What do you believe in and why do you believe in it?

FISMA

I have a few honest questions about Ath & Agn that I still just do not get. If you have any constructive feedback, please provide.

If I have it correct, concisely: Atheists don't believe in God and Agnostics take no opinion as they are not able to know/prove whether there is a God.

Here's a few thoughts. Constructive responses welcome, please take issue with a particular number.

1) Many agnostics with whom I have spoken often take on a condescending tone and take a sort of intellectual high ground on provability.

They are quick to demonstrate that I cannot "prove" God exists. However, I am quick to point out they are unable to prove that God does not exist. This sounds like a stalemate.

2) How would you prove/demonstrate there is a God? What tool would you use? What tool would be appropriate?

Most people look to science, the fundamental science at that - Physics. That always makes me laugh.

Physics in Greek means natural - it's the study of the natural world, so isn't it radically inappropriate to study the super-natural world with the tools of the natural science?

Keep in mind there may be only one world, whether we perceive it or not. Words like un-natural, natural, or super-natural are our creations.

3) What is it to prove something? I do not think anything is knowable or provable. I believe this was said by David Hume hundreds of years ago. To date, no one has ever "proved" him wrong.

Doesn't proving involve reproducability, an experiment for example? However, can anyone share an experiment, or any other test that can truly be reproduced? Short answer no. Every time you run an experiment, it is a new experiment at some level.

For example, if you drop a ball, and measure its acceleration, and repeat, technically, you are not dropping the same ball, the ball has changed. Not to mention all the other factors that have changed: gravity, resistance, pressure, temperature, ...

In the strictest sense of science and language, there is no "ball" - just our best guess, as I am sure Heisenberg and Zeno would agree. Is our best guess good enough? If you cannot know the ball, then how much merit should I put in your knowing or not knowing God?

You'll note this change is miniscule, however, if we are on the subject of supreme knowledge, I argue that it is critical.

4) By the way, doesn't Physics and all other sciences 100% ignore the effect that the observer has on the observed? Concisely: there is no passive observer. At some level, the quantum level, you, the observer change what's being observed. ?!?!?! Strange, huh?

Point being, everything is in a constant state of change. How then can we ever claim to know anything?

Let me throw another wrench into the gears. Can you prove that time is linear temporal? Do we even know what time is? It’s more correctly called space-time now…

Also, don’t forget that all of those wonderful equations in the Physics book are time reversal symmetric – they work equally well into the past as they do in the future?!?!?! Lesson learned – our current actions should have causative effect on the past AND since we can know the past, there’s no reason (Physics wise) that we should not know the future. That might sound crazy, but that’s Quantum talking.

5) The most precise science man has ever possessed for predicting the outcome of Physical systems is Quantum Mechanics. QM demonstrates that our world is NOT deterministic but probabilistic. That is, if you drop the ball often enough it will: accelerate down, or accelerate up, or not accelerate. I bet there's a chance that it will accelerate up AND down at the same time, OR neither accelerate up nor down! Such are the laws of QM.

6) Here's the kicker! Suppose that we agree upon the outcome of an event and forget the QM stuff. Simple question: what's your scientific test to demonstrate that your memory is working properly? Short answer: there is none! Do you trust your memory? Why?

7) Do you trust your eyes? There's a few experiments that demonstrate our eyes "lie" to us so to speak: they cut information out and the brain (maybe the mind) manipulates things to make life easier.

If we can demonstrate that our eyes and brain take shortcuts, one must ask the logical question: to what extent does this occur and how much information are we losing/fudging. Is such an imprecise device the proper analytical tool for perfection?

If I can demonstrate that your mind is acting like an editor of a movie, would you still agree that it is the absolute tool to determine whether there is or is not a God? Just because the mind can ask a question doesn't mean that it can answer it.

8) On observation, knowing, and reproduction, how does the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle play in?

Thanks for your time and any feedback. It just seems to me that many people take a pseudo scientific argument when it suits them. However, when I ask them a few questions, throwing their own science back at them, they are unable to demonstrate that science is itself, is anything more than a belief system at its fundamental level.

Also, they quickly stray from their rigid scientific rubric to one of ridicule.

Before Science talks about God, should it not be able to tell me a few basics like: What IS mass? What IS energy? What IS time? Short answer - science does not know.

Isn’t it crazy to think that the best of Physicists do not know what mass, time, or Energy IS?

9) What do you believe in and why do you believe in it?

10) If you take the scientific approach, I have so often witnessed, have you ever turned the scientific method onto Science and Scientists?

---

My parting thoughts –

Einstein never said there is nothing going faster than the speed of light.

Einstein said that in our world, you couldn’t take a piece of any thing and accelerate it to the speed of light.

If you read his works he most definitely left open the possibility that there is a super-luminal world. However, us mass-bound entities cannot detect such a world.

Could that be heaven in the modern sense of the old fashioned word?

Pure speculation: perhaps, all of the good deeds and faith that the religions speak of is a way to achieve a sort of symmetry that allows us to do some sort of mass - energy transformation at death and pass into this superluminal world.

Thanks for reading and don’t forget that you learn more about yourself from someone that you totally disagree with as opposed to someone with whom you are in total agreement.

Slan

Rev Hellfire

FISMA wrote: »

1) Many agnostics with whom I have spoken often take on a condescending tone and take a sort of intellectual high ground on provability.

They are quick to demonstrate that I cannot "prove" God exists. However, I am quick to point out they are unable to prove that God does not exist. This sounds like a stalemate.

Not really, an agnostic adopts the neutral position. I as an agnostic am looking to both you as a theist and the atheists here on this forum to sway me convincing one way or the other on the subject.

