...a philosophical argument on why it is rational to accept the possibility of a creator.

I am agnostic and I have had more than a few heated debated with some athiest collegues of mine. I am a person is is constantly fascinated by the universe around us. Most athiests seem to think that there is no explanation for the universe, that its existence is just a brute fact, or that the universe can be fully explainded scientifically.

The existence of something is comprehensible only if it has an explanation. By the definition of intelligibility, the universe must be unintelliglbe or have an explantion. If we are constantly searching for an answer or explanation to the question of why the universe exists, The nature or a rational person would be to seek an explantion for the universe.

There are two possible explanations for the universe:

1. A scientific explantion

2. The aregument that the universe is abrute fact and it exists out of necessity.

In order for there to be a true scientific explantion of the universe, there would have to be an obserivation of the intial physical conditions of the universe and then the application of laws that would explain the universe as it is today. An athiest will postulate that the universe is governed by natural laws. But if the universe is made of certain circumstances and laws, there cannot be any conditions, laws out side it. So there is no possible way for there to be an independent set of intitial physical conditions which are needed to have a scientific explanation. Therefore science cannot explain the universe.

Another argument is that the universe is essential, it exists because it must and there is no answer to the question why?. But, the universe consists of objects that could have not existed or been extremely different from what they are now, (like the chair you're sitting on or the moon) All of those objects existed beucase of a set of circumstances in the Big Bang. If the Big Bang had somehow functioned differently its possible that none of us could have existed. So if its possible that parts of the universe could not have existed, than couldn't the universe itself have not existed? Could it be random chance? The universe is non-essential.

So, since the universe cannot be explained scientifically and it is non-essential, the only other possible explanation is a creator. So, a rational person who is seeking an explanation should accept the fact that it is possible there is a God.

Thoughts?





[This message has been edited by Xenopsyche (edited 12-02-2006).]

i agree, but i tend to think of GOD as a person who should be worshiped

the creator of the universe could be a being we cant even comprehend in its size and intelligence

i also believe if there is a creator that it doesnt interfier in the universe at all, atleast nothing that we can comprehend, or notice on our pinner little scale

Most atheists don't deny there is a possibility of a God (depending on the definition of God), they just haven't been convinced of the actual existence of such an entity. See "An Introduction to Atheism". http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html

Reasonably plausible hypotheses for the physical laws that appear to govern the universe have been proposed and tested. That not every 'i' has been dotted or 't' crossed does not mean that there is no scientific explanation for the universe.

The universe does not, strictly speaking, require an explanation. It, or something that to our senses has the properties of a universe, clearly exists. It has not yet winked out of existence due to anyone's failure to provide an adequate reason for its existence.

Some sort of God is always a possibility. Currently, however, it would appear that there is no testable hypothesis that could verify the existence of such a figure, thus that possibility is a vanishingly small one. Furthermore, if you are going to argue that there must be a creator of some sort simply because current scientific explanations for the history and behavior of the universe are lacking in some way, how do you explain the creator itself, for which there is essentially no scientific evidence whatever? In addition, who created the creator, and the creator's creator, and so on? Personally, I prefer to stop at what is actually observed (the universe), but you are welcome to go as far back in the chain as you like. I'm curious, however, why you would stop at the immediate creator?

Unless we figure out time travel (laughable), there is no way to come to a scientific explanation of the universe. All the 'theories' we have on the universe's beginnings are nothing but hypotheses...and that includes the big bang 'theory'...which is currently being shot to shit (Back and to the left)...turns out we jumped to a conclusion long before there was any practical conclusion to be made from the evidence.

For any valid theory to exist on the beginnings of the universe, we would have needed to be present at the creation of this universe...or somehow create a second verse...and that's under the assumption that our verse is the only one in the universe (which could hypothetically be a multi-verse without contradicting current mathematics).

Simply put, we can figure out what the universe looked like millionths of a second after expansion began; but we cannot EVER (through science or faith) figure out what it was at the very beginning, or how it began, or why it began, or when it even began...nor can we figure out if a 'who' was involved, or if there even is a 'why'.

It's a pipe dream to think we can establish a working theory to the beginning.

What does it count as if I just don't care about the origins of humanity and the universe?

I'm not siding with a creator or science and it's not a matter of being undecided. I'm just not interested whatsoever.

Technically everyone who is an Atheist is actually Agnostic, they realise you can not prove nor disprove a 'God' so thats why they are technically Agnostic however Atheists weigh up the evidence on both sides and decide that they dont believe in any god or gods due to what they have seen/read/heard and such.

Its the same using the teapot round the sun analogy.

Anyone who is of a certain religion has to be technically agnostic about other religions gods but they aren't, they're atheists about all but their own.

[This message has been edited by among_the_living (edited 12-02-2006).]

Xenopsyche, you make so many illogical leaps it's scary. Okay, where do I begin?

quote:Originally posted by Xenopsyche:

In order for there to be a true scientific explantion of the universe, there would have to be an obserivation of the intial physical conditions of the universe and then the application of laws that would explain the universe as it is today.

First of all, what you stated is in no way axiomatic, and actually makes no sense. The lack of a witness to the impetus of a process does not negate the abilty to ultimately explain said impetus and resulting process scientifically.

quote:Originally posted by Xenopsyche:

An athiest will postulate that the universe is governed by natural laws. But if the universe is made of certain circumstances and laws, there cannot be any conditions, laws out side it.

