# Questions about Christianity from a confused agnostic **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 27, 2006, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300 "2006-02-27T12:50:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2006, 11:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/221 "2006-03-11T11:18:01Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Could you restate your response? I’m not sure I understand it. A tag existing of course does not mean the thing referred to either exists or does not exist. The best you can say is that a mental image of the thing or concept exists - maybe. A Dr. Seuss animal name, without the picture, may not call any image at all into existence. > > The tag is real (exists) - the think referred to may or may not be real (exists). So I think we probably agree. The mental image exists in a person who already exists,existence means what ever is. If it is non existent it doesn’t exist it is nothing; if it( whether it is a person place or thing) it is in existence. Monavis ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2006, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/222 "2006-03-11T12:53:37Z")
> [@spazattak](#): > > I’m glad you said this, because its really the heart of my beliefs. I’ve come to admire the whole exchange between the 3 or 4 of you here - its quite fascinating. > > Taking this a step further, what does it matter if we acknowledge god or not? If we live in the pursuit of love and betterment of others and ourselves, if god does truly exist, wouldn’t that be enough? The pursuit of existence, survival and ushering our fellow people in that direction? Doesn’t assisting humanity for the sake of existence and survival negate god? We generally live for the same ends (those who do and don’t believe in god), so why would all knowing, all merciful god care if we stopped along the way to acknowledge it or not? > > Because if I have lived a similarly productive life as a god-believer - contributing towards the human race, but I am ultimately punished for not acknowledging the existence of god… > > Then fuck him. Who needs that sort of god? I agree. I mentioned to my dear sister once that requiring acknowledgement of Jesus as Savior seems to make God and Jesus look like egotists. It doesn’t matter how kind or loving we are if we don’t acknowledge Christ. She was slightly offended. I do believe there is a certain connection you make by belief in something spiritual although it doesn’t have to be the Christian concept of God. Communion with God is a process of surrender. However, a person might have faith that mankind can live in peace and harmony and spend a lifetime pursuing that goal without ever acknowledging God, and I’d see that as the noble path they had chosen toward personal growth through service to others, not damnation. IMHO any path like that has to eventually lead to the truth {whatever it is} about God and Jesus. Interestingly enough there are as many passages in the NT that speak of being rewarded according to our deeds and judged by our works as there are that speak of faith in Jesus. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2006, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/223 "2006-03-11T16:21:39Z")
> [@spazattak](#): > > Taking this a step further, what does it matter if we acknowledge god or not? If we live in the pursuit of love and betterment of others and ourselves, if god does truley exist, wouldn’t that be enough? Living in the pursuit of love and the facilitation of goodness is the only real acknowledgment that there is of God’s existence. “Preach the Gospel at all times; and when necessary, use words.” — Francis of Assisi ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2006, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/224 "2006-03-11T16:28:06Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > The dictionary describes reality as:The state orquality of being real,Resemblance of being real,Something that exists independently of ideas concerning it,Something that exists independently of other things and from which all other things derive,in fact or truth: actually. > > To be real it must exist. > > Monavis Dictionary definition? 😃 How quaint. At any rate, I don’t know why you bothered quoting it since you were going to turn around and drop whole clauses to suit yourself. According to your dictionary, to be real, it must exist _independently of ideas concerning it_. Good luck proving that anything exists. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2006, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/225 "2006-03-11T16:30:58Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > Then the essence doesn’t exist? Or is it in existence? I have asked you this before and by my understanding essence would be non existent until it existed. > > Monavis And I’ve explained it every time you’ve asked. Existence is a trivial attribute of essence, but you treat it as though a thing must exist to be significant. I honestly cannot understand why you’re a theist because you talk like a materialist. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2006, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/226 "2006-03-11T16:43:58Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > “What is reality?” is a question from Firesign Theatre records. I was speaking in the present tense, addressing the existence of tags (that are not explicitly physical.) A unicorn doesn’t exist (accept that for the moment - I know the problem of proof of this statement) so we can ask if a unicorn is real. I’d say that the unicorn, as a white horse-like creature with a horn and an affinity for virgins is not real, but the concept of unicorn, as expressed by its name and its appearance in Peter Beagle books and nice tapestries, is real. > > Now, does this concept have existence. My thought is yes, as a meme and a collection of mental states, pictures, and writings. But I’m not sure about this, since this implies assigning semantic meaning to these states. > > A simpler example. A “for” loop exists on paper or as a series of letters and numbers in a file. That expression of the for loop exists. But can we say the for loop as an independent entity exist? > > As for the past, it was real, since it consisted of a set of states at one time. However it no longer exists. What does exist is our very imperfect model of the past, which starts off bad and gets worse. That concept of the past exists, and is real today. The future - neither for our purposes, though so hypotheses in physics say the future is existent, just out of our reach. I don’t know enough to evaluate the plausibility of those hypotheses. Early on in this discussion, you wrote: “I want to believe in the things with the highest chance of being true - it seems you don’t.” With all due respect — which is considerably much — I must say that nothing in the post quoted above is very convincing with respect to what is real and what is not. Take “today”, for instance. If by “today”, you mean “the present” (as opposed to the past and future), then I don’t know why, by what you’ve said, that today four seconds ago would still exist. Or for that matter, today four nanoseconds ago. In fact, it honestly doesn’t seem like you can make any statement at all about the present and existence because the very formulation of the statement takes time, and by the time you’ve said it, has exactly zero chance of still being true because it is in the past. Perhaps this is a good opportunity to consider whether a materialist epistemology is sufficient for examining matters of great significance like these. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2006, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/227 "2006-03-11T20:04:30Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > And I’ve explained it every time you’ve asked. Existence is a trivial attribute of essence, but you treat it as though a thing must exist to be significant. I honestly cannot understand why you’re a theist because you talk like a materialist. I see it as the other way around, essence is an attribute of existence.Yes, to me if something is not in existence it is nothing,non existent!!! All that exists is said to be in existence. We are always in the now. A second ago is past.If a second or nano second is in the future we never reach it, as it becomes now. Monavis ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2006, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/228 "2006-03-11T20:10:25Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Early on in this discussion, you wrote: “I want to believe in the things with the highest chance of being true - it seems you don’t.” With all due respect — which is considerably much — I must say that nothing in the post quoted above is very convincing with respect to what is real and what is not. Take “today”, for instance. If by “today”, you mean “the present” (as opposed to the past and future), then I don’t know why, by what you’ve said, that today four seconds ago would still exist. Or for that matter, today four nanoseconds ago. In fact, it honestly doesn’t seem like you can make any statement at all about the present and existence because the very formulation of the statement takes time, and by the time you’ve said it, has exactly zero chance of still being true because it is in the past. Perhaps this is a good opportunity to consider whether a materialist epistemology is sufficient for examining matters of great significance like these. I would add that now is in existence, whether it is said or not, that slight fraction of or less than that is in existence. Time is a human experience, that is why space sciences can go and look at stars that existed in the past and are no longer there. The time it takes the light to get to earth some are already burned out.And we are looking at the past. Monavis ---
**Author:** ![other-wise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/4bbf92/32.png) [@other-wise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/other-wise)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2006, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/229 "2006-03-12T03:54:09Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > A simpler example. A “for” loop exists on paper or as a series of letters and numbers in a file. That expression of the for loop exists. But can we say the for loop as an independent entity exist? If it doesn’t exist, then what exactly is the series of letters and numbers expressing? The _essence_ of a “for” loop? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2006, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/230 "2006-03-12T05:47:07Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Early on in this discussion, you wrote: “I want to believe in the things with the highest chance of being true - it seems you don’t.” With all due respect — which is considerably much — I must say that nothing in the post quoted above is very convincing with respect to what is real and what is not. Take “today”, for instance. If by “today”, you mean “the present” (as opposed to the past and future), then I don’t know why, by what you’ve said, that today four seconds ago would still exist. Or for that matter, today four nanoseconds ago. It wouldn’t, of course. I’m sitting in a field, and see a meteorite flash by. I blink. Can I reclaim exactly what I saw? No way. And in debugging microprocessors, we wish that we could reclaim the state of the machine 4 nanoseconds before. You get a very limited picture, depending on what kind of hardware you’ve put in to take very uncertain snapshots. I don’t see how any of this contradicts my statement about truth. It makes it harder to find the truth, but I’ve never said that it was easy. > [@](#): > > In fact, it honestly doesn’t seem like you can make any statement at all about the present and existence because the very formulation of the statement takes time, and by the time you’ve said it, has exactly zero chance of still being true because it is in the past. Perhaps this is a good opportunity to consider whether a materialist epistemology is sufficient for examining matters of great significance like these. If I were foolish enough to make statements about things happening just this moment, you’d be quite correct. We can, however, assume that macrolevel things stay static in characteristics of interest to us. I can say “the wall is yellow” fairly safely, but if I tried to ennumerate every molecule of yellow paint at a given instant (defined by Planck time) I would fail, since some molecules might be stripped away by errant houseflies while I was trying to measure them. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2006, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/231 "2006-03-12T05:49:21Z")
> [@other-wise](#): > > If it doesn’t exist, then what exactly is the series of letters and numbers expressing? The _essence_ of a “for” loop? Think about this. What is the fundamental difference between for ($a=0; $a \<= $n; $a++) { … } and fpr ($a=0; $a \<= $n; $a++) { … } Are they both for loops? If not, is the second nonsense while the first has meaning? ---
**Author:** ![other-wise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/4bbf92/32.png) [@other-wise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/other-wise)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2006, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/232 "2006-03-12T12:55:55Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Think about this. What is the fundamental difference between > > for ($a=0; $a \<= $n; $a++) > { … } > and > > fpr ($a=0; $a \<= $n; $a++) > { … } > > Are they both for loops? If not, is the second nonsense while the first has meaning? Yes, they’re both loops, and they both have meaning: the _identical_ meaning, in fact, which is my point (By the way #1: I’m not a programmer and have had only peripheral exposure to programming, so I’m assuming the “fpr” in the second loop is a typo and it was supposed to be “for” just like in the first loop, although it doesn’t really affect my argument even if it’s not a typo. At least, I think it doesn’t. By the way #2: Upon re-reading, I realize my last post may have come across short and snippy. I only intended the former. I don’t want to start off on the wrong foot, and I apologize if I sounded snarky.) The fundamental difference