The failure if there is any is on your side since you clearly believe you have conclusive proof of your gods existence and for you to provide it in an irrefutable manner.

All I ask is that you don't use self-referencing evidence, ie. the bible.
I mean telling me the bible is true because it says so in the bible is going to get neither of us anywhere.

There is the other small matter of the other world religions (I'm happy to stick with the major ones), I mean some of them have books also and those books have told me your book is wrong.

Blackhorse Slim

FISMA wrote: »

I have a few honest questions about Ath & Agn that I still just do not get. If you have any constructive feedback, please provide.

If I have it correct, concisely: Atheists don't believe in God and Agnostics take no opinion as they are not able to know/prove whether there is a God.

Here's a few thoughts. Constructive responses welcome, please take issue with a particular number.

1) Many agnostics with whom I have spoken often take on a condescending tone and take a sort of intellectual high ground on provability.

They are quick to demonstrate that I cannot "prove" God exists. However, I am quick to point out they are unable to prove that God does not exist. This sounds like a stalemate.

2) How would you prove/demonstrate there is a God? What tool would you use? What tool would be appropriate?

Most people look to science, the fundamental science at that - Physics. That always makes me laugh.

Physics in Greek means natural - it's the study of the natural world, so isn't it radically inappropriate to study the super-natural world with the tools of the natural science?

Keep in mind there may be only one world, whether we perceive it or not. Words like un-natural, natural, or super-natural are our creations.

3) What is it to prove something? I do not think anything is knowable or provable. I believe this was said by David Hume hundreds of years ago. To date, no one has ever "proved" him wrong.

Doesn't proving involve reproducability, an experiment for example? However, can anyone share an experiment, or any other test that can truly be reproduced? Short answer no. Every time you run an experiment, it is a new experiment at some level.

For example, if you drop a ball, and measure its acceleration, and repeat, technically, you are not dropping the same ball, the ball has changed. Not to mention all the other factors that have changed: gravity, resistance, pressure, temperature, ...

In the strictest sense of science and language, there is no "ball" - just our best guess, as I am sure Heisenberg and Zeno would agree. Is our best guess good enough? If you cannot know the ball, then how much merit should I put in your knowing or not knowing God?

You'll note this change is miniscule, however, if we are on the subject of supreme knowledge, I argue that it is critical.

4) By the way, doesn't Physics and all other sciences 100% ignore the effect that the observer has on the observed? Concisely: there is no passive observer. At some level, the quantum level, you, the observer change what's being observed. ?!?!?! Strange, huh?

Point being, everything is in a constant state of change. How then can we ever claim to know anything?

Let me throw another wrench into the gears. Can you prove that time is linear temporal? Do we even know what time is? It’s more correctly called space-time now…

Also, don’t forget that all of those wonderful equations in the Physics book are time reversal symmetric – they work equally well into the past as they do in the future?!?!?! Lesson learned – our current actions should have causative effect on the past AND since we can know the past, there’s no reason (Physics wise) that we should not know the future. That might sound crazy, but that’s Quantum talking.

5) The most precise science man has ever possessed for predicting the outcome of Physical systems is Quantum Mechanics. QM demonstrates that our world is NOT deterministic but probabilistic. That is, if you drop the ball often enough it will: accelerate down, or accelerate up, or not accelerate. I bet there's a chance that it will accelerate up AND down at the same time, OR neither accelerate up nor down! Such are the laws of QM.

6) Here's the kicker! Suppose that we agree upon the outcome of an event and forget the QM stuff. Simple question: what's your scientific test to demonstrate that your memory is working properly? Short answer: there is none! Do you trust your memory? Why?

7) Do you trust your eyes? There's a few experiments that demonstrate our eyes "lie" to us so to speak: they cut information out and the brain (maybe the mind) manipulates things to make life easier.

If we can demonstrate that our eyes and brain take shortcuts, one must ask the logical question: to what extent does this occur and how much information are we losing/fudging. Is such an imprecise device the proper analytical tool for perfection?

If I can demonstrate that your mind is acting like an editor of a movie, would you still agree that it is the absolute tool to determine whether there is or is not a God? Just because the mind can ask a question doesn't mean that it can answer it.

8) On observation, knowing, and reproduction, how does the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle play in?

Thanks for your time and any feedback. It just seems to me that many people take a pseudo scientific argument when it suits them. However, when I ask them a few questions, throwing their own science back at them, they are unable to demonstrate that science is itself, is anything more than a belief system at its fundamental level.

Also, they quickly stray from their rigid scientific rubric to one of ridicule.

Before Science talks about God, should it not be able to tell me a few basics like: What IS mass? What IS energy? What IS time? Short answer - science does not know.

Isn’t it crazy to think that the best of Physicists do not know what mass, time, or Energy IS?

9) What do you believe in and why do you believe in it?

10) If you take the scientific approach, I have so often witnessed, have you ever turned the scientific method onto Science and Scientists?

---

My parting thoughts –

Einstein never said there is nothing going faster than the speed of light.

Einstein said that in our world, you couldn’t take a piece of any thing and accelerate it to the speed of light.

If you read his works he most definitely left open the possibility that there is a super-luminal world. However, us mass-bound entities cannot detect such a world.

Could that be heaven in the modern sense of the old fashioned word?

Pure speculation: perhaps, all of the good deeds and faith that the religions speak of is a way to achieve a sort of symmetry that allows us to do some sort of mass - energy transformation at death and pass into this superluminal world.

Thanks for reading and don’t forget that you learn more about yourself from someone that you totally disagree with as opposed to someone with whom you are in total agreement.

Slan

I believe the children are our future

deelite

I believe in whatever you do should cause no harm to anybody. If you need to pray or look for guidance from a higher source - so be it - once it doesn't cause upset or anguish to anybody. Live and let live

robindch

tl;dr

Try summarizing.

