The Agnostic's Issue

[Ultima Weapon]

There are generally three basic forms of Agnosticism:

• Those who believe the truth about God is unknowable
  
• Those who simply haven't and/or don't really think too much about God
  
• Those who are currently active in the process of questioning God's existance/non-existance and have not yet personally come up with a definitive answer
  

Obviously it is impossible to refute the second stance because the second stance is the complete lack of a stance. The third stance is purely procedural and is therefore rarely considered a lifestyle or phylosophy. Therefore we are basically left with the discussion of stance #1...

To those who believe that the truth about God is unknowable, or that the truth about God can never be proven or known, you must also logically deny that scientific truth itself of any sort cannot be known. Logically, there is a truth. Either God exists, or he doesn't. He cannot exist and not exist at the same time. Truth itself is absolute, so logically there is an absolute truth about God. Someone has to be right. Therefore the debate concerning God's existance/non-existance crosses into the realm of science. If God happens to exist, he is no longer a religious figure, but a scientific fact. Therefore if one were to scientifically pursue the question of "Does God exist?", why is it suddenly impossible to know this specific scientific question as opposed to any other one?

To say that the existance/non-existance of God can never be scientifically proven is to presuppose that science cannot answer a simple yes or no question such as this, and that science has not answered it already.

Now I am not saying that I am a harsh believer in scientism. However I am saying that certain black and white scientific truth questions such as "Does God exist?" should not be automatically ruled out as impossible to know simply because someone happens to find it to be a difficult question.

Fact is, it is logically impossible to say that the truth about God cannot be known. Because that statement in and of itself presupposes you know that statement to be absolute truth, which is impossible to prove. Therefore if it is logically possible that God exists, and logically possible to scientifically prove whether he does or doesn't exists, then it is only logical to pursue this question scientifically as opposed to dogmatically ruling it out.

Agnosticism stance #1 is an illogical stance. Agnosticism stance #2 is obviously illogical and to some extent irresponsible. Therefore the only logical Agnosticism stance is stance #3. As I mentioned, this is purely a procedural stance, and is basically meant only to chose one's side. It is only logical for every person to pursue the issue of God's existance, whether it be on their own individually, or as a collective group. Even the belief that God's existance isn't already proven is a presupposition in and of itself. Science is only data. Science says nothing, Scientists do. It is the interpretation of that same data that causes scientists to draw their conclusions, and people have proven themselves time and time again to be capable of reading the exact same data and draw completely different conclusions.

In the end, Agnosticism has no leg to stand on. All that is left is for the Agnostic to begin (or continue) active and vigorous pursuit of the answers, whether it be by themselves or with others.

Peace

And God Bless

[krypter3]

Why must you feel the need to to start these kinds of threads. The use of labels is pointless. I've been called agnostic because I believe there could be something after death but I don't believe in 'god' as religion describes him. You say it's illogical for someone to simply not think about god. I think it's illogical to make these posts to try and force opinions and beliefs on someone.

Believe in what you want to believe in and let others believe in what they want to believe in.

Edited April 12, 2013 by krypter3

[Zaphod222]

Why must you feel the need to to start these kinds of threads.

That is a religious zealot for you.

But at least this one is harmless. So just take it as background noise... no skin my nose or yours.

[RamblingRebel]

It is good to think though. Might not agree with his thoughts, but cant knock the fella for thinking.

[Zaphod222]

It is good to think though. Might not agree with his thoughts, but cant knock the fella for thinking.

Couldn´t really detect much deep thought there. But as I said: he is harmless, and no skin off my nose.

[eight bits]

There are generally three basic forms of Agnosticism:

Those who believe the truth about God is unknowable

Those who simply haven't and/or don't really think too much about God

Those who are currently active in the process of questioning God's existance/non-existance and have not yet personally come up with a definitive answer

I am an agnostic, and find that analytical framework to be an issue. With respect to the first, nobody knows "the truth about God." Dressing that up with the wo-woo term unknowable simply adds something else that nobody knows, whether or not we will ever be clever enough to figure it out.

In the meantime, what every human being has, at most, is an opinion on the subject of God, an opinion about the solidity of the evidence and argument that bears on that opinion, and in your formulation, an opinion about the prospects for future improvement in that solidity. There's nothing "agnostic" about that. You have described the human condition.

