A question for agnostics.

Post Reply New Topic

@McClav' Or if he gives us conclusive evidence that he does not exist.

Well, so far, the evidence points to the possibility that he doesn't. Although I wouldn't say it's conclusive ... at least not yet.

Oh silly skeptics, then it wouldn't be FAITH. Because it's very important that God mindfucks with us, for...er...some reason. Yay God.

It's obvious that if God exists, then He just doesn't care. Just live as if there is no god watching you, but take responsibility for your actions. That's the way I live.

Likewise. The process of discovering morality, meaning and knowledge is far better than reading reams of stale text anyway. I feel sorry that the religious will never experience the feeling.

A. Simplemindedness [genuine, not the stereotype - NOT the same as dumb or ignorant] beats overclever. Emperor's new clothes.

B. The dumb and ignorant are more likely to vote, often blindly or following the herd along the party line. It takes brains to admit TO YOURSELF FIRST that you do not have all the answers. I DO wish I could locate that Feynman quote.

C. Are you trying to tell us that everyone who casts a ballot either believes in the existence of a divine entity or denies any such exists? How could you support this claim?

D. If you mean "being agnostic is like abstaining from voting because you cannot be sure which candidate is best [assuming more than two]" - are you then preferring to force a choice, pick atheism or theism, vote Mandelbaum or Quincey without having aznything on which to base the choice? People do vote that way - being apolitical I have myself, havig been told so often voting is a civic duty even if you have no idea whether Mandelbaum is a bigger louse than Quincey. But I have not heard it advocated as a preferred policy.

A 100% sure Atheist is twice as dumb as a 100% sure Theist. A Theist doesn't necessarily have to employ logic, while an Atheist categorically does. I'm agnostic, however I'm agnostic to such a small degree that I just call, and basically consider myself, Atheist.

The OP's comments are unfounded, but Religion isn't something you should be on the fence about. The existence/non-existence of God is far from equiprobable.

"Too late have I loved You, O Beauty so ancient, O Beauty so new,
too late have I loved You!
You were within me but I was outside myself, and I sought You there!
In my weakness I ran after the beauty of the things You have made.
You were with me, and I was not with You.
The things You have made kept me from You –
the things which would have no being unless they existed in You!

You have called, You have cried out, and You have pierced my deafness.
You have radiated forth, and have shined out brightly,
and You have dispelled my blindness.
You have sent forth Your fragrance, and I have breathed it in, and I long for You.
I have tasted You, and I hunger and thirst for You.
You have touched me, and I ardently desire Your peace." - St. Augustine

Agree or disagree with the results, it would seem that at least some religious do indeed know the process.

God does not explain anything. It's a subterfuge for saying "I don't know."

@Sand

There is no such thing as an uninteresting answer. There are people who are uninterested in a particular answer. If creation requires a timless, omniscient and omnipotent being to cause something rather than nothing it is a perfectly acceptable answer if that is what the evidence says is required. The people who I have a problem with are the one who, having arrived at a particular explanation, are determined to leave a question either answered or insufficiently answered.

That's just word salad. You have no idea why the diety is there rather than not being there. The bible didnt say because it not a metaphysics textbook and the biblical god doesnt share his thoughts on the subject with you.

A skeptic would say that it's because the biblical authors were trying to sell a message to largely illiterate people who were thinking about origins in a simplistic way. After they discussed the origin of the world, people and human languages they figured they were done and then went on to discuss expected behaviors and salvation metrics.

But that doesnt cover the subject in depth. It's difficult to even think about the subject because we live in a finite causal universe. The concepts of a first cause or eternal cycles or "why something rather than nothing" dont really connect to our experiences in daily life. It's like asking a dog to comprehend time dilation.

