We’re splitting pubes here. To quote myself, earlier up:
Switching the question to match your answer-cheap trick.
The question of what caused the universe to come into being is not the same as does God exist. I know the universe exists. I do not know how or when it was created, if it was at all. Based on a lack of evidence and on the impossibility of such a being existing based on the only descriptions given so far, I feel comfortable in saying that I know that this entity described and worshiped as “God” does not exist. Give me a solid reason to change my mind, and we’ll see what happens, but it’s going to have to be a hell of a lot better then trying to call “I don’t know”, “God”.
Which, in your personal observation, is more likely-that you will have an aneurysm tomorrow, or that the entity described as “God” exists?
The reasoning in this thread is so lame I’m amazed that anyone would fess up to it. Basically it comes down to saying that if we call “the reason things exist” God then God may exist. But why call it God? God implies a host (no pun intended) of things such as omnipotence, or being the source of moral laws, or wearing white robes and living in the sky. You can change the meaning of God to mean “the reason things exist”, but I could also change the meaning of Santa to “the reason things exist” and claim that he is real.
It’s just a silly, semantic game that provides no insight.
I wasn’t going for a trick of any kind. I’ve been arguing under the assumption we’re talking about a “God” that created the universe.
When it comes to our universes origins, there are many hypothesis. “God” is one of them. I can’t honestly rule it out yet, no matter how much my intellect, intuition, experience, skepticism, and rationality recoil against the thought.
I’m not witnessing or trying to convince anyone. Why would I? I’m saying I don’t know. And likewise, your arguments aren’t as convincing either.
I have a feeling raindog and cmyk were arguing differing points.
It is by far more likely I’ll keel over from an aneurysm tomorrow. Possibly tonight.
Could be. I noticed the religious angle in the OP, but was coming from an angle far more basic than that of the image of a bearded man in the sky, reaching down and touching leukemia patients to heal them.
Sorry.
Kind of why we all define “God” heh. didnt help much that time!
If you use this criteria, you will have a problem ruling out all sorts of fantastical claims (I don’t think the distinction you’re making re: God, leprechauns, etc succeeds). Short of a contradiction, it would be impossible for you to rule out anything. I think the reason why you maintain what to me is an untenable position is that your definition of agnostic is problematic. If, instead of putting agnostic along the theist-atheist continuum, you place it outside, things will be so much clearer.
*Can you rule out the existence of Gods/leprechauns/fairies? NO. Practically everyone is agnostic to their existence. So you’re an agnostic along with most everyone else.
Do you think that there is any compelling evidence for the existence of God/leprechauns/fairies? NO. Then you’re an atheist. How strong an atheist you are will depend on how much weight you give the arguments/ evidence.*
1,2 okay.
3 not ok, We’re not talking about a star, nebula, particle, or even unicorn here. Any god worth calling a god is a conscious entity. Any god outside the deistic one (who might as well not exist so far as his impact on the universe goes) can provide us with empirical evidence. So there are 3 choices. First, he has done this, which you correctly discount in 1). Second, he chooses not to, perhaps because the creator of the universe created it for someone else and doesn’t give a crap about us. 3) Ain’t no such beastie. Since cases 2 and 3 are indistinguishable, so far as we’re concerned there is no god. If your definition of god involves caring about his creation, no matter where, that rules out my option 2. Given this, a provisional belief that no god exists is perfectly reasonable.
However believing in something for which there is inadequate evidence is also a matter of faith. One could have faith that the Cubs will win the series next year. All those Red Sox fans had equal faith, and it finally came to be.
First, God is eminently testable, if he would only show up. We’ve had lots of threads on this. Now, we can dismiss the possibility of certain self-contradictory definitions of God, and we can say that given the evidence many God hypotheses (as set forth by the major and minor religions) have been falsified, but we can still believe no gods exist given the lack of evidence that should be there without committing any logical errors. It is belief, not knowledge, but it is based on incomplete evidence.
If one has looked at lots of swans, and never seen a black one, you’d be justified in believing they don’t exist while still keeping the option of changing your mind if you ever see one. And never seeing a black swan doesn’t make its existence untestable.
Well, okay then?
Perhaps its my fascination with the origin of the universe? If I define “God” as an intelligent creator of it, and have absolutely no idea if that is the case or not (no matter the likelihood) why wouldn’t this still put me in the middle of the theist/atheist spectrum?
Besides upbringing and mythology, why would you even define “God” in such a manner? It just sounds like you’ve got a word you just can’t let go of, so you are desperately seeking a place where the word might fit. You could say that “God” created the universe, but why would you bother to do so, if not for societal and personal indoctrination?
Because you have no evidence at all or any compelling argument to show that such an intelligent creator exists. Absence of evidence IS evidence (not proof) of absence and that should be enough to swing your belief-meter to atheism. Unless of course you do have some evidence/ argument for theism, in which case you should be a theist.
Oh, believe you me, I’ve been indoctrinated, and rejected basically everything.
The only vestige that remains is the point I’ve made upthread. It’s not compelling, I know. But my existence, showing me there exists such a thing as consciousness in a physical reality where such a possibility seems so unlikely*, that I can’t rule out the possibility there exists something just as unlikely, but from the opposite side of the spectrum.
*Imagine this:
Despite the fact that there are humans with sentience such as ours, if we could somehow remove ourselves from this fact, given the known laws of nature and everything else we know of the universe then postulating the abiogenesis of life (intelligent life at that) springing forth of – what? – particles and energy, that you’d be able to convince anyone it’s possible if we already didn’t have the evidence?
Anyhow, I’ve made my case, perhaps I am an atheist, or whatever. I don’t know. You guys seem to have much more stronger opinions than I do on the matter.
The universe is considered to be fairly large. It is not impossible that there might be creatures out there satisfying some definition of a superhero or monster. You might say I’m agnostic on that position, while I am not agnostic on whether Superman is here at my desk looking over my shoulder right now.
Just like I disbelieve in all of your examples, I have a very high certainty that all deities I have heard described do not exist, due to either lack of evidence or internal inconsistencies. But it is not impossible that a different entity meeting the description of a deity does exist.
How about if we turn it around and talk about a “Dog” that created the universe, are you agnostic about that as well?
Lincoln famously asked “If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Four; because calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg”.
I can guarantee that in 100% of the universes in which it is possible to ask that question the answer is true.
And, “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.”
-Bill Shakespeare
Yes, the Anthropic Principle. I was turning it around. It’s not like I haven’t been hanging around this forum (and others) for the past 10+ years or so, and haven’t heard any of these arguments, either.