The other two "stances," self-servingly presented as the only alternatives worth mentioning, are simply insulting. Who in hell are you to say that I haven't thought much about God? Or that it if I have, that there is any reason whatsoever to think that I will "yet" abandon my religion?

How about this, my esteemed fellow member? Maybe my opinion is correct that the current state of evidence and argument is abysmally insufficient for a responsible thinker to form a "definitive" answer. I assume you meant "categorical," because know this my friend: I already have a definitive answer. And maybe the remedy for the current insufficiency is not for me to do more "questionning," but for me to adopt a posture of watchful waiting, vigilant for progress in knowledge generally that might make an opening for advancement on this specific question.

My agnostocism is not some individual personal problem. If, as and when the entire human race can confidently answer the question the God, then so, too, will I, if I am still around when this happens. In the meantime, one huge difference between you and me is that I believe that I cannot confiidently answer the question of God unless, in principle, everybody can, all in the same way at the same time.

As to your other points,

Of course I deny that sceintific truth can be "known" in any strict sense. It is a contingent inference subject to revision as more experience accumulates, and in the meantime has been accepted as a best estimate for now. Best often reflects not only prospects for truth, or nearness to truth, but also usefulness, including usefulness as a framework for further investigation.

To say that the existance/non-existance of God can never be scientifically proven is to presuppose that science cannot answer a simple yes or no question

Is number theory incomplete (are there some statements that are true of the counting numbers that cannot be formally demonstrated)? That's a simple yes-no question, too. It provably cannot be answered categorically and certainly. So, science cannot answer it. So what?

This has nothing to do with any positive claim responsible people advance for science. It has nothing to do with the reliability of the answers science gives when it does make estimates of what's going on.

The fantasy of "Scientism" strikes me as fundie revenge for science having rejected their account of my earliest ancestor being an animated mudpie married to a spare rib. It isn't science's fault that some people can't find a metaphor with both hands.

As to the rest, I will only repeat that I have already "chosen a side." I think that the evidence and argument about the question of God is abysmal. You, just like atheist activists, have chosen the other side from mine. It gives me no end of comfort that those who disagree with me about the bearing of evidence and argument so often quarrel among themselves about the implications of their shared belief in sufficiency.

Although I never lose sight that my opinion is only my opinion, nevertheless, the utter confusion of my opponents emboldens me to think that I just might be right about this one.

Edited April 12, 2013 by eight bits

[Zaphod222]

Of course I deny that sceintific truth can be "known" in any strict sense. It is a contingent inference subject to revision as more experience accumulates, and in the meantime has been accepted as a best estimate for now. Best often reflects not only prospects for truth, or nearness to truth, but also usefulness, including usefulness as a framework for further investigation.

Is number theory incomplete (are there some statements that are true of the counting numbers that cannot be formally demonstrated)? That's a simple yes-no question, too. It provably cannot be answered categorically and certainly. So, science cannot answer it. So what?

This has nothing to do with any positive claim responsible people advance for science. It has nothing to do with the reliability of the answers science gives when it does make estimates of what's going on.

The fantasy of "Scientism" strikes me as fundie revenge for science having rejected their account of my earliest ancestor being an animated mudpie married to a spare rib. It isn't science's fault that some people can't find a metaphor with both hands.

LOL! You had me rolling on the floor there for a moment. What a way with words. High five and cheers to you!

[Esoteric Toad]

As of this moment in history there are many things that are unknowable, To say otherwise illustrates complete blind faith. Think whatever you like that science does not work like that. We'd still be treating the ill using bleeding and the four humors if it weren't for SCIENCE.

Unknowable does not equal god/gods.

Edited for spelling and leaving entire words out. Thinking faster than typing

Edited April 12, 2013 by Esoteric Toad

[flbrnt]

There are generally three basic forms of Agnosticism:

• Those who believe the truth about God is unknowable
  
• Those who simply haven't and/or don't really think too much about God
  
• Those who are currently active in the process of questioning God's existance/non-existance and have not yet personally come up with a definitive answer
  

Obviously it is impossible to refute the second stance because the second stance is the complete lack of a stance. The third stance is purely procedural and is therefore rarely considered a lifestyle or phylosophy. Therefore we are basically left with the discussion of stance #1...