Blackhorse Slim

Ok, a more productive answer;

1 I can't prove that god exists or does not exist. I also can't prove that pink unicorns do or do not exist, but I'm not going to waste my time looking for them.

2 I wouldn't

3 You argue that it's critical? How? What's your argument? IN what way is it critical? You have demonstrated nothing.

4 Not all physics (or science) ignores the effect of the oberver on the observed, just where it is irrelevent.

The laws of physics are not in a constant state of change, they have remained the same for billions of years.

I don't see how the concept of space-time applies to god - you're spewing out half-learned physics as if supports your point, but it doesn't. WHat is your point?

5 QM is only applicable at the quantum level. Is your god smaller than an electron? Again, what point are you trying to make?

BTW our world being shown not to be deterministic is a pretty good argument against an omniscient deity. Shooting yourself in the foot there.

6 My memory is pretty dodgy. How does this show that god exists?

7 My eyes are pretty good. I'm trying to figure out what you're saying here - are you trying to say that we shouldn't use our minds and our senses to investigate the world around us? WHat alternative do you suggest?

8 It doesn't.

9 I've already told you.

10 I have pleny of evidence that science and scientists exist, but none that god exists.


I'm not sure what you're trying to do here, you start off by attacking agnostics and then put forward a series of badly thought-out arguments in favour of agnosticism

Is this an April Fools day joke? It's a few hours late

axer

OP, firstly I am atheist and its not that I don't believe some sort of god could possibly exist its that it is highly unlikely that one does. I am open to real evidence - any real evidence will help.

Secondly, if everything is unprovable why would someone just choose to believe in god or more precisely a christian god or worse still believe that the bible is the word of god when it was written by humans.

Thirdly, it is next to impossible to prove a negative. There is absolutely no proof of a super natural world. You can't even prove that a god does exist so how would you expect someone to prove that one doesn't.

Fourtly, it is possible to perform experiments that prove theories. Experiements are done multiple times to get averages. Then other scientists review the experiements looking for flaws in how the experiement was run or logic used. This is why science works - it is peer reviewed and it works. If it didn't we would not have effective medicine or technology. Heck, wouldn't be able to post this topic here if it didn't work effectively.

You know Einstein was an atheist, right?

No scientist worth anything would conclusively say something doesn't exist without a doubt but at the same time no scientist would say something does exist without a doubt until there is conclusive evidence to support it.

The point I am trying to make is that I don't believe in a god because there is absolutely no evidence for any. The only "evidence" there is is people's feelings and anecdotes. We know that the brain is powerful and can sometimes mess with people's senses. I would not rely on this type of "evidence" for anything.

I don't understand how the vast majority of people rely on science for everyday things e.g. medicine etc but then some can throw that all out the window when it comes to the biggest question of them all and believe without any evidence.

Memnoch

FISMA - You're starting out with a flawed assumption. The need to prove that something "doesn't exist." This is a falacy.

Things don't exist until they are proven to, it's that simple.

For example....

Time travelling Leprechauns.

Vengeful ghosts.

Kung-fu, ninja Angels.

Spiderman

Superman

Invisible pink elephants

Flying Pigs.

Now imagine the ridiculousness of going up to someone and saying - "prove they don't exist." Sorry, that's just idiotic. Hence the condescending tone that agnostics tend to take with the religious.

I'm agnostic by the way.

Also while I accept the possibility that we may one day find proof for the validity of a supernatural being, I've little doubt that the bible (and all other current man made versions) are utterly wrong on the matter.

cavedave

I wonder about many of these issues.

However there is a magical step 2 between
1. there are some flaws in human perception and knowledge
2.???
3. there will be pie in the sky when you die. And we know this because a Deity went round knocking up virgins and performing magic tricks two thousand years ago.

There very well might be a god. The issue is whether someone can go around telling me what to do because they have an imaginary friend.

Physics and all other sciences 100% ignore the effect that the observer has on the observed?

Heisenberg and indeed all modern physicists would differ with you on that.

What is it to prove something? I do not think anything is knowable or provable. I believe this was said by David Hume hundreds of years ago. To date, no one has ever "proved" him wrong.

You cannot. With a worldview based on Popper you just have the best current explanation.

Yes QM is probabilistic. So what? A ball may spontaneously teleport from one location to another but with vanishingly small chance. It is still following QM rules.

I think on this day we should all remember a east mediterranean wise man who was martyred so that we may all learn to live in peace and happiness. So lets all raise a glass of hemlock to remember him!

mehfesto

Just on point 6:

if the memory can't be trusted should we not question religion on this point more? They believe in an old book, one that qas written over a number of years, by many people - sometimes writing about events at a later date.

Should we consider that their memories may have been altered - confusing what they actually saw with what they wanted to see?

and here's the kicker, these miracles or whatever they may be are not even open to any form of scientific examination.

Point 6 may be well & good, but if science strives to improve our knowledge of the world - by even allowing itself to be viewed as imperfect and open to correction, I think it would be foolish to suggest it is impartial.

It tries it's best to be the most accurate it can be. Unlike the bible or church where what is said goes - unsupported by an evidence & lauered with bias and personal views.

bnt

A quick note on point #4: as already mentioned, the role of the Observer in quantum physics is well known - see Copenhagen Interpretation. Erwin Schrödinger famously objected to this, leading to his Schrödinger's Cat thought experiment as a reductio ad absurdum, but it turned out to be a useful metaphor for explaining the Copenhagen Interpretation.

