Hey there ,

This topic has definitely been discussed before , but still.. I came accross this article on geocities.com :

http://www.geocities.com/inquisitive79/agnovsath.html

And I think I finally understood it :

Atheists don't believe in God , because they don't " believe" he exists , while agnostic means , you just don't know if there is a God ...i.e. He might exist after all .

Am I right ?

Pretty much correct there, Sama. Although you'd have to extend your definition to any deity, not just the Christian one.

Then there are the Apathetic Agnostics like me, who not only don't know if God or gods exist, we don't really care.

Hey there Leonardo ,

Thanks for the post . Let me tell you , that I didn't juat mean The Christian deity .. I meant any God ..
I always wondered how it would be like to be so " independent " .. I mean like when you say " we don't really care " .. I can smell some fresh freedom in there ? Does your way of thinking make you feel "free" or "liberated" .. if you see what I mean ?
Sama

No more than anyone else feels free or liberated, I suspect. I simply don't accept that any being can sit in judgement of me without my permission to do so. In this regard I don't care that these gods may or may not exist. If they do they only have the power over you that you grant them.

OK. May I ask you wether you judge yourself ? Or is there any kind of auto-censure ?

The only person we are qualified to judge is ourselves! Not counting matter of law and the like in this, of course.

Eh... I just don't care full stop lol.. If God exists good for Him/Her/It if I die and go to hell there's nothing I can really do about it as far as I see because I don't see any logical reason to believe in hell. If the flying spaghetti monster force feeds me spaghetti bolognaise for the rest of eternity after I die then there ain't much I can do about it as far as I see. I don't see a very large chance of something significant enough happening to cause me to believe in anything "Great and Powerful" after death. Whatever happens happens and from where I'm sitting there isn't much I can do about it. I'll take the rollercoaster ride and won't really care if I crash and burn because there isn't much I could have done about it. I don't see any reason to care about something that I can't help

I would have to disagree with that ,leonardo.I don't think we can judge ourselves honestly. I remember the old saying


"Everybody is three persons ,What he thinks he is ,What other people thinks he is and what he really is " so if that is true it makes it difficult to judge ourselves or anybody else for that matter but I must admit I tend to judge people even though I am not qualified


fullywired

so the safe bet would be to be Agnostic? Just in case............

I used to be an athiest but logic led me to believe in a creator.

I cannot get past the infinite regression of "Well happened before the big bang? And what happened before that?"
So I finally decided to just accept that something that no human will ever come to know created the universe.

I also believe that the creator programmed DNA to behave the way it does.

I also believe any religion is silly and no different than joining the Shriners or Boy Scouts or any other social/fraternal organization. I find it pathetic and a waste of energy and resources for people to get defensive about something as STUPID as a religion. It is a miserable joke that just makes all of humanity look like stupid little children.

Creator? Yes
Religion? No.
Atheist? No.
Agnostic? Yes.

I don't see where logic would lead you to believe that a god exists, based on that. Why must that "something" that created the universe be a being, why not just physics? Then there's also the argument of what happened before that God?

There is no logic in believing an all powerful space daddy because there is nothing to suggest that such a being or beings exist. The only thing that suggests a God or gods existing is personal belief and personal belief means absolutely nothing and doesn't prove anything.



By far one of the dumb comments I have heard today. Like seriously if you had any sense of logic you would not believe.

===

I believe those who believe in a diety(s) are living a delusional life style and are in fact naive. This is just my opinion though so don't take it personally.

I have a great sense of logic. I have been a software engineer for 15 years.
It is because of logic that I was forced to abandon my atheistic views I held for over 30 years.

Infinite regression cannot work in a physical universe.
No matter how many "what happened before that"'s you throwe at the problem, there is still the question of where did the box come from that all of this is happening in.

To say "the universe has always existed" should strike any person attempting to scientifically explain the universe as utterly wrong. It is a copout.

Do I think the creator even knows we, as individuals, exist? No.
Does the creator even know this universe exists? Maybe, maybe not.

All I am suggesting is that at some point you should accept that science cannot explain the box that all matter and time exists within and that box came from something. That something is what I refer to as the creator.


Did you realize that your argument also states through inference that programming a true, self-aware artificial intelligence is impossible?
Because if it were possible, then it is possible that I am just a software routine running on some system that thinks he is alive. In that case, the creator would be the programmer.

Oh oh! Be careful!

You just opened the door for:

• maniac Islamists to say "Oooh, but there is something you can do about it - convert to islam!"
• maniac Jews to say "Oooh, but there is something you can do about it - convert to judaism!"
• maniac Christians to say "Oooh, but there is something you can do about it - convert to christianity!"
• etc, etc, etc

Where did I say that judgement would be honest, FW???

However, we are not qualified to judge any one but ourselves.

that's true but god is not a person

Then you must believe there are no moral absolutes, correct?

If the universe is a closed system, then it is winding down. Whether that takes millions, billions, trillions of years or more, that means that something had to wind it up. No law of physics that we know will allow for that.

Essentially, you have to believe one of three positions.