between the two loops is physical; they’re instantiated in different magnetic burps on your HD and different pixels on your screen (and still different burps and pixels on my computer). Conceptually, the loops are physically instantiated in different configurations of synaptic firings, whether strength or timing or whatever the hell else “Working Memory” turns out to be. In any case, the physical instantiation in your brain differs from day-to-day, and most certainly differs from the instantiation of the loops in _my_ brain. Since a “loop” can be expressed or instantiated in any number of physical states, it cannot be identical to any specific physical state. Something that has no specific physical existence but can be expressed meaningfully _via_ physical existence, well… it kinda sounds like “essence” to me. To bastardize **Lib** , the physical instantiation of a human being changes from nanosecond to nanosecond and year to year. But our _essence_ remains the same regardless of its physical manifestation. (Obviously, take my interpretation of **Lib** ’s views with a gigantic grain of salt; I have an extremely slippery grasp of his understanding of “essence”) ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2006, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/233 "2006-03-12T14:43:59Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > I see it as the other way around, essence is an attribute of existence. And once again, we see the difference between existentialism and essentialism. At this point in the discussion, you can continue restating the premise of existentialism — or — you can make a case defending it. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2006, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/234 "2006-03-12T14:50:47Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I don’t see how any of this contradicts my statement about truth. It makes it harder to find the truth, but I’ve never said that it was easy. Because it means that your statement has exactly zero chance of being true, and you said specifically that you “want to believe in the things with the highest chance of being true”. Since any chance is higher than a zero chance, why would you want to believe that you can make any true statement about the present? > [@](#): > > If I were foolish enough to make statements about things happening just this moment, you’d be quite correct. We can, however, assume that macrolevel things stay static in characteristics of interest to us. I can say “the wall is yellow” fairly safely, but if I tried to ennumerate every molecule of yellow paint at a given instant (defined by Planck time) I would fail, since some molecules might be stripped away by errant houseflies while I was trying to measure them. A more classic example would be “today is Sunday”. Today was Sunday a few seconds ago and will be Sunday a few seconds from now, so it’s a safe assertion to make. The only problem with it, of course, is that it is not a statement about the present, but a statement about a span of time. The challenge is to make an existential statement about now. It is a much more difficult problem than it might seem at first blush. In fact, it is the Chinese finger puller of philosophical problems. The harder you work on it, the more tangled your analysis will be. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2006, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/235 "2006-03-12T14:55:50Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Think about this. What is the fundamental difference between > > for ($a=0; $a \<= $n; $a++) > { … } > and > > fpr ($a=0; $a \<= $n; $a++) > { … } > > Are they both for loops? If not, is the second nonsense while the first has meaning? An interesting and fortuitous example. The first is essentially a for-loop while the second is essentially a syntax error. Note that the existence of both _had to be anticipated in advance_ for a compiler to make sense of it. In other words, before you even began to type, there was an essence the existence of which was made manifest only when you finished — as compelling a case for essentialism as there could be. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2006, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/236 "2006-03-12T18:40:40Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > And once again, we see the difference between existentialism and essentialism. At this point in the discussion, you can continue restating the premise of existentialism — or — you can make a case defending it. The fact that essence exists shows it is in existence. If essence were not in existence it would not be essence, but nothing!!!. If a thing is essential then it must exist. Monavis ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2006, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/237 "2006-03-12T18:43:29Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > An interesting and fortuitous example. The first is essentially a for-loop while the second is essentially a syntax error. Note that the existence of both _had to be anticipated in advance_ for a compiler to make sense of it. In other words, before you even began to type, there was an essence the existence of which was made manifest only when you finished — as compelling a case for essentialism as there could be. Of course the compiler would have to exist before it could be compiled. Monavis ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2006, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/238 "2006-03-12T23:51:40Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > The fact that essence exists shows it is in existence. If essence were not in existence it would not be essence, but nothing!!!. If a thing is essential then it must exist. > > Monavis We’ve been round that bend already. Existence is not the only something that there is. Nonexistence is not nothing. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2006, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/239 "2006-03-12T23:52:53Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > Of course the compiler would have to exist before it could be compiled. > > Monavis It would have to be conceived before it could exist. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2006, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/240 "2006-03-13T06:17:00Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > A more classic example would be “today is Sunday”. Today was Sunday a few seconds ago and will be Sunday a few seconds from now, so it’s a safe assertion to make. The only problem with it, of course, is that it is not a statement about the present, but a statement about a span of time. The challenge is to make an existential statement about now. It is a much more difficult problem than it might seem at first blush. In fact, it is the Chinese finger puller of philosophical problems. The harder you work on it, the more tangled your analysis will be. If your point is that it is impossible to make a true statement about one Planck interval of time (the closest we can get to “now”) then I agree. I was no doubt being loose with language. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300.md?page=13)