However, these concepts are only valid at the sub-atomic level and do not extend in to our "macroscopic" world. You have the likes of Deepak Chopra trying to use quantum physics to posit "god" (see also Quantum Mysticism), but I prefer the way Douglas Adams imagined it: the invention of a device that would cause all the atoms in a lady's underwear to move a foot to the left - and then the Infinite Improbability Drive.

sink

bnt wrote: »

A quick note on point #4: as already mentioned, the role of the Observer in quantum physics is well known - see Copenhagen Interpretation. Erwin Schrödinger famously objected to this, leading to his Schrödinger's Cat thought experiment as a reductio ad absurdum, but it turned out to be a useful metaphor for explaining the Copenhagen Interpretation.

However, these concepts are only valid at the sub-atomic level and do not extend in to our "macroscopic" world. You have the likes of Deepak Chopra trying to use quantum physics to posit "god" (see also Quantum Mysticism), but I prefer the way Douglas Adams imagined it: the invention of a device that would cause all the atoms in a lady's underwear to move a foot to the left - and then the Infinite Improbability Drive.

Astonishingly you're wrong.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8570836.stm

magicbastarder

FISMA wrote: »

2) How would you prove/demonstrate there is a God? What tool would you use? What tool would be appropriate?

Most people look to science, the fundamental science at that - Physics. That always makes me laugh.

Physics in Greek means natural - it's the study of the natural world, so isn't it radically inappropriate to study the super-natural world with the tools of the natural science?

agreed. if god exists 'outside' physics - in the sense that he can ignore physics at will, physics is not a tool to investigate his existence. but the fact that physics cannot prove god's existence or lack thereof says *nothing* about the chances of him existing. i.e. it doesn't make any case for his existence stronger.

dvpower

FISMA wrote: »

2) How would you prove/demonstrate there is a God? What tool would you use? What tool would be appropriate?

An appearance of God on the Late Late Show with a demonstration of some miracles. I'd also need to have that bloke from Stokes Kennedy Crowley on to verify that there was no messing.

dvpower

FISMA wrote: »

1) Many agnostics with whom I have spoken often take on a condescending tone and take a sort of intellectual high ground on provability.

They are quick to demonstrate that I cannot "prove" God exists. However, I am quick to point out they are unable to prove that God does not exist. This sounds like a stalemate.

How is it a stalemate?
If you make a claim about something then you need to demonstrate why you made the claim.

If you make a claim about God existing, especially if you make a claim about a personal God existing with all of the fantastic attributes that are normally associated with God, then you have a lot of work to do demonstrating why you are making these fantastic claims.

Daftendirekt

Hi FISMA,

That was a long post, so I'll just address what I think were the key points.

First of all, I'm an agnostic atheist. Agnostic because I don't and can't know for sure whether there is or isn't is a god , and an atheist because I don't believe in one. However the fact that we can't know for sure whether a god does or doesn't exist is a poor reason to believe in one. It also doesn't mean that the probability of a deity's existence is the same as the probability of its non-existence. For instance, I'm going to make up some beings right now with much the same properties as a god would supposedly have:


The Almighty Orange Peanut of Jupiter

The Morbidly Obese Meatball Man from Mars

The Great Yellow Banana Goddess of Bananarama


In light of the fact that I've just made these things up, what would you think the probability of their existence is? Now if I claimed one of more of these beings had communicated with me, wrote it down in a book, and passed it on to my descendants, teaching it as the 'truth' to my children, to their children, to their children's children and so on, would it become any less silly?

Which brings me onto my next point. We can never really experience the world as it is. Everything we see is merely a representation of the actual world, coloured in such a way as to help us survive. Everything we hear is just as inaccurate. The point is, we can't trust our senses. They're just far too fallible to be any use to us in learning something about the universe as it actually is, as opposed to the way we perceive it.

This is why we need a system such as science. Science doesn't deal in truth, it deals in accuracy. If I predict X will happen if I do Y under Z conditions, and it proves correct, and if other people can consistently repeat this experiment with the same success, then we may have discovered some constant of the universe. Does it matter if we have the exact explanation wrong? Does it matter if rather than being powered by electricity, my computer is powered by magical leprechaun pixie dust? Well, maybe it does to an extent, but the more important thing is that we can do things with our de facto knowledge. We have a way of getting around the limitations of our own senses, and actually learning something rather than just guessing.

This is why the claim that god is outside the realm of science arouses scepticism in so many people. To claim something is outside the realm of our best method for acquiring knowledge of the objective universe puts it squarely in the realm of chin-scratching speculation and guesswork. Or to put it another way, even if a deity does exist, then to put it outside the realm of science is to put it outside the realm of genuine knowledge.

strobe

FISMA wrote: »

The abridged version: If I extrapolate from my understanding of quantum physics that potentially we can't say for certain that if I drop a ball it will fall to the ground, then you must admit it's possible God exists.

My response: I can only speak for myself obviously, but at the risk of putting words in other posters mouths...... 99% of people here will happily admit that there is a possibility that god exists, we just don't think it's that likely. While we will say it's very likely indeed that if we drop a ball it will fall to the ground because everytime anywhere anyone has dropped a ball on planet Earth, that we are aware of, it has fallen to the ground due to the force of gravity.

My own personal position is that I would be more of an agnostic (in the sense of the meaning that people commonly attach to the word) to the concept of some, entity, being, force, an uncaused cause, whatever you want to call it, in existance that may have initiated the universe. I think it's more unlikely than it is likely, but I believe right now it's impossible to make a solid declaration on the possibility.

But in terms of Yahweh, the god of the bible, that made a man out of dust and a chick out of his rib (just because....) then ran around smiting people and intervening in the affairs of mankind like it was going out of fashion, but then seemingly lost interest in behaving this way once our understanding of the natural world reached a level beyond that of placing ducks and witches on weighing scales......I call bullsh1t. It makes no sense, Noah didn't save all species of animals from a global flood, and the virgin Mary doesn't appear in tree stumps to little girls.