To those who believe that the truth about God is unknowable, or that the truth about God can never be proven or known, you must also logically deny that scientific truth itself of any sort cannot be known. Logically, there is a truth. Either God exists, or he doesn't. He cannot exist and not exist at the same time. Truth itself is absolute, so logically there is an absolute truth about God. Someone has to be right. Therefore the debate concerning God's existance/non-existance crosses into the realm of science. If God happens to exist, he is no longer a religious figure, but a scientific fact. Therefore if one were to scientifically pursue the question of "Does God exist?", why is it suddenly impossible to know this specific scientific question as opposed to any other one?

To say that the existance/non-existance of God can never be scientifically proven is to presuppose that science cannot answer a simple yes or no question such as this, and that science has not answered it already.

Now I am not saying that I am a harsh believer in scientism. However I am saying that certain black and white scientific truth questions such as "Does God exist?" should not be automatically ruled out as impossible to know simply because someone happens to find it to be a difficult question.

Fact is, it is logically impossible to say that the truth about God cannot be known. Because that statement in and of itself presupposes you know that statement to be absolute truth, which is impossible to prove. Therefore if it is logically possible that God exists, and logically possible to scientifically prove whether he does or doesn't exists, then it is only logical to pursue this question scientifically as opposed to dogmatically ruling it out.

Agnosticism stance #1 is an illogical stance. Agnosticism stance #2 is obviously illogical and to some extent irresponsible. Therefore the only logical Agnosticism stance is stance #3. As I mentioned, this is purely a procedural stance, and is basically meant only to chose one's side. It is only logical for every person to pursue the issue of God's existance, whether it be on their own individually, or as a collective group. Even the belief that God's existance isn't already proven is a presupposition in and of itself. Science is only data. Science says nothing, Scientists do. It is the interpretation of that same data that causes scientists to draw their conclusions, and people have proven themselves time and time again to be capable of reading the exact same data and draw completely different conclusions.

In the end, Agnosticism has no leg to stand on. All that is left is for the Agnostic to begin (or continue) active and vigorous pursuit of the answers, whether it be by themselves or with others.

Peace

And God Bless

Your argument contains a fallacy. The question of God's existence deals with an absolute. Scientific truths are not absolutes and, indeed, the scientific method is not designed to deal with absolutes. To say that we finite creatures can know the infinite seems both illogical and arrogant to me. We all have our beliefs in this regard but to say they are more than beliefs to me is a form of idolatry.

[GoldenWolf]

That is a religious zealot for you.

But at least this one is harmless. So just take it as background noise... no skin my nose or yours.

Kinda sorta, he fuels the way for the more harmful ones.

Edited April 12, 2013 by HavocWing

[Copasetic]

I am an agnostic, and find that analytical framework to be an issue. With respect to the first, nobody knows "the truth about God." Dressing that up with the wo-woo term unknowable simply adds something else that nobody knows, whether or not we will ever be clever enough to figure it out.

In the meantime, what every human being has, at most, is an opinion on the subject of God, an opinion about the solidity of the evidence and argument that bears on that opinion, and in your formulation, an opinion about the prospects for future improvement in that solidity. There's nothing "agnostic" about that. You have described the human condition.

The other two "stances," self-servingly presented as the only alternatives worth mentioning, are simply insulting. Who in hell are you to say that I haven't thought much about God? Or that it if I have, that there is any reason whatsoever to think that I will "yet" abandon my religion?

How about this, my esteemed fellow member? Maybe my opinion is correct that the current state of evidence and argument is abysmally insufficient for a responsible thinker to form a "definitive" answer. I assume you meant "categorical," because know this my friend: I already have a definitive answer. And maybe the remedy for the current insufficiency is not for me to do more "questionning," but for me to adopt a posture of watchful waiting, vigilant for progress in knowledge generally that might make an opening for advancement on this specific question.

My agnostocism is not some individual personal problem. If, as and when the entire human race can confidently answer the question the God, then so, too, will I, if I am still around when this happens. In the meantime, one huge difference between you and me is that I believe that I cannot confiidently answer the question of God unless, in principle, everybody can, all in the same way at the same time.