I personally can't even imagine an answer that I would find intellectually satisfying. If your chosen origins myth doesnt leave you wondering, "wtf ?", then you probably havent thought it through.

but the evidence alone is not what says a timeless, omniscient, and omnipotent being is required to cause something, rather than nothing. you're positing "something" that changes "nothing" into "something" because you don't accept that "something" can come from "nothing" (i don't, entirely, disagree with the point.) but you still refuse to address the origin of the "something" you injected into the equation to solve the problem.

the position that "creation requires a timeless, omniscient, and omnipotent being to cause something rather than nothing" is ridiculously silly. you're saying that, without a timeless, omniscient, and omnipotent (maximally complicated) being, there must only be "nothing" rather than "something." does this mean that your timeless, omniscient, and omnipotent being was created by an even more complicated being? or do the rules not apply to Him? if the rules can be suspended, the rules are not constantly consistent and MUST deviate. the only deviation from the perfect simplicity of "nothing" is, by definition, "something."

this is why i find your position confusing.

^^^^

Most perfect being philosophy tends to centre around divine simplicity. Necessity and simplicity are inextricably linked to one another. It is not a matter of the rules not apply to God, but to explain the universe as it exists, one does need to explain how the explanation works, only that it does. Otherwise it would be an infinite regress. Imagine if we had to explain all aspects of a thing before accepting it as truth. Where would that leave every argument or discovery, it is simply not workable.

As to necessity, God by definition is uncreated and maximally great. By necessary, it is means that he exists in all possible worlds. The same thing would be true of a great many abstract objects. For example, think of numbers. They exist in all possible worlds and are uncaused. Something that exists in all possible worlds cannot be caused, for if it could, there would be a world where it was not, hence it would not exist necessarily. Since God by definition is omnipotent he, also, by definition, exists in all possible worlds. It is not that I am trying to exempt God from causality, if he could be caused, he would by definition, not be God.

Quite beautiful, but it's still not the same, trust me. The best parts of my life are the ones that God would destroy, if I believed in him.

I have no personal experiences that would give any indication to me that there is some supreme being out there. I have had some experiences that would indicate existence of a spiritual world though.

I generally consider myself agnostic though, but I suppose I am atheist in the sense that I have no reason to believe in a supreme deity.

So, are you basically saying that your cosmological argument is dependent upon the ontological argument, as you are justifying God as not being a Principle of Sufficient Reason violation by being necessary? After all, if the ontological argument does not hold, then your justification for God as a necessary being does not hold, which undermines the validity of your use of God in the cosmological argument. And if that's the case, then does the cosmological argument matter?

I dunno, this linking between different arguments just kind of reminds me of this youtube video about philosopher William Lane Craig:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rSAo6IpiFU&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

As it stands though, I see no reason to take the ontological argument seriously if one doesn't agree with it. As it stands, one can hold that it is also possible that "no-maximality" is exemplified. One can also hold that exemplifying maximality is impossible based upon God not existing in a possible world, as if God does not exist in a given world, then maximal greatness cannot exist. Finally, the very structure of the ontological argument is so permissive that anything can be justified by an ontological argument, which gives us reason to generally distrust ontological arguments, and to certainly distrust the ones you try to use as they are no less lacking in permissiveness than our past ones. The Gaunillo's Island objection still holds. After all, we can present the tired old Plantinga ontological argument as such, and the reasoning is equally valid:

1) It is proposed that a being has maximal horribleness in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly evil in W; and
2) It is proposed that a being has maximal maleficence if it has maximal horribleness in every possible world.
3) Maximal maleficence is possibly exemplified. That is, it is possible that there be a being that has maximal maleficence. (Premise)
4) Therefore, possibly it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly evil being exists.
5) Therefore (by axiom S5) it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly evil being exists.
6) Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly evil being exists.

I mean, we can substitute the qualities provided in Plantinga's premise 1 all day long, and unless you have a logical refutation of each and every single variation, no matter how tiny, Plantinga's argument proves those to exist just as effectively as it proves God to exist. (And frankly, that's a LOT of beings that you probably don't think exist that you'd have to rebut to just accept that one argument)