe there's a possibility of basically everything. The question isn't what you believe might be, it's what you believe. Is your answer yes, or something else?

...When the Second Coming arrives, will he be known as the Christ, or simply a fraud like Apollonius of Tyranus.

If you're thinking of who I think you're thinking of, that's Appolonius of Tyana, not Appolonius of Tyranus.

Given that Appolonius is about as well-documented as Jesus was (which is to say: not much), classing him as a fraud off the cuff seems rather unreasonable. Appolonius was reputed to have resurrected the daughter of a Senator, for one thing, which presumably would have meant rather more authoritative witnesses than the resurrection of random Judean citizens. Even if one rejects his supposed miracles, he seems to have had a pretty cohesive philosophy and thinking behind his teachings.

Some scholars, both ancient and modern, think he was the same person as the Apostle Paul, as many of their teachings coincide, and they are credited with a number of the same things.

You are blowing my mind.

Agnostics don't claim to have "no concept" of God.

They don't necessarily claim to have no understanding of God, either.

That is the central tenet of agnosticism, that we as humans, as natural creatures do not possess the capabilities to understand the nature, function, or role of a supreme being. It is not simply that they don't know, it is that they can't know.

Agnostics believe simply that they can not (or do not) know whether there is a God or not.

Some people, MYSELF INCLUDED, believing in God without claiming to know for a fact whether He exists.

That makes me and people like me agnostics.

That would make nearly everyone an agnostic. Go take a poll at your church and ask if anyone can show God's existence as fact. That is why religious belief is called faith. They don't know for certain, so they are forced to take some belief on faith.

Every one of your posts basically consists of you telling agnostics what they are allowed to believe, when the only belief necessary for agnosticism is the belief that you don't know whether your beliefs about God (whatever they may be) are correct.

I am not telling anyone what to believe, I am just offering my opinion on what agnostic beliefs constitute. I feel that you are callously claiming the term.

That would make nearly everyone an agnostic. Go take a poll at your church and ask if anyone can show God's existence as fact. That is why religious belief is called faith. They don't know for certain, so they are forced to take some belief on faith.

What's wrong with that? Most people are Agnostics. It's just some people find don't find that as important as where they fall in the Theist/Atheist thing, so that's how they refer to themselves.

I believe there is a possibility of there being a god.

It is pointless to even apply possibility or probability. Those require a limited set, and a supreme being is definitely not limited by set. Saying there is a possibility or probability is as definitive as saying that there is certainly a God.

What's wrong with that? Most people are Agnostics. It's just some people find don't find that as important as where they fall in the Theist/Atheist thing, so that's how they refer to themselves.

It makes the term meaningless. There is not a single reasonable person in the world that wouldn't be described by the term.

Don't traditional agnostics fall into the camps of:

'can't be bothered to look' (maj)
'looking, havent found the answer yet' (next maj)
'have come to the conclusion that ultimate knowlege of the existance of a deity or not is impossible' (vvvv small min)

It makes the term meaningless. There is not a single reasonable person in the world that wouldn't be described by the term.

True it'd apply to most everyone, but it doesn't make it meaningless. It's the ones who find themselves more defined by that belief that would refer to themselves as such, while others simply see it as a minor part of their thoughts. Tis why I don't mind them refering to themselves as only Agnostic when there's more to it, because for them, that's the important part, and for others, it's not.

Non-agnostics don't have to have irrefutable evidence that their beliefs are true, they only have to claim to know that they are.

Surely every position is one of faith? Otherwise there would only be two positions; those who 99.9% of people agreed were right and the contents of the sanitarium?

True it'd apply to most everyone, but it doesn't make it meaningless. It's the ones who find themselves more defined by that belief that would refer to themselves as such, while others simply see it as a minor part of their thoughts. Tis why I don't mind them refering to themselves as only Agnostic when there's more to it, because for them, that's the important part, and for others, it's not.

If a category contains every single possible member, it ceases to be a category.

I just don't see how agnosticism is a minor part of one's thoughts on the existence of god.

Don't traditional agnostics fall into the camps of:

'can't be bothered to look' (maj)
'looking, havent found the answer yet' (next maj)
'have come to the conclusion that ultimate knowlege of the existance of a deity or not is impossible' (vvvv small min)
id break up the middle one into

A) have run it around in my head a few times while high (or other casual situations)

B) thought about it quite thoroughly but havent found an answer yet

with A being the greater number of people than B.

Non-agnostics don't have to have irrefutable evidence that their beliefs are true, they only have to claim to know that they are.

And no reasonable person could hold that position for more than 2 minutes of discussion with another reasonable person of differing views.

Some people claim their personal experiences as sufficient evidence for them to know that God exists. Others claim scientific knowledge as sufficient evidence for them to know that He doesn't. Doesn't matter how reasonable you think it is, it's a fact.

Some people claim their personal experiences as sufficient evidence for them to know that God exists. Others claim scientific knowledge as sufficient evidence for them to know that He doesn't. Doesn't matter how reasonable you think it is, it's a fact.

But neither group would state that their experiences constitute proof. There will be some source of doubt.

Now you're just telling people what they are allowed to believe. If someone believes they know beyond a shadow of a doubt that God is or isn't real (and a good many people do), they are not agnostics.

Now you're just telling people what they are allowed to believe. If someone believes they know beyond a shadow of a doubt that God is or isn't real (and a good many people do), they are not agnostics.

And if they do not admit that they are taking a good portion of their belief on faith, then they are unreasonable or liars.

You're preaching to the choir, man. Doesn't change the fact that many people DO believe that they know whether God exists or not.