As to your other points,

Of course I deny that sceintific truth can be "known" in any strict sense. It is a contingent inference subject to revision as more experience accumulates, and in the meantime has been accepted as a best estimate for now. Best often reflects not only prospects for truth, or nearness to truth, but also usefulness, including usefulness as a framework for further investigation.

Is number theory incomplete (are there some statements that are true of the counting numbers that cannot be formally demonstrated)? That's a simple yes-no question, too. It provably cannot be answered categorically and certainly. So, science cannot answer it. So what?

This has nothing to do with any positive claim responsible people advance for science. It has nothing to do with the reliability of the answers science gives when it does make estimates of what's going on.

The fantasy of "Scientism" strikes me as fundie revenge for science having rejected their account of my earliest ancestor being an animated mudpie married to a spare rib. It isn't science's fault that some people can't find a metaphor with both hands.

As to the rest, I will only repeat that I have already "chosen a side." I think that the evidence and argument about the question of God is abysmal. You, just like atheist activists, have chosen the other side from mine. It gives me no end of comfort that those who disagree with me about the bearing of evidence and argument so often quarrel among themselves about the implications of their shared belief in sufficiency.

Although I never lose sight that my opinion is only my opinion, nevertheless, the utter confusion of my opponents emboldens me to think that I just might be right about this one.

We need some more of this <gets popcorn>, I'm on call with nothing to do and the TV in my call room isn't working! Come one AC fire-back, I want to read some more EB demolition of your posts over the next 6 or so hours!!!

[Likely Guy]

There are generally three basic forms of Agnosticism:

• Those who believe the truth about God is unknowable
  
• Those who simply haven't and/or don't really think too much about God
  
• Those who are currently active in the process of questioning God's existance/non-existance and have not yet personally come up with a definitive answer
  

In the end, Agnosticism has no leg to stand on. All that is left is for the Agnostic to begin (or continue) active and vigorous pursuit of the answers, whether it be by themselves or with others.

Peace

And God Bless

No, agnostics don't just "believe the truth about God is unknowable"... you're right, in that, we also "don't think that much about God".

We question. Sure. You're 3rd point is a fallacy. I've been an agnostic most of my life. I really don't care whether there is a God, or not.

Really, truly. I believe that either way it makes no difference to me.

[Likely Guy]

No, agnostics don't just "believe the truth about God is unknowable"... you're right, in that, we also "don't think that much about God".

We question. Sure. You're 3rd point is a fallacy. I've been an agnostic most of my life. I really don't care whether there is a God, or not.

Really, truly. I believe that either way it makes no difference to me.

Edit: Regarding "The Agnostic's Issue"; we don't have one. We'd prefer to be left alone. Thnxs.

Edit / P.S.: Anyone else's belief or disbelief in a higher power will neither elevate nor demean my estimation of that person. I simply don't care, to me, it's like two people arguing over their favourite colour.

Edited April 14, 2013 by Likely Guy

[Emma_Acid]

Now I am not saying that I am a harsh believer in scientism. However I am saying that certain black and white scientific truth questions such as "Does God exist?" should not be automatically ruled out as impossible to know simply because someone happens to find it to be a difficult question.

Science is a process, not an ideology, so it isn't an "ism". Also, the concept of god(s) is unfalsifiable, therefore completely invalid scientifically. It baffles me when people constantly go on about "proof" of god.

[Merc14]

There are generally three basic forms of Agnosticism:

• Those who believe the truth about God is unknowable
  
• Those who simply haven't and/or don't really think too much about God
  
• Those who are currently active in the process of questioning God's existance/non-existance and have not yet personally come up with a definitive answer
  

Obviously it is impossible to refute the second stance because the second stance is the complete lack of a stance. The third stance is purely procedural and is therefore rarely considered a lifestyle or phylosophy. Therefore we are basically left with the discussion of stance #1...