I apply the above to Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu aswell as every other description of a particular interventianary creator god I have ever heard aswell because there is far more to suggest that they are wrong than there is to suggest they are right, just like there is far more evidence that a ball when dropped will fall to the ground. So I'll continue to call bullsh1t on Yahweh or Ra or Ganesha and I'll continue to jump out of the way when a worker drops his hammer as I'm walking beneath the scaffolding he's on.

Any questions?

philologos

deelite wrote: »

I believe in whatever you do should cause no harm to anybody. If you need to pray or look for guidance from a higher source - so be it - once it doesn't cause upset or anguish to anybody. Live and let live

Isn't establishing the truth important?

Blackhorse Slim

Jakkass wrote: »

Isn't establishing the truth important?

You can't handle the truth

philologos

Daftendirekt wrote: »

First of all, I'm an agnostic atheist. Agnostic because I don't and can't know for sure whether there is or isn't is a god , and an atheist because I don't believe in one.

This seems contradictory.

If you aren't sure that God exists, one would be unsure about God, rather than not believing in it. There is a difference in strength between the first and the second.

Disbelieving in God is something different to not being sure that God exists. It's a main reason why the forum is called Atheists & Agnostics, rather than just Atheists.

strobe

Please.....PLEASE, can we not do the whole interpretation of the words atheism and agnosticism again.....I'm begging you, after the last 150 threads dealing with it can we not just accept that people have their own personal understanding of the meaning of the words and agree to disagree?

philologos

Perhaps we ought to have a sticky. As it's just plain confusing coming into a thread, where the OP differentiates atheism from agnosticism, and then just after another poster lumps them both together.

Daftendirekt

Jakkass wrote: »

Perhaps we ought to have a sticky. As it's just plain confusing coming into a thread, where the OP differentiates atheism from agnosticism, and then just after another poster lumps them both together.

I didn't lump them together, I quite clearly differentiated between the two positions. The reason I even mentioned it was because the OP seemed to be making the common mistake that to not believe in something means claiming to know it doesn't exist.

Although maybe I took him/her up wrong.

If you aren't sure that God exists, one would be unsure about God, rather than not believing in it. There is a difference in strength between the first and the second.

Disbelieving in God is something different to not being sure that God exists. It's a main reason why the forum is called Atheists & Agnostics, rather than just Atheists.

Yes and no. You can be both unsure about God's existence and not believe in him at the same time. The two are separate but not mutually contradictory positions. Just like you can believe in God and still be unsure about his existence. Agnosticism is a position that's compatible with either atheism or theism, since it relates to knowledge, not belief.

But anyway, I agree with strobe. I'd be happy to have a discussion about this with you, but it's best left for another thread. The meaning of the word 'agnostic' has major thread derailment potential.

philologos

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Yes and no. You can be both unsure about God's existence and not believe in him at the same time. The two are separate but not mutually contradictory positions. Just like you can believe in God and still be unsure about his existence. Agnosticism is a position that's compatible with either atheism or theism, since it relates to knowledge, not belief

I'm really not sure I agree.

Not believing in God is saying that you do not believe that God exists.
This is very different from saying that you believe that God may exist.

These terms do seem mutually exclusive. One is much stronger than the other.

There is a difference between being unsure and not bothering, and having clear disbelief in God.

magicbastarder

Jakkass wrote: »

Not believing in God is saying that you do not believe that God exists.
This is very different from saying that you believe that God may exist.

'god may exist, but i don't believe he does.'
i don't see an issue?

Daftendirekt

magicbastarder wrote: »

'god may exist, but i don't believe he does.'
i don't see an issue?

This.

philologos

magicbastarder wrote: »

'god may exist, but i don't believe he does.'
i don't see an issue?

The second statement pretty much nullifies the first. The belief that God may exist, is really inconsistent with believing that God doesn't exist. The first is a middle ground position, the latter is a dismissal.

The other option is to get into probabilities:
I believe that God may exist, but that this is improbable.
I believe that God may exist, and this is probable.

Then the two stronger positions.
I don't believe that God exists.
I believe that God exists.

Blackhorse Slim

I think that christians on this forum getting the wrong idea about our perception of this "god" that may or may not exist is causing problems.

I think the most common agnostic/atheist belief is that "an eternal being that created the universe" may exist - we have no way of knowing - but the christian god that listens to prayers and cares whether we go to mass certainly does not.

Please feel free to correct me if others believe differently.

philologos

Blackhorse Slim wrote: »

I think that christians on this forum getting the wrong idea about our perception of this "god" that may or may not exist is causing problems.

This idea has also been discussed between atheists and agnostics on this forum in the past. It certainly isn't just something the Christians "have the wrong idea about".

We have problems even establishing the right idea in the first place.

Blackhorse Slim wrote: »

I think the average agnostic/atheist belief is that "an eternal being that created the universe" may exist - we have no way of knowing - but the christian god that listens to prayers and cares whether we go to mass certainly does not.

This isn't really an agnostic position at all. This is where the atheism starts being distinct from the agnosticism.

Agnosticism and this is affirmed from my previous experience as an agnostic and by the friends I have who are currently agnostic is the mere position that God may exist, or that He may not. There is no "certainty" at all.

FISMA

... Thanks for majority of constructive responses. I will over the next few hours try and respond to those that were thoughtful and worthy of discussion.

Ickle Magoo

Jakkass wrote: »

Agnosticism and this is affirmed from my previous experience as an agnostic and by the friends I have who are currently agnostic is the mere position that God may exist, or that He may not. There is no "certainty" at all.