1. The universe is not a closed system (something or someone is messing with it to keep it from running down, something beyond this universe).

2. The laws of physics are not correct. We have got something seriously wrong in our understanding of physics.

3. There was a 'creative' force at the the beginning that was not bound by the laws of the universe.

So, either you believe in God or you don't believe in science...

JS

Or you could be comfortable with the fact that we don't currently know.....

Not sure why it is you God believer types feel the need to make everyone have faith in something.

A person comfortable with not knowing is either a person that believes in a creator or an incredible dullard - a dullard so demonstrably dull that he makes dust look like dancing diamonds.

The person that believes in a creator knows he can never know what is outside the box that contains all of space-time because it belongs to the physics of the creator. It represents a limit to mankind's knowledge.

The dullard is comfortable with the fact that we don't currently know something that is knowable because he is too busy contemplating his navel to be concerned with sciency-stuff and besides, there is no cool science game for his XBox 360.

Are you really saying you don't give a &$^% about discovering the secrets of the universe? How else could anyone be comfortable in not knowing some knowable fact about something so important?


I don't have faith in any god. I just default to believing in a creator because nothing can be its own cause and effect. Therefore, something else created our space-time box. Something we can never know or understand.

I believe in a creator out of logic - not faith.

In real terms, no, although we have morals built into our society that allow us to function in a community. Of course, a rational person will adopt morals beneficial not only to themselves but the others who make up the society anyway. It's simple to understand that treating others well will generally lead to them treating you well.

Actually I do care, I think you read my post all wrong. I am a physicist, I do not feel that these questions are unknowable, but I have no problem saying "We don't currently know the answer". I don't feel because we don't understand something a god or creator must have done it.




This is not a logical thought process here. We do not know what cause the initial inflation of the universe, therefore we cannot speculate that it had to be its own cause an effect. Its also not logical to state that we can never know or understand something, the word never and logical should be used carefully when making statements as such.

When you said "Or you could be comfortable with the fact that we don't currently know....." I sort of focused on the word "comfortable" because I couldn't imagine a non-dullard allowing his active mind to be comfortable with an unsolved problem. But I accept your statement and I see that it can be taken in a way different than I took it.

And I agree with this subtle straw-man argument. I never claimed that anything that cannot be explained at this moment in time must have been produced by a creator.

My belief in a creator did not stem from the fact that science today has no explanation for the singularity. My belief in a creator stemmed from the infinite regression that will always exist. I have no doubt science may one day explain exactly how the singularity formed, where it came from, when the next one will be, how two expanding universes will behave when they cross paths or any other physical challenge.

But, at the end of the day, there are still the questions "but what came before that?" and "where did the box come from that all of this is happening in?".

If reality is finite then physics could determine every physical law of our reality. Let's say that physicists one day find the answer to everything. I mean everything. Let's say they even prove god doesn't exist. They can still only find the answer to everything as it applies to their physical universe. After determining the answer to everything, a little boy could ask "But where did all that everything come from?" and we are back at square 1. If reality is finite then it must exist within an extra-reality realm because nothing is its own cause and effect. Whatever event occurred in that extra-reality realm that caused our reality to come into being is our creator.

If the universe is "declared" infinite then it means we don't know if it is infinite or not (you can recognize limits, but you can't know whether something is boundless or not - all theoretical mathematics aside). But infinity is still only meaningful in the context of our reality. It still had to come from somewhere. Since nothing in our reality is larger than infinite space then it must exist within the space of an extra-reality realm.


The NOT operator is one of the basic tools of logic. Whether the universe is finite or infinite it still has to exist within some larger frame of reference. When physics finally comes to define and understand that larger frame of reference they have only moved the problem back another level. This is infinite and unpredictable and, thus, unknowable.

Hmm... so no moral absolutes. Though a rational man will always gravitate towards good morality (is this an absolute)? I'm sure we see this "treat others well" in other species besides man, right? Or is man somehow different?

This morality is an interesting idea... Is it really 'right' or 'good'? Whatever happened to 'survival of the fittest'?

Oh, you misunderstood!

I didn't make you have faith. That was your own choice, based on an aggregation of experience, emotion, and reasoning.

Don't blame me for your belief that the fundamental laws of science are wrong...

JS

Man is a social animal. With this sociability comes imperatives of behaviour that lead towards social morality. No, this is not absolute because individual can (and do) ignore this morality for their own ends, this is why we have criminals and sociopaths.

This, however, is drawing further away for the topic of Atheism and Agnosticism. A new thread might be more appropriate for a discussion on social morality.

And is that which God is supposed to judge a person?

Oh, the biblical tale of Revelations states that God will judge all those living, but what of the dead? They are also judged are they not, yet are they 'people'? Any more so than God is?

In what way is a soul (and I believe in the existence of such) any less than God?

What are you if you believe that your soul/essense/energy goes on after death but you don't believe in god? Because that's what I am. I don't believe you have to believe in got to believe the soul continues on after death, but I never knew if that is consided an athiest or an agnostic or something else. Thanks.

If you don't believe in a creator then you are an athiest.