To those who believe that the truth about God is unknowable, or that the truth about God can never be proven or known, you must also logically deny that scientific truth itself of any sort cannot be known. Logically, there is a truth. Either God exists, or he doesn't. He cannot exist and not exist at the same time. Truth itself is absolute, so logically there is an absolute truth about God. Someone has to be right. Therefore the debate concerning God's existance/non-existance crosses into the realm of science. If God happens to exist, he is no longer a religious figure, but a scientific fact. Therefore if one were to scientifically pursue the question of "Does God exist?", why is it suddenly impossible to know this specific scientific question as opposed to any other one?

To say that the existance/non-existance of God can never be scientifically proven is to presuppose that science cannot answer a simple yes or no question such as this, and that science has not answered it already.

Now I am not saying that I am a harsh believer in scientism. However I am saying that certain black and white scientific truth questions such as "Does God exist?" should not be automatically ruled out as impossible to know simply because someone happens to find it to be a difficult question.

Fact is, it is logically impossible to say that the truth about God cannot be known. Because that statement in and of itself presupposes you know that statement to be absolute truth, which is impossible to prove. Therefore if it is logically possible that God exists, and logically possible to scientifically prove whether he does or doesn't exists, then it is only logical to pursue this question scientifically as opposed to dogmatically ruling it out.

Agnosticism stance #1 is an illogical stance. Agnosticism stance #2 is obviously illogical and to some extent irresponsible. Therefore the only logical Agnosticism stance is stance #3. As I mentioned, this is purely a procedural stance, and is basically meant only to chose one's side. It is only logical for every person to pursue the issue of God's existance, whether it be on their own individually, or as a collective group. Even the belief that God's existance isn't already proven is a presupposition in and of itself. Science is only data. Science says nothing, Scientists do. It is the interpretation of that same data that causes scientists to draw their conclusions, and people have proven themselves time and time again to be capable of reading the exact same data and draw completely different conclusions.

In the end, Agnosticism has no leg to stand on. All that is left is for the Agnostic to begin (or continue) active and vigorous pursuit of the answers, whether it be by themselves or with others.

Peace

And God Bless

You presuppose that we can scientifically prove God exists but how do you know that to be true? Can we scientifically prove that our universe is just one of an infinite number of universes? Can we prove string theory or how quantum entanglement works? No we can't, at least not yet, so as far as man is concerned, for now and probably for another millennium, God is unknowable and cannot be scientifically proved.

[Zaphod222]

Kinda sorta, he fuels the way for the more harmful ones.

That, alas, is true. I notice that typically the converts to virulent religions have been religionists all along: they just switched to the harder drug. Atheists are hardly ever recruited.

I am only saying that as long as he only touts Christianity, he is no skin off my nose.

Edited April 15, 2013 by Zaphod222

[SpiritWriter]

I didnt read all this, I only got to a certain point. There becomes a time when God IS completly knowable. Not saying you completely know God, but you completely know God is real. I think its perfectly natural to be agnostic in some cases. Just dont forget you know, if you do know there is a God... thats all I have to say..

Have a nice day..

[SpiritWriter]

Why must you feel the need to to start these kinds of threads. The use of labels is pointless. I've been called agnostic because I believe there could be something after death but I don't believe in 'god' as religion describes him. You say it's illogical for someone to simply not think about god. I think it's illogical to make these posts to try and force opinions and beliefs on someone.

Believe in what you want to believe in and let others believe in what they want to believe in.

Maybe he is trying to understand agnosticm. Does it really seem like he's trying to force opinions on you? To me it just seems like he's expressing himself by his own point of view. It seems to me that you want to limit his ability to do so... or that's how this comment comes across, to me...

Thankyou for sharing what being agnostic means to you, that was insighful.

Edited April 15, 2013 by SpiritWriter

[xYlvax]

Got a problem with this.

Agnosticism remains more than the three points than the OP has stated. They have stated defining points of agnosticism in the perception of their beliefs.

You cannot really debate if some minds are excluded from the debater's beliefs.

Agnosticism: The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.

Definitions of Agnosticism also state the unknown or disbelief in God.

I would further this example by perhaps stating that Agnostics are those that believe in certain other ways but not in God or gods/goddesses.

[Ultima Weapon]

We need some more of this <gets popcorn>, I'm on call with nothing to do and the TV in my call room isn't working! Come one AC fire-back, I want to read some more EB demolition of your posts over the next 6 or so hours!!!