The definition of agnosticism is that the existence of a god or gods is unknowable. If it's unknowable then any claims made by specific religions regarding any gods cannot be correct other than by sheer chance by virtue of such things being unknowable...

FISMA

Blackhorse Slim
I am undecided if you are just trolling or trying to cause trouble. I would like to take point for point, however, I normally try not to bother with antagonists. With all due respect, I fail to see where I "attack." In your first post you troll, in the second you show a fundamental misunderstanding of what I said, then you insult my Physics, in which I have degrees, and end with an insult. Rather childish. Fortunately, you appear to be in the minority on this board.

If it is your intent to continue acting as such, stop reading. Any further posts with such nonsense will go unanswered. Let's go point for point.

1) First, please give one example of "spewing out half-learned physics" - just one will do.

Next, you state "The laws of physics are not in a constant state of change, they have remained the same for billions of years." In general I agree.

However, where did I say that "The Laws of Physics" were in a constant state of change?

I said that objects that are subjected to the laws of Physics are in a constant state of change. That's my statement and I stand by it.

I think you are confused with respect to my use of the word gravity, for example.

The Gravitational Force (G) differs from the acceleration due to gravity ag, which in turn differs from free fall acceleration close to the surface of the Earth (g). Close to the surface of the Earth, in a vacuum, objects accelerate at g, which varies by location, however, we roughly estimate to be 9.80m/s^2. Astronauts in space are in free fall, however, they are not accelerating at g, but slightly less than g, some amount ag= 9.00m/s^2 for example.

The Gravitational Force is an infinite ranged force, according to Physics. All objects in the universe pull on all other objects in the universe with equal and opposite Forces. The point was, that since the Universe is in constant motion, no experiment can ever Truly be replicated as you can never Truly replicate those initial conditions.

FWIW, the laws of Physics are technically based on age of the Universe. If you study the unfolding of the Universe, you will see that the four fundamental Forces of Nature were not always present in the Universe, more-so in the very beginning.

For example, without the Fundamental Force of Gravitation present, there can hardly be Newton's Laws.

Concisely: the Laws that we have in Physics today have not been constant since the beginning of the universe.

Again, if you care to be constructive, please do so, if not, best wishes and slan agus abhaille.

FISMA

Rev Hellfire,

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Not really, an agnostic adopts the neutral position. I as an agnostic am looking to both you as a theist and the atheists here on this forum to sway me convincing one way or the other on the subject.

First paragraph - fair enough thanks for the feedback. For the record, I am not looking to sway anyone.

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

The failure if there is any is on your side since you clearly believe you have conclusive proof of your gods existence and for you to provide it in an irrefutable manner.

My point is that nothing is knowable and nothing is provable. Everything is a belief system - everything - even science.

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

All I ask is that you don't use self-referencing evidence, ie. the bible.
I mean telling me the bible is true because it says so in the bible is going to get neither of us anywhere.

I didn't, did I? However, it does appear that a lot of scientists are doing what you suggesting above.

Ickle Magoo

FISMA wrote: »

Everything is a belief system - everything - even science.

For the love of all that is noodly, please do a quick search to find all the answers you ever want on that statement - it's a claim made every other week, if not every week, by newby theists on this forum...

philologos

^^ If it is asked frequently, it's an indication that it hasn't been adequately dealt with even if people posted on it previously.

axer

FISMA wrote: »

My point is that nothing is knowable and nothing is provable. Everything is a belief system - everything - even science.

How do NASA know what direction to propel a satellite so that it gets caught just enough by a planet's or moon's gravity to be flung in the direction they want to send it afterwards? Is it by guesswork or does physics have the answer to that?

How do I know that if I let go of a ball from my hand that it will fall to the ground?

These things are based on proven theories. An intervening creator is not based on any evidence at all - anecdotal at best. There are plenty of books written about fairies - does that make fairies real? No, because you need some real evidence/data.

fitz0

Jakkass wrote: »

^^ If it is asked frequently, it's an indication that it hasn't been adequately dealt with even if people posted on it previously.

New faces, same misconceptions.

Next up we have: Atheism is a religion.

FISMA

Memoch,
I am well aware of the problems involving proving negatives. However, there are alternate ways of looking at the problem such as the contrapositive and more. This is why I posted #2. Also, my point was to bring to light the problems inherent in proving positive so to speak. Neither can Truly be done (capital "T").

Before I go any further, let's take it easy with the idiotic stuff. If you need clarification, please ask, as I am about to.

You say

Memnoch wrote: »

Things don't exist until they are proven to, it's that simple.

You don't mean this literally do you? With that line of thought atoms did not exist to the people in the 1700's as they could not prove they exist.

Things do exist, as I imagine you are trying to say, however their existence does not depend upon on technology - which appears to be what you are saying. There appearance to us, in our comfort level, may be technology related, however, they themselves are not.

There were amoeba long before the first lens could detect them, there were galaxies long before the first telescope saw them, and there were protons, neutrons, and electrons long before they were first detected. Our conscious observation may bring us a more comfortable belief in the believed, however, it's there whether we believe it or not - whether we have the tools to detect it or not.

Things do exist independent of the observer.

Also, your post appears to suggest that your belief system is based on Science and Technology? Is that a fair statement?

Herbal Deity

hey guys so what if we call god is actually all the energy and forces in the universe and btw this weed i just got is really good

Ickle Magoo

Jakkass wrote: »

^^ If it is asked frequently, it's an indication that it hasn't been adequately dealt with even if people posted on it previously.

Erm, no it isn't...it's an indication that people post threads without searching to see if their question has previously been posed and that there are several very common misconceptions among theists.

