# Technically, is agnosticism the only valid option? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 21, 2015, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460 "2015-05-21T00:49:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2015, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460/301 "2015-06-06T07:17:51Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > No, it’s not the same-it’s worse. As an atheist, I say that there are no gods because no one has come forward with verifiable evidence for any god they happen to believe in…but I don’t go around saying that such evidence cannot exist and that it cannot be found. _I_ am still open to changing my mind and putting “gods” as a possibility back on the table if and when something solid is brought forth. Oops; this comes back to the “two kinds of atheist” idea. I’m the kind who says “I know there are no gods,” but you’re the (objectively more reasonable) “There is no evidence” variety. And, aye, if evidence pops up, you can say, “There wasn’t when I said that, but there is now,” so you wouldn’t have to admit having been wrong. If really strong evidence pops up, I’ll have to say, “Bugger me with a bottle of bitters; I sure was dead wrong about that.” Same for the two varieties of agnostic. The “I don’t know” variety can, when God walks in the door, say, “Well, now I do.” The “Unknowable” variety, like the hard-edged atheist, has to say, “I was wrong.” (Of course, I reserve the right to challenge the evidence, and would probably do so up to – and beyond – the stage of denialism. Well, why not? It’s my turn, innit?) ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2015, 7:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460/302 "2015-06-06T07:25:42Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Oops; this comes back to the “two kinds of atheist” idea. I’m the kind who says “I know there are no gods,” but you’re the (objectively more reasonable) “There is no evidence” variety. > > And, aye, if evidence pops up, you can say, “There wasn’t when I said that, but there is now,” so you wouldn’t have to admit having been wrong. If really strong evidence pops up, I’ll have to say, “Bugger me with a bottle of bitters; I sure was dead wrong about that.” > > Same for the two varieties of agnostic. The “I don’t know” variety can, when God walks in the door, say, “Well, now I do.” The “Unknowable” variety, like the hard-edged atheist, has to say, “I was wrong.” > > (Of course, I reserve the right to challenge the evidence, and would probably do so up to – and beyond – the stage of denialism. Well, why not? It’s my turn, innit?) Except that when you turn the situation around, the hard “God is Unknowable” agnostic has rigged the system so that she/he _cannot_ be shown that gods do not exist. It’s a magic wall that no amount of evidence can surmount-in fact, by it’s very nature the “God is Unknowable” stipulation doesn’t even allow for evidence to be presented in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![tigerwoods](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47c2d/32.png) [@tigerwoods](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tigerwoods)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2015, 9:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460/303 "2015-06-06T09:54:40Z")
> [@Smartass](#): > > In the case of a leprechaun, we have deliberately imagined a thing and created a definition for it. in the case of god, we have deliberately imagined/insisted on a ‘beginning’ or ‘creation’ of the ‘universe’ and created a god for it. then we have special pleaded our arses off to exempt him from any beginning. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2015, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460/304 "2015-06-06T14:49:52Z")
> [@tigerwoods](#): > > … we have deliberately imagined/insisted on a ‘beginning’ or ‘creation’ of the ‘universe’ … No, we have not. A common pre-Hubble view of the universe was the natural and intuitive one that the universe is static and eternal. When this ran into difficulties many _insisted_ on theoretical formulations that preserved a steady-state model. It was only after discovery after discovery led inexorably to conclusions about the universe arising from a singularity that occurred about 13.8 billion years ago that this became widely accepted. We were more or less dragged kicking and screaming to this strange and counter-intuitive conclusion. Whether, and how, this relates to God is a matter of philosophical interpretation. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2015, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460/305 "2015-06-06T15:19:18Z")
> [@Smartass](#): > > Not really. I still am of the impression that atheists generally despise agnostics. The only thing that’s really changed is that I am even more mystified as to why this might be. But your thoughts on the matter seemed to be that a lot of the people on here who claim they are atheists actually seemed to match up to what you’d consider to be an agnostic viewpoint. So with that in mind, wouldn’t it make more sense for you to say that it’s agnostics despising agnostics? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2015, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460/306 "2015-06-06T16:19:46Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > So with that in mind, wouldn’t it make more sense for you to say that it’s agnostics despising agnostics? If Jews can be self-hating, why not agnostics? ---
**Author:** ![tigerwoods](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47c2d/32.png) [@tigerwoods](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tigerwoods)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2015, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460/307 "2015-06-07T11:33:42Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > We were more or less dragged kicking and screaming to this strange and counter-intuitive conclusion. it is not my understanding that this ‘singularity’ is an actual thing from which ‘the universe’ sprang. my understanding is that the ‘singularity’ is where our maths/models relating to the early universe breaks down. is this not right? could you quote any leading cosmologists that actually think that the stuff/energy from which the universe is made had some kind of magic beginning? > [@](#): > > Whether, and how, this relates to God is a matter of philosophical interpretation. relates to the who or the what now? this storybook ‘god’ character only gets discussed in a semi serious fashion because of the passive-indoctrination we all go through. ---
**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:** [June 7, 