The universe is not made of circumstances and laws. The universe "follows" laws, including those that have yet to be discovered or understood, and its current condition is the "result" of circumstances that shaped it. Anyway, what's your point?

quote:Originally posted by Xenopsyche:

So there is no possibel way for there to be an independent set of intitial physical conditions which are needed to have a scientific explanation.

What do you mean by "independent set of physical conditions?" Independent of what? And why would an independent set of anything be required to explain the universe scientifically?



quote:Originally posted by Xenopsyche:

Therefore science cannot explain the universe.

:blink: What? Precisely how does this follow your previous assertions?

quote:Originally posted by Xenopsyche:

Another argument is that the universe is essetial, its exist beucase it must and there is no answer to the question why?.

A valid argument could accurately be made that the universe is not essential. It exists, however, because it's essential to our existence, only because we couldn't exist without it. But even that doesn't make it essential, because there's no mandate that we must exist.

quote:Originally posted by Xenopsyche:

So if its possible that parts of the universe could not have existed, than couldn't the universe itself have not exiseted? The universe is non-essential.

Where in left field are you suddenly getting "parts" of the universe from?

quote:Originally posted by Xenopsyche:

So, since the universe cannot be explained scientifically and it is non-essential, the only other possible explanation is a creator.

You haven't made the case, at all, that the universe can't be explained scientifically, and its essential nature has no bearing whatsoever on the argument, as far as I'm concerned. Even accepting the absurd proposition that all your flawed logic magically aligned and made sense, none of it would exalt the idea of a creator as the "only" possible explanation above all other possibilities. Think about it. You posit a creator for no other reason I can see than that it's what you believe. "Science can't do this, and the Universe isn't that, therefore the only thing that makes sense is an creator." That's essentially your argument right there. Surely you see the illogic.

quote:Originally posted by Xenopsyche:

So, a rational person who is seeking an explanation should accept the fact that it is possible there is a God.

Your house of cards doesn't hold up, I'm afraid, my friend. You either have a lot more 'splainin' to do to get your points across better, or you need to reread the sources of the claptrap you posted so you can understand it a little better yourself before responding.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

Unless we figure out time travel (laughable), there is no way to come to a scientific explanation of the universe.

No one can really claim they know George Washington was first President of the United States under the present Constitution. After all, everyone who was actually there is long dead. Maybe George Washington wasn't even a real person, just a figurehead artificial intelligence simulation and REAL power was held by a triumvirate consisting of Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and Dolley Madison. It's all just hypotheses at this point.

It is not necessary to travel into the past, to conclude scientifically events from the past. We have proof for the past existence of George Washington, dinosaurs, etc., and it's never been necessary to travel into the past to see them ourselves.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

All the 'theories' we have on the universe's beginnings are nothing but hypotheses...and that includes the big bang 'theory'

Incorrect. The Big Bang theory is a valid scientific theory; it is not a hypothesis. It is backed up by Hubble's Law, red shift, microwave background radiation, etc.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

...which is currently being shot to shit (Back and to the left)...turns out we jumped to a conclusion long before there was any practical conclusion to be made from the evidence.

Bullshit. Evolution and an old Earth are currently being "shot to shit", but only by idiots who know nothing of real science. In professional circles, there are only a few old scientists that still question standard Big Bang theory, and they drift further from the mainstream as time goes on.

quote:Originally posted by among_the_living:

Technically everyone who is an Atheist is actually Agnostic,

I don't know how you came to that conclusion, but it's absolutely incorrect. Plenty of atheists believe that they have valid proof for the impossibility of God's existence. That technically means that they are not agnostic. I guess it could also be said that some atheists believe that God can be proven.

If next Tuesday the heavens open with a great shout, and a brilliant yet somehow not blinding Light suffuses the entire world, and we are all filled with a wonderful sense of peace and joy and a great Voice--heard by everyone in the world in the language of his birth--says "Behold, My children, I have come again to you at last", and then we all live for the next ten thousand years unaging in a world of perfect peace and justice and beauty, then us atheists--who don't believe in God because no one has persuaded us that such a belief makes sense--can all say (with perfect consistency with our previous beliefs)--"Oh, er, well, I guess we were wrong then. Heh. Sorry about that" while the agnostics will still have to be standing over in the corner saying "Well, this is all very nice, I'm sure, but I'm still not convinced."



quote:Originally posted by among_the_living:

they realise you can not prove nor disprove a 'God' so thats why they are technically Agnostic

Why don't you believe by this logic that everyone is agnostic?

quote:Originally posted by among_the_living:

Anyone who is of a certain religion has to be technically agnostic about other religions gods but they aren't, they're atheists about all but their own.

They technically have to be, but they aren't? That makes no sense.

They are usually atheistic regarding all other gods, but their agnosticism is unknown.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

...and that includes the big bang 'theory'...which is currently being shot to shit (Back and to the left)...turns out we jumped to a conclusion long before there was any practical conclusion to be made from the evidence.