These kind of themes usually run along the lines of "prove there is no god", "you believe in god you are just trying to be trendy", "atheism is a religion", "science is a faith/belief", "you can't prove there is no god any more than I can prove there is one so we're 50/50", etc, etc. I've already requested stickies so we can just direct such posters there instead of endlessly regurgitating the same info to new posters every other day... :cool:

MrPudding

Jakkass wrote: »

^^ If it is asked frequently, it's an indication that it hasn't been adequately dealt with even if people posted on it previously.

Perhaps it indicates that some people have an amazing ability to selectively ignore that which they do not agree with?

MrP

FISMA

Axer,
Tone it down and we may have an insightful discussion. Let's adopt the following:
1) Proof - with a capital "P" is the absolute Proof - there's no way it can be violated.

2) proof with a little "p" - you don't believe that if I drop this ball it will fall down? Give me ball, I let go, it dropped, repeat one thousand times, it still drops. Thus, I have proven that the ball falls down when dropped.

However, you cannot say that I Know the ball is going to fall, strictly speaking, you do not, you are not clairvoyant.

If you repeat this experiment, let's say 10^100 times, the ball will do something strange - like "fall" up. So says Quantum Mechanics and me.

Same goes for "truth" - using capital "T's" and lowercase "t's" as such.

Personally, I believe that the Bible contains many truths (little "t") but that man is incapable of knowing the Truth (capital "T").

Quantum is difficult to wrap your brain around and a lot of people here are showing the same issues I first had when I studied it.

It's kind of like what they used to say in the North: if you're not confused then you don't know what's going on."

axer wrote: »

How do NASA know what direction to propel a satellite so that it gets caught just enough by a planet's or moon's gravity to be flung in the direction they want to send it afterwards? Is it by guesswork or does physics have the answer to that?
.

Short answer, they don't "Know," they believe so. Again, we're mixing up Knowing -knowing and Proving - proving.

For example, the calculations that NASA used to make the burn involved significant figures. There was, at some level, straightforward error. We attempt to minimize the errors for safe space flight, however, tragically, Astronauts die all too often.

Astronauts have died, simply because of significant figures.

It's a roll of the dice, one with which we are confident, but not 100% sure.

axer wrote: »

How do I know that if I let go of a ball from my hand that it will fall to the ground?

You don't "Know," you believe. What is it to know (or Know) anyhow?

Finally, this last paragraph I take great exception to.

axer wrote: »

These things are based on proven theories. An intervening creator is not based on any evidence at all - anecdotal at best. There are plenty of books written about fairies - does that make fairies real? No, because you need some real evidence/data.

1) You cannot prove or Prove a theory. That's why it is a Theory. Example: evolution (in the sense that we come from chimps) or the Big Bang.

We cannot test that "we come from chimps" or the big bang, we have not observed "we come from chimps" or the big bang, we cannot replicate "we come from chimps" or the big bang.

The best we can do is look for evidence. However, please, oh please, ensure you are able to differentiate between evidence and proof. Even the lawyers get this right!

Theories are not provable, we weight the evidence, and then decide if we are going to believe in them.

Blackhorse Slim

FISMA wrote: »

Blackhorse Slim
With all due respect, I fail to see where I "attack." In your first post you troll, in the second you show a fundamental misunderstanding of what I said, then you insult my Physics, in which I have degrees, and end with an insult.

You began by accusing agnostics you have spoken to of being condescending towards you. And also that you laugh at them. My first post was my initial reaction to your question, not trolling at all, but if you disagree you are free to take it up with a mod.
My degrees are not in physics, but my understanding of physics is sound.

FISMA wrote: »

Next, you state "The laws of physics are not in a constant state of change, they have remained the same for billions of years." In general I agree.

I'm glad you agree.

FISMA wrote: »

I said that objects that are subjected to the laws of Physics are in a constant state of change. That's my statement and I stand by it.

...


FWIW, the laws of Physics are technically based on age of the Universe. If you study the unfolding of the Universe, you will see that the four fundamental Forces of Nature were not always present in the Universe, more-so in the very beginning.

For example, without the Fundamental Force of Gravitation present, there can hardly be Newton's Laws.

Concisely: the Laws that we have in Physics today have not been constant since the beginning of the universe.

Again, we agree. The laws of physics were changing at the dawn of time, but have been stable for a very long time. this contradicts your point that

FISMA wrote: »

everything is in a constant state of change. How then can we ever claim to know anything?

I posited the laws of physics as something that are not in a constant state of change, and therefore knowable. A point you seem to have ignored.

The "half-learned physics" remark was in response to this:

FISMA wrote: »

doesn't Physics and all other sciences 100% ignore the effect that the observer has on the observed?

Absolutely not. Are you suggesting that physicists - and therefore Physics - are not aware of the effect of the observer on the observed? Apart from the obvious Schroedinger's Cat/ Uncertainty Principle being an important part of quantum mechanics, it is also a well-known phenomenon in standard particle physics, thermodynamics and electronics. If science ignores this, then how did you learn of it? How did I?

You have since clarified what I believe to be your main point;

FISMA wrote: »

My point is that nothing is knowable and nothing is provable. Everything is a belief system - everything - even science.

This is so vague as to be meaningless. Your response to agnosticism is almost a definition of agnosticism itself.

MikeC101

FISMA wrote: »

respond to those that were...worthy of discussion.
try not to bother with antagonists
In your first post you troll
you insult my Physics, in which I have degrees, and end with an insult.
Rather childish.
Any further posts with such nonsense will go unanswered.

You sound awfully familiar. You wouldn't happen to have 6 foot 4 inches of genetic material and a former girlfriend whose father was a high ranking Chinese communist, would you?