Forgive me for the late response, I have a busy thing I always have to adhere to called a life. I don't always have time to bicker, but I'll do my best to satisfy you.

Why must you feel the need to to start these kinds of threads. The use of labels is pointless. I've been called agnostic because I believe there could be something after death but I don't believe in 'god' as religion describes him. You say it's illogical for someone to simply not think about god. I think it's illogical to make these posts to try and force opinions and beliefs on someone.

Believe in what you want to believe in and let others believe in what they want to believe in.

Whether people realize it or not, belief and unbelief in the existance of God influences every other aspect of people's lives. It influences your entire philosophy, culture, thoughts, feelings, and actions. Your specific views concerning spirituality are imperative.

This isn't just my opinion based on my personal belief. This is an undeniable universal fact we all have to live up to. When it comes to religion, there is no neutral, and there is no middle ground. Tolerance, Pluralism, and Interfaithism are logical contradictions. Since we logically know that truth is absolute not relative, there must logically be an absolute answer.

Your response "believe what you want to believe" has quite serious implications if applied. For example if I were to say I believe we can survive on the moon with no protective gear, and you say you believe we can't, logically one of us has to be right. But if you deny that basic logic and continue on in an attempt to prevent me from getting my feelings hurt, then my "Biological Moon" belief would cause all kinds of scientific problems in the long haul that could devastate the community (especially if I express that belief to multiple people and they believe it as well) and even cause multiple deaths.

Therefore there is an absolute answer out there that explains every single mystery. Of course we'll never have all the answers, however that doesn't mean we shouldn't ever question any deep and serious issues such as God's existance.

Therefore I start these threads in an effort to throw out these false dogmas such as pluralism, and naturalism, simply in an attempt to get people to objectively think about these issues and to then therefore search for the truth.

Your argument contains a fallacy. The question of God's existence deals with an absolute. Scientific truths are not absolutes and, indeed, the scientific method is not designed to deal with absolutes. To say that we finite creatures can know the infinite seems both illogical and arrogant to me. We all have our beliefs in this regard but to say they are more than beliefs to me is a form of idolatry.

"Scientific truths are not absolutes?" What could possibly be more absolute than a truth? Especially a scientific truth. Now if by scientific you mean someone's interpretation of scientific evidence, then yes I agree with you. That isn't absolute, only the evidence is. However if all evidence can be explained by a certain scientific theory, then it becomes therefore logical to believe in that theory of which you have great evidence for (which always requires faith) unless or until other evidences arrive to refute said theory, which if so would be logical to abandon such belief and move on to another. Since I have yet to hear any evidences or logical refutals, I therefore don't see any fallacy in my argument.

Also, not every scientific theory is reasonable to believe simply because it is repeatable (as observed through the scientific method). There are certain things that are self evident. For instance the existance of life on Earth. Can you prove that through the scientific method? Of course not, but you don't need to. Same goes for the Big Bang Theory. There are lots of evidences to support it, and yet it cannot be proven through the scientific method. However logically based on the evidence (as well as the self-evidence that everything exists) The Big Bang Theory's scientifically accepted as a reasonable conclusion. Not everything in science requires the scientific method.

You presuppose that we can scientifically prove God exists but how do you know that to be true? Can we scientifically prove that our universe is just one of an infinite number of universes? Can we prove string theory or how quantum entanglement works? No we can't, at least not yet, so as far as man is concerned, for now and probably for another millennium, God is unknowable and cannot be scientifically proved.

You misunderstand my message. I have not presupposed that he can be proven, I have simply stated that logically it is most certainly not worth abandoning yet. You're right, we can't scientifically prove that our universe is just one of many, nor can we prove string theory or quantum entanglement. However as stated above, it is more logical to believe the theory that can be explained by the greatest amount of evidence as opposed to the theory that cannot. I personally believe that God is explained through the greatest amount of evidence.