Simply put, we can figure out what the universe looked like millionths of a second after expansion began; but we cannot EVER (through science or faith) figure out what it was at the very beginning, or how it began, or why it began, or when it even began...nor can we figure out if a 'who' was involved, or if there even is a 'why'.



one second you say the big bang theory isnt correct, and the next second you explain how its impossilbe at this point in time to know what happend before the big bang.

i havent read anywhere that the big bang theory is being disproven, all i can find is that the theory is favored by almost all of the science community, and theres no evidense to say thats not what happened

quote:Originally posted by xray:

The universe is not made of circumstances and laws. The universe "follows" laws, including those that have yet to be discovered or understood, and its current condition is the "result" of circumstances that shaped it. Anyway, what's your point?

My point was that science cannot explain the existence of the universe. In the BIg Bang Theory, everything explodes from a point called singularity. Science can explain what heppens after the explosion of the singularity itsself, but cannot explain where that singularity came from.

quote:Originally posted by xray:

What do you mean by "independent set of physical conditions?" Independent of what? And why would an independent set of anything be required to explain the universe scientifically?

The universe is the sum total of all natural conditions and laws. In order to to give a scientific explanation of the universe, one would have to have an observation point outside of the whole system. One would have to have laws indpendent of what is being explained, the universe. But, since the universe is goverened by scientific laws and principles, they cannot exist outside of the universe, so you cannot scientific principles to explain the singularity.

quote:Originally posted by xray:

A valid argument could accurately be made that the universe is not essential. It exists, however, because it's essential to our existence, only because we couldn't exist without it. But even that doesn't make it essential, because there's no mandate that we must exist.

Yep, the universe is non-essential...

quote:Originally posted by xray:

Where in left field are you suddenly getting "parts" of the universe from? .

You said that there is no mandate that we must exist, we are a component or part of the universe. My reasoning, is that if components of the universe exist by chance, couldn't the universe exist by chance?

Everyone's responses contradicting the first poster are correct, and I would just like to add that the idea that the universe must have "begun" is silly. The universe could have always existed without any first cause, but people seem to want a beggining, middle, and end to everything.

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

Originally posted by among_the_living:

Technically everyone who is an Atheist is actually Agnostic,

I don't know how you came to that conclusion, but it's absolutely incorrect. Plenty of atheists believe that they have valid proof for the impossibility of God's existence. That technically means that they are not agnostic. I guess it could also be said that some atheists believe that God can be proven.

If next Tuesday the heavens open with a great shout, and a brilliant yet somehow not blinding Light suffuses the entire world, and we are all filled with a wonderful sense of peace and joy and a great Voice--heard by everyone in the world in the language of his birth--says "Behold, My children, I have come again to you at last", and then we all live for the next ten thousand years unaging in a world of perfect peace and justice and beauty, then us atheists--who don't believe in God because no one has persuaded us that such a belief makes sense--can all say (with perfect consistency with our previous beliefs)--"Oh, er, well, I guess we were wrong then. Heh. Sorry about that" while the agnostics will still have to be standing over in the corner saying "Well, this is all very nice, I'm sure, but I'm still not convinced."



quote:Originally posted by among_the_living:

they realise you can not prove nor disprove a 'God' so thats why they are technically Agnostic

Why don't you believe by this logic that everyone is agnostic?

quote:Originally posted by among_the_living:

Anyone who is of a certain religion has to be technically agnostic about other religions gods but they aren't, they're atheists about all but their own.

They technically have to be, but they aren't? That makes no sense.

They are usually atheistic regarding all other gods, but their agnosticism is unknown.



thats why its 'technically'

no one can disprove or prove god, it was m y understanding that atheism is using the evidence at hand to believe there is no god, but as god can be neither proven or disproven you have to be TECHNICALLY agnostic about god. Im not saying you cant be atheist but if youre going from using scientific reasoning and logic the technicality of not being able to prove or disprove makes you agnostic.

Look up the teapot theory and atheism.

Im an atheist, by my own admition.

quote:My point was that science cannot explain the existence of the universe. In the BIg Bang Theory, everything explodes from a point called singularity. Science can explain what heppens after the explosion of the singularity itsself, but cannot explain where that singularity came from.

Science has made great leaps and bounds, but you can't expect it to know everything. But the fact that we cannot explain everything in the universe does not mean a God must exist; that's incredible silly reasoning.

quote:Yep, the universe is non-essential...

The universe can be non-essential and formulate without the necessity of a God. Your reasoning is terrible.

quote:if components of the universe exist by chance, couldn't the universe exist by chance?

That proves God how now?

quote:Originally posted by among_the_living:

thats why its 'technically'

What? Your statement made no sense. You said:

Anyone who is of a certain religion has to be technically agnostic about other religions gods but they aren't, they're atheists about all but their own.

If they technically have to be something, then they must be that something. You can't later say "but they aren't". If they aren't, then by your own admission you were wrong that they technically have to be something.

Anyway, there is no valid reason a member of a certain religion has to be agnostic regarding other gods. A theist can believe that it is possible that the existence of a god of another religion can be proven, which may prove his current beliefs wrong.

quote:Originally posted by among_the_living:

no one can disprove or prove god

It doesn't matter if you believe this to be true (or even if you are correct). What matters is that some atheists and theists believe you are not correct, which means that they are not agnostic.

quote:Originally posted by among_the_living:

Look up the teapot theory and atheism.



I'm guessing that you're speaking of Russell's teapot? It's not a theory, but an analogy to explain that it is not the atheist's responsibility to prove that God doesn't exist, but the believer's responsibility to prove that He does. It doesn't show in any way that an atheist must be agnostic.