You're preaching to the choir, man. Doesn't change the fact that many people DO believe that they know whether God exists or not.

They are crazy or lying, and neither of those groups count.

Your unfailing ability to invent whatever parameters make your argument workable is pretty impressive.

Your unfailing ability to invent whatever parameters make your argument workable is pretty impressive.

That last one was a stretch, but I couldn't resist, but to be honest, crazy people and liars really don't count in reasonable discussion.

I really can't imagine how someone can deny any doubt in their beliefs in God, when it is difficult to reasonably advance proof past solipsism.

And no reasonable person could hold that position for more than 2 minutes of discussion with another reasonable person of differing views.

Most people are unreasonable.

Most people are unreasonable.

I would like to know what your point of reference is, as I consider an extremely large majority to be reasonable.

Dinaverg, have you thought any more about what I was talking about pages ago about believing in only what is real and not knowing where that put God in my beliefs? I could go pages back and look but I figured either it wasn't brought up by anyone else or that you were busy arguing with the multitudes.

Dinaverg, have you thought any more about what I was talking about pages ago about believing in only what is real and not knowing where that put God in my beliefs? I could go pages back and look but I figured either it wasn't brought up by anyone else or that you were busy arguing with the multitudes.

Huh? Oh yeah, coulda sworn I came up with something. Assuming yor statment of "I believe in that which exists" (or something similar) includes even things you don't realize exist, then you're still either theist or atheist, as I don't think something can partially exist. However, as to which one you are...I suppose it'd depend on whether or not you think it's real. I'd imagine that without a reason to think so, you wouldn't, but I dunno...

Huh? Oh yeah, coulda sworn I came up with something. Assuming yor statment of "I believe in that which exists" (or something similar) includes even things you don't realize exist, then you're still either theist or atheist, as I don't think something can partially exist. However, as to which one you are...I suppose it'd depend on whether or not you think it's real. I'd imagine that without a reason to think so, you wouldn't, but I dunno...
But I stop at the point of, "If God exists then I believe in Him." There is no reason to lean one way or the other about it. The outcome of the argument reveals my position and I'm cool with that.

But I stop at the point of, "If God exists then I believe in Him." There is no reason to lean one way or the other about it. The outcome of the argument reveals my position and I'm cool with that.

*shrug* Alright. I suppose we won't know where you belong. :p I reccommend we celebrate with chocolate-vanilla swirl ice cream.

I would like to know what your point of reference is, as I consider an extremely large majority to be reasonable.

In my experience, most people are perfectly happy to hold contradictory beliefs, because they simply haven't bothered to investigate them sufficiently to determine whether they're contradictory.

That's unreasonable.

In my experience, most people are perfectly happy to hold contradictory beliefs, because they simply haven't bothered to investigate them sufficiently to determine whether they're contradictory.

That's unreasonable.

Perhaps you haven't delved quite deep enough into their reasoning.

*shrug* Alright. I suppose we won't know where you belong. :p I reccommend we celebrate with chocolate-vanilla swirl ice cream.
That sounds like delicious.

In response to the concern about how energy can't be created or destroyed...

For one thing, the rules of the universe don't have to apply before the universe existed, so before the big bang, we can't tell what sorts of rules were in place and it could very well be that energy coudl be created.

However, there is an explanation for the universe that still follows the laws of thermodynamics. One model has everything starting off as a false vacuum, that is a region of negative pressure, and there was a vacuum fluctuation, a region of zero pressure was formed, the universe, it expanded rapidly releasing energy as it expanded. The rest is history.

I should also add that as an agnostic, you don't have to pick a side.

I have accepted that it's impossible to know in this lifetime and I don't want to guess. It's rather silly to have to guess something if you don't know it.

In response to the concern about how energy can't be created or destroyed...

For one thing, the rules of the universe don't have to apply before the universe existed, so before the big bang, we can't tell what sorts of rules were in place and it could very well be that energy coudl be created.

However, there is an explanation for the universe that still follows the laws of thermodynamics. One model has everything starting off as a false vacuum, that is a region of negative pressure, and there was a vacuum fluctuation, a region of zero pressure was formed, the universe, it expanded rapidly releasing energy as it expanded. The rest is history.

I should also add that as an agnostic, you don't have to pick a side.

I have accepted that it's impossible to know in this lifetime and I don't want to guess. It's rather silly to have to guess something if you don't know it.

Who said anything about picking or guessing? I'd imagine you're born atheist, doesn't require much thought at all, cept maybe the ability to think.

Perhaps you haven't delved quite deep enough into their reasoning.

But they haven't done any reasoning at all. If their beliefs were contradictory, they'd never know.

If you start asking people questions about the reasoning behind their beliefs, they don't have answers handy because they've never asked themselves those questions.

But they haven't done any reasoning at all. If their beliefs were contradictory, they'd never know.

If you start asking people questions about the reasoning behind their beliefs, they don't have answers handy because they've never asked themselves those questions.

I am saying that it is very possible that they have ulterior reasoning that you are not accounting for.

Riddle me this: even if God(s) do exist (something about which I am unconvinced), why should it be important to us? It's really irrelevant to our daily existence unless we make it so.

Who said anything about picking or guessing? I'd imagine you're born atheist, doesn't require much thought at all, cept maybe the ability to think.
The original poster mentioned guessing.

And if anything, you're born agnostic, seeing as you don't really know anything one way or the other.

The original poster mentioned guessing.

And if anything, you're born agnostic, seeing as you don't really know anything one way or the other.

Agnostic atheist, yeah. We've been over this, agnostic is a separate type of philosophy.