Thanks! I just didn't know because I was told before that if you say you're an athiest then you don't believe that your soul goes on after death, that when you're dead, you're dead.

An atheist is just someone who doesn't believe in the existence of gods. You can believe in the afterlife and still be an atheist, although you won't find many people in that situation because so many beliefs about the life after death stem from religion.

I know, haha, I'm kind of weird. The theory I subscribe to the most at the moment is that we're all part of a collective unconcious and that when we pass, our energy goes back there (like Einstein said, energy can neither be made or destroyed). It's just my belief and I would never, ever push it on anyone. It's just what I think, but it tends to bring that question of whether or not I'm an athiest because I fall into a weird catagory, haha. Thanks for the imput!!!!

i am an agnostic. I dont think that there is a creator , but if possibly we are part of a larger consciousness that may be no more aware of out existence than any of us are aware of a particular subatomic particle in the tip of our finger.

I dont see the point of judgement of a soul, i think we judge ourselves in the end. I remember once someone suggesting that maybe after death our thoughts become instantly manifested, unlike when we are alive and this manifestion is "slowed down" by the "sludgy" property of being material beings. so when you die, if your thoughts are of constant fear and hostility that is the reality you'll get, if it is based upon love, compassion then that is the world you will have. therefore, a sociopath is punished by his / her own limitations until ultimately they LEARN the flaws of their philosophy or continue to live there.

or perhaps the universe was created by us. spiritual beings ultimately all part of ONE but come here to experience the good and bad aspects of individuality and physicality. Love, loneliness, living, dying, having to learn to help and ask for help.

or maybe this is a test. in this world where evil wins so consistently, maybe we are like spores of consciousness being grown and monitored for progress. those that stay "good" longer and stronger are up for a spiritual promotion having demonstrated maturity enough to proceed to even greater responsibility.

NOONE KNOWS ESPECIALLY THOSE THAT SAY THEY DO.

i think all religions are wrong. ideas that started out as a pursuit of truth but then were turned to lies by abuse of power. all it has become is crowd control, keeping the rabble pacified while we are being used by a greedy minority.
one thing is sure, we need to give up childish things and religion at best is the spiritual equivalent of santa claus.

the irony is that as agnostic, i think about god more often and more deeply than most religious people who simply recite and think by repetition and unquestioning.

i just hope we survive our own belief systems.

An interesting answer and I agree with you the problem with "what came before" produces an infinite set of questions and answers, if you believe that what came before is a creator then logically the arrguement shifts then to who or what greated the creator "something cannot come from nothing" that seems to be the most common arguement for the existence of a creator but as you can see you simply end up going around in circles trying to answer the same question over and over again. What came before that and before that and so on and so forth

That is where I disagree. Our questions about "what came before" are only meaningful in the context of our physical universe and reality.
When you go beyond that, asking about 1 level of "what happened before that" or an infinite level of "what happened before that" will always yeild the same answer "We don't know because we can't know". Since the questions will consistently return the same answer, 1 level of asking or an infinite level of asking are equivalent.

With our physical universe, we will eventually find answers to every question. It may not be humans that find the answers but if a thing is knowable, eventually it will be known. Thus, infinite regression is impossible because eventually a wall will be hit. All answers are known, reality has been mapped down to the smallest sub-atomic particle. When this happens, we will know for a certainity the limit of what constitutes reality. But knowing what lies outside that can never be known.

That is what I consider the creator.

How can a person that claims to know be ESPECIALLY non-knowing?????

Weird....

True, but then you would propose that our universe and reality started in an extremely complex and active state...? That requires something acting "inside" our universe and reality...

Yes, the 'what came before' question is still valid. It's just not valid outside our universe, though it's no leap of logic or faith to believe that there must be something beyond or outside of our universe and reality.

/shrug

JS

But you still acknowledge a higher morality, or you wouldn't call them criminals and sociopaths... they would simply have different morals.

Not a higher morality, just a different one. Yes, you are correct, we label people as criminals and sociopaths because their morality is different to society's in general. I don't see what point you are trying to make here?

An agent is not necessarily necessary. As long as the limits of our universe and the basic physics were established, the universe could be left on its own.



Actually, a leap of logic or faith is necessary to consider that there is something more than everything.

There are only 3 ways to come to believe something as true:

• Direct observation
• Second-hand information about an event from a trusted source (this includes "faith", which is just the acceptance of religious writings as a trusted source)
• Logic

Note that in none of these three does it guarantee that what you believe to be true is actually true. In human society, truth is nothing more than an agreement amongst a grouping that a specific event occurred.

Anyways, the "what happened before" question is not valid when asking about something that is forever unknowable and whose properties can never even be guessed. There will never be an answer to the first "what happened before" and, therefore, no infinite regression.

Hey there ,

Extremly GRAND post !

I would have never thought , that agnostic philosophy would make me feel so humble . As a believer , i must admit I've prayed a lot , took trips to some holy shrines , and had a couple of deep thoughts , too.

But your view is overwhelmingly deep .. makes me wonder !

Sama