Martini, what he is trying to say is that where agnostics and atheists are different people are what they choose. Agnostics choose to never know, atheists choose to make a decision right there on what they know.

His statement is still false however. He sees it like a path, agnostics stop at the wall and atheists climb over it. But that is not how it happens, they both start at the question "what is the truth" or "what do I think is right" then choose what to do going different ways from the start.

quote:Originally posted by Graemy:

Martini, what he is trying to say is that where agnostics and atheists are different people are what they choose. Agnostics choose to never know, atheists choose to make a decision right there on what they know.

I'll let among_the_living speak for himself, but it doesn't seem that that's what he's saying at all. It seems that you are accusing him of using the incorrect definition of agnosticism - being unsure of one's belief in God. However, it seems he is using the same more accepted definition as I am - that God's existence is unknown and unknowable.

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

I'll let among_the_living speak for himself, but it doesn't seem that that's what he's saying at all. It seems that you are accusing him of using the incorrect definition of agnosticism - being unsure of one's belief in God. However, it seems he is using the same more accepted definition as I am - that God's existence is unknown and unknowable.

Choosing to never know is the same as accepting it is unknowable in some respects. But I will agree with you on this one and let him say what he means for himself.

I just posted what I got from him.

Isn't this just more "god of the gaps" bullshit?

Gods used to be what made the sun rise every day. Demons were what made people act crazy, and evil spirits made people sick. Some of us still hang on to these superstitions, but most people have moved on to rational knowledge that leads to real-life solutions to problems.

No matter how far exploration and understanding push into the unknown, the faithful still point into the dark corners and say "you can't see in there - that's god!".

Well, yeah, if all "god" means is whatever we can't explain and predict 100%, then you can have your gaps, and call them "god", and wonder why everyone points and laughs.

quote:Originally posted by Viraljimmy:

Isn't this just more "god of the gaps" bullshit?

Gods used to be what made the sun rise every day. Demons were what made people act crazy, and evil spirits made people sick. Some of us still hang on to these superstitions, but most people have moved on to rational knowledge that leads to real-life solutions to problems.

No matter how far exploration and understanding push into the unknown, the faithful still point into the dark corners and say "you can't see in there - that's god!".

Well, yeah, if all "god" means is whatever we can't explain and predict 100%, then you can have your gaps, and call them "god", and wonder why everyone points and laughs.

Reading this, I wonder. Is science just a search for god and his powers? It probably started as it.

[This message has been edited by Graemy (edited 12-03-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Graemy:

Reading this, I wonder. Is science just a search for god and his powers? It probably started as it.

Or maybe it came from the realization that correct methodology and detailed knowledge get more work done than magic words and asking imaginary people for help?

[This message has been edited by Viraljimmy (edited 12-03-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Graemy:

Reading this, I wonder. Is science just a search for god and his powers? It probably started as it.

Oh brother. Science is a method of gaining knowledge through observation and experimentation using the scientific method. It stems from man's curiosity for understanding the world around him, not the magical powers of mythological beings.

Martini:

No one can really claim they know George Washington was first President of the United States under the present Constitution. After all, everyone who was actually there is long dead. Maybe George Washington wasn't even a real person, just a figurehead artificial intelligence simulation and REAL power was held by a triumvirate consisting of Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and Dolley Madison. It's all just hypotheses at this point.

Except all evidence points to him existing.

It is not necessary to travel into the past, to conclude scientifically events from the past. We have proof for the past existence of George Washington, dinosaurs, etc., and it's never been necessary to travel into the past to see them ourselves.

In the situation of an event which doesn't follow any current Laws, nor follow any current Theories, yes, it is necessary to travel into the past to observe what Laws did exist at the zero-hour - otherwise, any occurrences that happened AFTER expansion began, are based on a model of existence that has no bearing on the model of existence (or lack thereof) at the zero-hour of the universe.

Incorrect. The Big Bang theory is a valid scientific theory; it is not a hypothesis. It is backed up by Hubble's Law, red shift, microwave background radiation, etc.

According the Occam's Razor, the beginning of the universe shouldn't even come into equation as of yet. It seems as though the universe is expanding quickly enough for us to not receive the first light waves - inductive logic creates hypotheses, not theories. (And I do apologize, the Big Bang is valid theory; I hadn't read up on it recently, and had not been aware that the gravitational singularity portion of the theory had been dropped and turned into a hypothesis of its own).

Bullshit. Evolution and an old Earth are currently being "shot to shit", but only by idiots who know nothing of real science. In professional circles, there are only a few old scientists that still question standard Big Bang theory, and they drift further from the mainstream as time goes on.

Once again, I apologize! I thought Big Bang theory still included the gravitational singularity (which has no way of being validated, thus exited the realm of theory when it was dropped from the Big Bang theory and cursed to eternity as a hypothesis).

Boozehound420:

one second you say the big bang theory isnt correct, and the next second you explain how its impossilbe at this point in time to know what happend before the big bang.

One: I meant 'gravitational singularity', which I had mistaken for still being a part of the Big Bang theory.

Two: That isn't what I said; I said 'at the very beginning'; which is independent of whatever theory of universal expansion is held to. Which I still stand by.

i havent read anywhere that the big bang theory is being disproven, all i can find is that the theory is favored by almost all of the science community, and theres no evidense to say thats not what happened

Once again, I apologize; I was speaking of 'gravitational singularity'.