Daftendirekt

Jakkass wrote: »

The second statement pretty much nullifies the first. The belief that God may exist, is really inconsistent with believing that God doesn't exist. The first is a middle ground position, the latter is a dismissal.

The other option is to get into probabilities:
I believe that God may exist, but that this is improbable.
I believe that God may exist, and this is probable.

Then the two stronger positions.
I don't believe that God exists.
I believe that God exists.

The probabilities option sounds about right. Although I really don't see what the contradiction is between not being convinced of a proposition and admitting the possibility that said proposition could still be true.

Ickle Magoo

Jakkass wrote: »

The second statement pretty much nullifies the first. The belief that God may exist, is really inconsistent with believing that God doesn't exist. The first is a middle ground position, the latter is a dismissal.

But he doesn't say he believes god may exist, he says

magicbastarder wrote: »

'god may exist, but i don't believe he does.' i don't see an issue?

Look at it more as a "I can't prove there is no god but I'd bet my house on it"...

Dades

FISMA wrote: »

Axer,
Tone it down and we may have an insightful discussion.

FISMA wrote: »

Blackhorse Slim
I am undecided if you are just trolling or trying to cause trouble. I would like to take point for point, however, I normally try not to bother with antagonists. With all due respect, I fail to see where I "attack." In your first post you troll, in the second you show a fundamental misunderstanding of what I said, then you insult my Physics, in which I have degrees, and end with an insult. Rather childish. Fortunately, you appear to be in the minority on this board.

FISMA, it's you that needs to adjust your attitude. With all due respect you've wandered into a forum and offered the same tired arguments we seen a hundred times.

Perhaps if you elaborated on your own beliefs rather than attacking other people's you might earn the trust of people here. In the interim leave the admonishing of posters here to the mods of the forum.

FISMA

Peace BlackHorse,

I tried hard to start the tone off sincere and not antagonistic. The quote to which you took offense was not intended to or actually directed towards agnostics.

I apologize if it came off as such.

With that said, let's please continue the conversation. No I am not going to run and tell the mod's.

Again, I am saying that every thing (like mass), is continually changing. If every thing is in continuous change, how can you ever claim to know anything about any thing?

The Laws of Physics are subject to change. Newton ruled the Universe with his laws, Physics was dead. Then along came Einstein and showed that Newton's Laws fail miserably when you get close to the speed of light. Then along came the QM folks and said that at the fundamental level, Newton is irrelevant. Thus, the once mighty Newton, ruler of the Universe is now demoted to a "special" case. Not too fast, not too slow, not too big, not too small.

So the laws of Physics are changing but not continuously.

Blackhorse Slim wrote: »

Absolutely not. Are you suggesting that physicists - and therefore Physics - are not aware of the effect of the observer on the observed? Apart from the obvious Schroedinger's Cat/ Uncertainty Principle being an important part of quantum mechanics, it is also a well-known phenomenon in standard particle physics, thermodynamics and electronics. If science ignores this, then how did you learn of it? How did I?

I think you misunderstood this one, my fault. I and Physics am well aware of the effect that the observer has on the observed. However, when it comes to equations, we choose to ignore the effect.

Now here's my challenge, not to be antagonistic my friend, but for my own knowledge. Please provide an equation with the observer as a part of the function. There's none in any of the text's I have, I would be sooooo greatful for someone to provide some. I am sure they are out there, I just haven't come across them.

For example, acceleration as a function of time

a(t) = dv/dt - acceleration is the time rate of change of velocity.

You could also write it as a function of position with a quick change of variables, should it suit you

a(x) = something*x^-2*something

Concisely, all I am asking for you is to provide an equation: Chem, Bio, Physics, Math, ... That puts the observer into the equation.

That's what I meant by the quote "doesn't Physics and all other sciences 100% ignore the effect that the observer has on the observed?" Yes, we are aware of the effect. However, we chose to ignore it.

Also, you appear to mix up the laws of quantum mechanics with the application and/or demonstration of quantum mechanics.

We, big macroscopic creatures live in a world, where the most accurate description of physical systems is Quantum Mechanics. QM trumps Newtonian Mechanics.

The effects of QM are most easily demonstrated in the Quantum world. However, as our equipment, methods, and scientists get better, the Quantum effects are getting larger and larger. I'll refer you to the work at MIT and previous postings where the Quantum world is getting bigger.

Peace

Undergod

Science is not a belief system, it's a set of procedures for checking whether theories are true.

If it were a belief system, it would differ from all of the others by being pretty much founded on the idea "we might be wrong about this."

And to address the main focus of Jakkass's posts somewhere back around #20, disbelief is a distinct position from a lack of belief. Jakkass: do you believe I am blond?

Blackhorse Slim

FISMA, thank you for moderating your tone, you will find it gets you better responses.

This is not a physics forum, I don't want to drag us further from atheism and agnosticism but I have one further point to make. The laws of physics themselves do not change - it is our understanding of them that changes. My view is that the laws of physics are not created by man, but discovered.

Science as a belief system - it's not a new idea. The principles on which this "belief system" are founded are far more solid and reliable than an old book. When people are ill, some may go to a priest, some may go to a psychic, but most will go to a doctor. Science is not perfect, but it's the best we have. It works.

So, for the third time, your point seems to be that we cannot know anything. How exactly is that a rebuttal of agnosticism?

FISMA

Thanks for the spirited responses, no pun intended.

I didn't come to here to attack, rebut, refute, or convert. Just trying to understand things a bit better.

I thought about posting in the science area, however, it appeared to be more relevant here.

My point is that in life, there is always a measure of mixed-up-ness. In the Truest sense of the word to Know, we are unable to Know anything.

Please check my postings from time to time as your feedback would be most welcome.

Slan