And to be clear, this is not a "God-in-the-gaps" argument. All of the scientific evidence lead scientists to ardently believe in the existance of the Higgs Boson for over 40 years. They had no proof it existed, yet logically it must exist based on all of the hardcore scientific evidences to support it. Finally after 40 years of painstaking work, they finally found it and proved it's existance. Now if scientists can go through literally billions of dollors worth of research over a 40 year span in an attempt to find the "God Particle" which logically based on evidence simply must be there, why do scientists deny the common sense evidences (Big Bang, Fine Tuning, Life on Earth, Human Consciousness, etc.) and do absolutely nothing in an attempt to find "God?"... My only logical answer to that question is simply dogmatic belief and denial.

So no Merc14, I haven't presupposed anything, I've simply followed the evidence where it leads.

[Merc14]

You misunderstand my message. I have not presupposed that he can be proven, I have simply stated that logically it is most certainly not worth abandoning yet. You're right, we can't scientifically prove that our universe is just one of many, nor can we prove string theory or quantum entanglement. However as stated above, it is more logical to believe the theory that can be explained by the greatest amount of evidence as opposed to the theory that cannot. I personally believe that God is explained through the greatest amount of evidence.

I agree that the theory that can be explained by the most evidence is the most likely till proved otherwise, yet you present none, except your feelings of course.

And to be clear, this is not a "God-in-the-gaps" argument. All of the scientific evidence lead scientists to ardently believe in the existance of the Higgs Boson for over 40 years. They had no proof it existed, yet logically it must exist based on all of the hardcore scientific evidences to support it. Finally after 40 years of painstaking work, they finally found it and proved it's existance. Now if scientists can go through literally billions of dollors worth of research over a 40 year span in an attempt to find the "God Particle" which logically based on evidence simply must be there, why do scientists deny the common sense evidences (Big Bang, Fine Tuning, Life on Earth, Human Consciousness, etc.) and do absolutely nothing in an attempt to find "God?"... My only logical answer to that question is simply dogmatic belief and denial.

So no Merc14, I haven't presupposed anything, I've simply followed the evidence where it leads.

The question is simple and ages old, how do you prove the existence of God? Propose the theory? It isn't possible yet you feel intrinsically that God exists. Isn't that enough, isn't that faith? You want one of man's religions to describe something that you can't even propose a theory on and then attack science. Propose the theory that will prove God exists and you'll be famous. If you can't buy the religious dogma without that theory yet you believe God exists then guess what, you are an agnostic.

[eight bits]

AC, the OP

I don't always have time to bicker, but I'll do my best to satisfy you.

Really? Copa asked you specifically to answer my post. You didn't. Feel free to remedy that lapse at your earliest convenience.

This isn't just my opinion based on my personal belief.

That's exactly what it is.

There is an absolute truth, like the right answer to Goldbach's conjecture. Nobody knows what that answer is. In the meantime, toleration and cooperation with people who think that there is some large even number which isn't the sum of two primes (yeah, right, and then you ask them to name one, and they hand a some line of BS about how they're still looking...) make a lot of sense. As does toleration and cooperation with the "agnostics" on Goldbach's conjecture, those cowardly orifices who won't shove either answer down anybody's else's throat. Can you believe some people?

Of course we'll never have all the answers, however that doesn't mean we shouldn't ever question any deep and serious issues such as God's existance.

And given that the topic is some "agnostic's issue," have you concluded that agnostics do not ever question any deep and serious issues such as God's existence? Isn't that in fact your complaint about us, that we question everybody's ideas about this, including our own?

[Frank Merton]

I think "agnosticism" is a valid word when used to describe someone in one of two camps:

1. They don't care whether there is a God or not, probably considering the question a form of tilting windmills.

2. They think finite human beings fool themselves if they they think they can demonstrate any answer to such a question that pertains to infinite things.

In both cases, since there is no "belief" in God present, the individual is also accurately describable as an atheist (one who does not believe in God), so agnosticism can be said to be a subdivision of atheism.

[Zeta Reticulum]

Well, we will all someday be on our death beds. I personally want to feel that I have some beautiful reunions and exotic places ahead of me. Rather than the blackness that you who don't believe, must think awaits.

[Frank Merton]

Well, we will all someday be on our death beds. I personally want to feel that I have some beautiful reunions and exotic places ahead of me. Rather than the blackness that you who don't believe, must think awaits.

|Wishing for things don't make them true.