Also, though: Big Bang theory IS currently being questioned by the recent validation of dark matter. It's likely going to stand up to it, though I'm guessing it's in for a bit of a reworking. (The universe is still expanding from a denser state...though dark matter may hold an answer we've not yet found)

Xenopsyche:

The gravitational singularity is no longer a part of the Big Bang theory, but is posed as a common solution to what existed before the Big Bang.

quote:Originally posted by xray:



Oh brother. Science is a method of gaining knowledge through observation and experimentation using the scientific method. It stems from man's curiosity for understanding the world around him, not the magical powers of mythological beings.

Think back to Einstein, he even said himself once that he was trying to find out the mind of god. My statement is just as metaphorical as his. The Church said God does this and that. Science Explains how this and that work without god.

Man, nobody thinks anymore. I added it probably started as a search for god, because that is probably how early science worked(since [in europe] the Church was huge back then when science started really getting a foothold in the modern world).

[This message has been edited by Graemy (edited 12-03-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Graemy:

Reading this, I wonder. Is science just a search for god and his powers? It probably started as it.



It's a search for understanding existence piece by piece through logic.

Me? I see it as a search for understanding God through the invaluable tool of logic. Then again, to me, God is all of existence; so that view of science is what follows.

quote:Originally posted by Graemy:

Think back to Einstein, he even said himself once that he was trying to find out the mind of god. My statement is just as metaphorical as his. The Church said God does this and that. Science Explains how this and that work without god.

Man, nobody thinks anymore. I added it probably started as a search for god, because that is probably how early science worked(since [in europe] the Church was huge back then when science started really getting a foothold in the modern world).

In your first paragraph, you state that you were speaking metaphorically. In you're second paragraph, you state that you were speaking literally. Well? Which is it?

There is no reason to believe that scientists literally were searching for God, as you wrote in your second paragraph. The notion that scientists were using the scientific method and trying to understand the world around them was a search for God because that "is probably how early science worked", is a silly one.

The second part of my statement was a literal one.

So making a notion on how something works is silly? Why is there no reason? The Church being so powerful and influential at that period in time is a reason and the best one since it affected everyones lives. I am talking before Francis Bacon and Rene Descartes made their considerable contributions to the scientific method.

I am talking about during the Churches reign leading up to the scientific revolution. I am saying that when people used logic they used it with a god in mind. Science came from the logic and emerged without the god.

quote:Originally posted by xray:

"Science can't do this, and the Universe isn't that, therefore the only thing that makes sense is an creator." That's essentially your argument right there. Surely you see the illogic.



Wait, well what other possible explanations are there?



[This message has been edited by LEEAM (edited 12-03-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by LEEAM:

Wait, well what other possible explanations are there?



Are you serious? The other explanation is that a creator isn't necessary and that Xenopsyche's assertions that humans lack of explaining everything is evidence of a creator are bogus.

quote:Originally posted by Viraljimmy:

Well, yeah, if all "god" means is whatever we can't explain and predict 100%, then you can have your gaps, and call them "god", and wonder why everyone points and laughs.

1.) The inability to explain the beginning of the universe in no way implies a creator. A creator would just set the question a step back: how did the creator come about?

2.) quote:My point was that science cannot explain the existence of the universe. In the BIg Bang Theory, everything explodes from a point called singularity. Science can explain what heppens after the explosion of the singularity itsself, but cannot explain where that singularity came from.

Yes, it can. (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html)

3.)

quote:...a philosophical argument on why it is rational to accept the possibility of a creator.

How many fucking times will this have to be explained? Atheism is only a lack of belief in God. It is not necessarily a belief that there is none for certain. An agnostic is someone that holds that "any ultimate reality is unknown and probably unknowable"; it's perfectly possible to be an agnostic, or "Weak", atheist. Only "Strong" atheism holds that there absolutely is no God.

[This message has been edited by Twisted_Ferret (edited 12-03-2006).]

Viral; what of pantheists, who believe God is both the known and inexplicable?

quote:Originally posted by LEEAM:

Wait, well what other possible explanations are there?



Science just doesn't understand now and it can eventually. The universe has always existed. Time is a loop. It's all an illusion. Aliens from another universe. Etc., etc., etc...

Can I make a point? Thanks.

I'm not arguing for or against the existence of a creator, I was arguing a case for agnosticim. The fact that we can't disprove a creator. But, I guess that really just boils down to semantics and a person's interpretation of the words atheist and agnostic.

Xeno, I don't see any grounds for interpretation.

Atheism means nothing more than lacking a belief in god(s). Agnosticism is nothing more than lacking of useful certainty in god(s) existence/inexistence.

Nobody can 'know' that god(s) exist; that's why it's called faith. And nobody can 'know' that god(s) don't exist.

It really is entirely a matter of faith. Any argument that exists currently, either for or against god(s) can easily be discounted. Agnosticism is the basic state of human existence...and the very reason this forum exists. It's a personal choice, a preference if you will, whether or not you believe.

I believe, because it works for me - it allows me to better care for myself and those around me. I'm just not happy without the belief that there is some divine purpose. Anyone can call me weak for that if they want to...but I would point out that I was a far weaker person without.

quote:Originally posted by Xenopsyche:

Can I make a point? Thanks.

I'm not arguing for or against the existence of a creator, I was arguing a case for agnosticim. The fact that we can't disprove a creator.

You were merely saying that a creator can't be disproved? You are so full of shit!

The title of your thread is Atheism does not work.... As you've been shown, atheism works just fine.

Your first sentence was: ...a philosophical argument on why it is rational to accept the possibility of a creator.

Fuck. I can go on and show you that what you were doing was making ridiculous arguments for why God must exist including: So, since the universe cannot be explained scientifically and it is non-essential, the only other possible explanation is a creator., and now you are saying:

I'm not arguing for or against the existence of a creator, I was arguing a case for agnosticim. The fact that we can't disprove a creator.?

Who the fuck do you think you are fooling?

quote:Originally posted by xray:

You were merely saying that a creator can't be disproved? You are so full of shit!

The title of your thread is Atheism does not work.... As you've been shown, atheism works just fine.

Your first sentence was: ...a philosophical argument on why it is rational to accept the possibility of a creator.

Fuck. I can go on and show you that what you were doing was making ridiculous arguments for why God must exist including: So, since the universe cannot be explained scientifically and it is non-essential, the only other possible explanation is a creator., and now you are saying:

I'm not arguing for or against the existence of a creator, I was arguing a case for agnosticim. The fact that we can't disprove a creator.?

Who the fuck do you think you are fooling?



I like you! Damn...I wish there was a 'favorite posters' section where we could track threads of interesting posters...

quote:Originally posted by xray:

You were merely saying that a creator can't be disproved? You are so full of shit!

The title of your thread is Atheism does not work.... As you've been shown, atheism works just fine.

Your first sentence was: ...a philosophical argument on why it is rational to accept the possibility of a creator.

Fuck. I can go on and show you that what you were doing was making ridiculous arguments for why God must exist including: So, since the universe cannot be explained scientifically and it is non-essential, the only other possible explanation is a creator., and now you are saying:

I'm not arguing for or against the existence of a creator, I was arguing a case for agnosticim. The fact that we can't disprove a creator.?

Who the fuck do you think you are fooling?



Calm the fuck down, I made my last post in an effort to clear up my views on that issue. In my mind, atheism is the idea that there is no creator.

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

Originally posted by among_the_living:

thats why its 'technically'

What? Your statement made no sense. You said:

Anyone who is of a certain religion has to be technically agnostic about other religions gods but they aren't, they're atheists about all but their own.

If they technically have to be something, then they must be that something. You can't later say "but they aren't". If they aren't, then by your own admission you were wrong that they technically have to be something.

Anyway, there is no valid reason a member of a certain religion has to be agnostic regarding other gods. A theist can believe that it is possible that the existence of a god of another religion can be proven, which may prove his current beliefs wrong.

quote:Originally posted by among_the_living:

no one can disprove or prove god

It doesn't matter if you believe this to be true (or even if you are correct). What matters is that some atheists and theists believe you are not correct, which means that they are not agnostic.

quote:Originally posted by among_the_living:

Look up the teapot theory and atheism.



I'm guessing that you're speaking of Russell's teapot? It's not a theory, but an analogy to explain that it is not the atheist's responsibility to prove that God doesn't exist, but the believer's responsibility to prove that He does. It doesn't show in any way that an atheist must be agnostic.



You really dont get it do you.

I say technically because an atheist, being a rational human being can not say "there is no god" because you can not disprove or prove the existence of a higher being.

This is why it is "technically"

"Atheism is only a lack of belief in God. It is not necessarily a belief that there is none for certain. An agnostic is someone that holds that "any ultimate reality is unknown and probably unknowable";"

Atheists lack a belief in god as TW has said here, and agnosticism is believing that, as is correct, he/she is unknown/unknowable/unable to prove or disprove.

Now, this is why i used the teapot analogy, it is impossible to prove or disprove the teapot therefore we all have to be agnostic about it, TECHNICALLY! buttttt there are those that see the evidence AGAINST such a teapot as so great that they choose not to believe in it.

See now? using the definition of each thing you see that when you bring it down to a technicality because god cant be proven or disproved then you are agnostic about god however people see the evidence against such a being and choose to be an atheist about him/her.

Im not having a go but go read/listen to/watch richard dawkins, he explains it a lot more eloquently than i can about the technical meanings of each thing (agnostic/atheist and so on)

quote:Originally posted by Xenopsyche:

Calm the fuck down, I made my last post in an effort to clear up my views on that issue.

You made your views clear in your first post and after having your ass handed to you, you want to pretend you were saying something else. Statements such as "So, since the universe cannot be explained scientifically and it is non-essential, the only other possible explanation is a creator", speak for themselves.



quote:Originally posted by Xenopsyche:

In my mind, atheism is the idea that there is no creator.

Atheism is the lack of belief in God/gods. What it means in your mind is irrelevant.

quote:Originally posted by xray:

Originally posted by Xenopsyche:

Calm the fuck down, I made my last post in an effort to clear up my views on that issue.

You made your views clear in your first post and after having your ass handed to you, you want to pretend you were saying something else. Statements such as "So, since the universe cannot be explained scientifically and it is non-essential, the only other possible explanation is a creator", speak for themselves.



quote:Originally posted by Xenopsyche:

In my mind, atheism is the idea that there is no creator.

Atheism is the lack of belief in God/gods. What it means in your mind is irrelevant.

Dont fucking act like you know me. My thesis was that it is rational to accept the possibility for a creator. I'll admit I wasn't clear in my post. But you only see what what you want to see. And you want to see another "crazed, irrational and insecure creationist" so you can debunk their lies and point out their illogic. And I'm not a creationist. The moment you got a scent of something like that you respond with an hostile post as if im Kent Hovnid.

xray, you are my new favorite poster.

quote:Originally posted by among_the_living:

You really dont get it do you.

No, it is you who doesn't get it.



quote:Originally posted by among_the_living:

I say technically because an atheist, being a rational human being can not say "there is no god" because you can not disprove or prove the existence of a higher being.

You are saying that an atheist has to be rational? An atheist does not need to prove or disprove that God/gods exist to your satisfaction. There are atheists that believe that they can prove that logically deities can not exist. They are not agnostic! There are atheists that believe that deities may be shown to exist, proving them wrong. They also are not agnostic!

quote:Originally posted by among_the_living:

Im not having a go but go read/listen to/watch richard dawkins, he explains it a lot more eloquently than i can about the technical meanings of each thing (agnostic/atheist and so on)

I'm plenty familiar with Dawkins, thanks. You show me where he ever said that "technically everyone who is an Atheist is actually Agnostic", and on my honor, I'll send you $100.



[This message has been edited by Martini (edited 12-03-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Xenopsyche:

Dont fucking act like you know me. My thesis was that it is rational to accept the possibility for a creator.

Go read it again, dipshit.

quote:Originally posted by Xenopsyche:

I'll admit I wasn't clear in my post. But you only see what what you want to see.

You were plenty clear, and what I saw is what you wrote.

quote:Originally posted by Xenopsyche:

"And you want to see another "crazed, irrational and insecure creationist" so you can debunk their lies and point out their illogic. And I'm not a creationist. The moment you got a scent of something like that you respond with an hostile post as if im Kent Hovnid. "

How do you know what I want to see? "Don't fucking act like you know me." Your illogic was pointed out by me and others based on illogical statements on there own. No one cares whether or not you're a creationist or Kent Hovind himself. Now go download a spell checker so you can at least come off as a little bit more than an idiot.

quote:Originally posted by Xenopsyche:

My thesis was that it is rational to accept the possibility for a creator.



It doesn't matter if you now claim that that was your main point. As you can see, no one had a problem with your beliefs that a creator may be possible.

What caused a stir was your myriad of illogical conclusions, mainly your contention that "since the universe cannot be explained scientifically and it is non-essential, the only other possible explanation is a creator."

quote:Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret:

Science just doesn't understand now and it can eventually. The universe has always existed. Time is a loop. It's all an illusion. Aliens from another universe. Etc., etc., etc...[/B]

But in order to fully explain something doesn't it have to have a beginning and posiibly an end?

quote:Originally posted by Xenopsyche:

I'm not arguing for or against the existence of a creator, I was arguing a case for agnosticim. The fact that we can't disprove a creator.

You're forgetting a very important piece of information. Agnosticism also includes the belief that one can't prove a creator.

Your statement ending with, "the only other possible explanation is a creator." does not support a case for agnosticism.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

Viral; what of pantheists, who believe God is both the known and inexplicable?

That's not the god I was talking about.

quote:Originally posted by LEEAM:

But in order to fully explain something doesn't it have to have a beginning and posiibly an end?



why should it? if time was southwards and you lived on a 2D slice of the earth, you'd see the north pole as the beginning of the universe and the south pole as the end, you'd find it incredibly hard to imagine three dimensional space. with this flawed view you could wrongly assume that the god of flatworm created the earth at the north pole, when actually it's just a sphere that's always been there.

quote:Originally posted by among_the_living:

I say technically because an atheist, being a rational human being can not say "there is no god" because you can not disprove or prove the existence of a higher being.

Yes, an atheist can say "there is no god". The one's who do are sometimes labeled strong atheists (depending upon slightly varying definitions).

quote:Originally posted by among_the_living:

See now? using the definition of each thing you see that when you bring it down to a technicality because god cant be proven or disproved then you are agnostic about god however people see the evidence against such a being and choose to be an atheist about him/her.

As Martini tried explaining to you, no matter how strong an argument you make that gods can't be proven or disproven, there are those who don't agree with you. Whether or not their reasoning is ridiculous, doesn't matter a bit. Those who believe that it may be possible to prove that God/gods exist, are not agnostic and neither are the ones who believe it may be possible to disprove God/gods ( and those who believe that they already have logical proof ).

Please don't pull a Xenopsyche and argue for something that you're clearly wrong about. Those who can just admit that they're wrong are much more respected.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-6169720917221820689&q=richard+dawkins

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-5752208690443739173&q=richard+dawkins

Watch those, i THINK its the first where he says "technically we are all agnostic about the teapot but we choose to be atheists about it" or words along those lines.

Im not arguing FOR god, i dont believe in the concept myself but i just dont think you all get what im trying to say, being rational is what i mean, not just choosing not to believe in him/her but reasoning out looking at evidence.

quote:Originally posted by among_the_living:

Watch those, i THINK its the first where he says "technically we are all agnostic about the teapot but we choose to be atheists about it" or words along those lines.

He's speaking about a teapot in orbit around Mars! Proving that an omniscient/omnipotent being can or cannot exist is a different story. Many believe that it is logically impossible for one to exist. I'm 100% sure that Dawkins agrees that such people exist. These people by definition are not agnostic. Many believe that words from their holy books prove that their God/gods exist. I'm 100% sure that Dawkins believes that these people exist. These people by definition are not agnostic.

quote:Originally posted by among_the_living:

but i just dont think you all get what im trying to say, being rational is what i mean, not just choosing not to believe in him/her but reasoning out looking at evidence.

Oh boy. Ya see, now you're pulling a Xenopsyche - claiming that you were saying something other than what you actually said.

What you actually said:

Technically everyone who is an Atheist is actually Agnostic

Do you understand now how that's incorrect?



Anyone who is of a certain religion has to be technically agnostic about other religions gods but they aren't, they're atheists about all but their own.

No. A Christian does not have to be agnostic about other religion's gods. As Martini said, "there is no valid reason a member of a certain religion has to be agnostic regarding other gods. A theist can believe that it is possible that the existence of a god of another religion can be proven, which may prove his current beliefs wrong."



See now? using the definition of each thing you see that when you bring it down to a technicality because god cant be proven or disproved then you are agnostic about god however people see the evidence against such a being and choose to be an atheist about him/her.

Your claim that all atheists are agnostic is based on ignorance. By your own rationale, since you believe that God/gods can not be proven or disproven, everyone is agnostic. If you don't see that this is a ridiculous claim by now, I don't think anyone can explain it any better for you.

I think that among_the_living heard Dawkins speaking about the teapot analogy, and when Dawkins said, "You have to be agnostic about the teapot", he literally thinks that Dawkins meant that everyone has to be agnostic about the teapot. This may be where among_the_living first heard of agnosticism and developed his warped definition of the word.

He was speaking freely and not reading from a written script. I'm sure most reasonably intelligent people would agree that Dawkins doesn't believe that it is impossible for some to believe that the teapot can be proven to exist or to not exist. What he meant was that one would most likely be agnostic about the teapot's existence. He wasn't being very careful of his words there, because he wasn't thinking that this sentence would cause someone to define agnosticism by it and believe that he thinks that everyone has to be agnostic about a teapot's orbit around Mars.

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

Originally posted by Xenopsyche:

I'm not arguing for or against the existence of a creator, I was arguing a case for agnosticim. The fact that we can't disprove a creator.

You're forgetting a very important piece of information. Agnosticism also includes the belief that one can't prove a creator.

Your statement ending with, "the only other possible explanation is a creator." does not support a case for agnosticism.



That because you're taking my statement out of context. In my post I only listed two possibilites for explaining the existence of the universe. The other explanation in my post were disproved leaving the other possible explanation of a creator. So its rational to accept the possibility of a creator. The way you're interpreting that statement does not reflect my views.

quote:Originally posted by Xenopsyche:

That because you're taking my statement out of context.

What else could you have possibly meant by "So, since the universe cannot be explained scientifically and it is non-essential, the only other possible explanation is a creator.", other than what is evident?

You are stating:

1. the universe cannot be explained scientifically (which even if it were true, is not evidence for God's existence, only the current knowledge of humans)

2. it is non-essential (which again, is not

evidence for God's existence)

therefore:

3. the only other possible explanation is a creator (which is a ridiculous conclusion)



Your entire OP is made up of so many other ridiculous conclusions, that I don't want to waste my time listing but here are a couple:

"The existence of something is comprehensible only if it has an explanation."

"In order for there to be a true scientific explantion of the universe, there would have to be an obserivation of the intial physical conditions of the universe and then the application of laws that would explain the universe as it is today."

Defending one of the most idiotic posts ever posted here, isn't making you look any brighter.

Paraphrased:

"We are currently unable to explain the origins of the universe completely. Therefore, the only logical possibility is that an immortal, all-powerful being created it."

Not a valid argument.



Entheogenic

Hexadecimal, I meant to get back to your post earlier, but I got caught up replying to the other b.s. in this thread.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

According the Occam's Razor, the beginning of the universe shouldn't even come into equation as of yet. It seems as though the universe is expanding quickly enough for us to not receive the first light waves - inductive logic creates hypotheses, not theories.

Occam's Razor definitely doesn't say we shouldn't study the Big Bang. All it says is that given two models with equal evidence you rely on the one with the least assumptions and extra entities.

We are receiving the radiation from the last scattering -- that's what the microwave background radiation is, after all. The microwave background radiation is everywhere and has been mapped extensively and fulfills the predictions made by the current Big Bang model. It is uniform throughout all of space and just by itself is a huge neon sign pointing towards the Big Bang.

There are lots of other neat things about the Big Bang model too, like its prediction and mathematical bookkeeping of the ratios and amounts of various light elements, like helium-4 and deuterium. Or the distribution and ages of galaxies and their formations. I already mentioned the red shifting. There are any number of other things; entire libraries and all that.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

Also, though: Big Bang theory IS currently being questioned by the recent validation of dark matter.

Cite? Dark matter has been known to exist for decades; the recent observations of the bullet clusters will help fine tune what we know about dark matter and may clarify one group's former pet hypothesis over the other guy's, but it has nothing to do with the credibility of the Big Bang theory.

1- Agnostic

2- Agreed

laters,

Raven~`

Bump, 'cause I'm tired of looking at King's stretched post.

quote:Also, though: Big Bang theory IS currently being questioned by the recent validation of dark matter.

What the fuck? If anything, the existance of dark matter STRENGTHENS the current model of the universe.