2015, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460/308 "2015-06-07T16:01:03Z")
> [@Smartass](#): > > Atheists “believe” that none of the Gods worshipped by organized religions exist. As far as the potential infinite multitude of gods that might exist, they don’t believe or not believe. That’s a pretty good summary. It is possible to believe that no possible god exists - but I’m not sure that’s supportable. Belief doesn’t have to be. However atheists lack belief in any god they never heard of. Doesn’t it make sense to lack belief in something you have never thought about? > [@](#): > > Agnostics “believe” that none of the Gods worshipped by organized religions exist. As far as the potential infinite multitude of gods that might exist, they don’t believe or not believe. Which demonstrates that agnosticism is orthogonal to atheism. They are talking about different aspects of thoughts about gods, and can therefore overlap. > [@](#): > > Agnostics will talk about the infinite multitude of possible gods as a group, using statements like, “I don’t know whether there is a god.” For agnostics, this statement does not exclude the possibility of multiple gods, because if there are any gods, then it stands to reason that “There is a god” would also be true. Thus, “I don’t know if any gods actually exist,” is covered by “I don’t know if there is a god.” Here you switch to statements about knowledge, not belief, as makes sense in defining agnosticism. Atheists can say I don’t know if there is a god in some pocket of the universe, but I certainly lack belief in such a god. > [@](#): > > Atheists really do not like to talk about the infinite multitude of possible gods as a category. They much prefer to discuss hypothetical gods on a case by case basis. So, when an agnostic says, “I don’t know whether there is a god”, they insist on knowing which god you are referring to and repeatedly tell you that you’ve ignored the possibility that there might be more than one. Yes we do. Multiple gods are a perfectly acceptable answer to the definition question. However even if a theist says there are multiple gods, he is going to have to get down to defining them one by one at some point. > [@](#): > > Atheists believe that agnostics are really deists, but are refusing to admit it for some reason. > > Atheists believe that agnostics are weak-minded fools who don’t understand words that end with “ology”. Neither. The insult is that agnostics are scared to come out of the atheist closet because of the real bias against atheism. If agnosticism is defined as “I haven’t made up my mind yet” the theist majority treats them better, not wanting to drive them into atheism. Then there is the refusal to acknowledge that the position “it is impossible to know if there is a god” makes no sense, as we’ve already discussed. (It is of course impossible to know that there are no gods anywhere - that does make sense and is pretty much universally accepted.) > [@](#): > > Yes, I freely admit that. I also freely admit that God could show up but conceal Itself so that I might still not know. Or I could just be too stupid to notice. That’s not showing up in my book. And you seem to be evading the question. Do you believe that a god can make himself known or not? If you do, then you shouldn’t talk about unknowable gods in general. > [@](#): > > If I would not be an agnostic in that case, what would I be? And what would a proper agnostic think? An atheist non-agnostic. Of course not by your definition of atheism, the definition no atheists accept. > [@](#): > > I’ve tried to be very careful about not saying “know” when I mean “believe” and not saying “believe” when I mean “know”. However, you are responding as if I use those words interchangeably. The whole point of the thing about vaccines was _to make this distinction_. You do distinguish them above, and you wind up showing how atheism and agnosticism as orthogonal. > [@](#): > > Trying to leave behind the simple observation that we can’t know or prove anything, there is a threshold of evidence beyond which we choose to believe (and no, I do NOT need a thesis on ways that one might set this threshold). And the threshold doesn’t matter. However there are only two choice at some moment in time - belief or lack of belief. What you said in your previous post about the choice being belief in something or belief that the thing does not exist ignores the lack of belief option. You seem to be using this as a definition of agnosticism at times - atheists say lack of belief is atheism (weak atheism) also. > [@](#): > > I’m also telling you that on the question of whether any gods exists, the (lack of) evidence available has not crossed my personal threshold, so I don’t \*believe \*one way or the other. I don’t \*believe \*that there definitely are any gods. I don’t \*believe \*that there definitely are not any gods. I DO believe that this matches pretty closely with the way most people define the word “agnostic”. And contradicts your use of knowledge in your definition above. And forget definitely. Being definite has nothing to do with anything. > [@](#): > > I _thought_ that the atheist position was that the lack of evidence had crossed their personal thresholds and that they, therefore, _believe_ that there are no gods. Can’t seem to get an atheist to clarify where I’ve gotten this wrong. What have you gotten wrong? Ignoring the lack of belief option. Thinking that strong atheism is the only atheism that there is. > [@](#): > > So, I’m still lost: I can’t nail down how atheists differ from agnostics, and, failing that, I certainly haven’t figured out why atheists seem to despise agnostics so. The positions are orthogonal, so some people may be both. Even theists may think that God is so mysterious that he cannot be known. Deists fall into this class by definition if you limit gods to deistic ones. > [@](#): > > You’re creating a set of polar opposites in which agnostics don’t exist (we left to be be with Gods), but what I \*thought \*we were talking about includes three possibilities: > > A person believes that there is/are god(s) is a theist. This includes Christians, Hindus, and Deists, among others. > > A person believes that there are no gods. I thought this was the atheist position. This is the strong atheist position. > [@](#): > > A person does not believe either of the first 2. While the first two have drawn a conclusion about whether gods exist, the agnostic has not and therefore cannot be said to “believe” anything. This person also suspects that we will never (while living in this universe) know whether there are any gods. I thought this was the agnostic position. For me, this is pretty much the same as your “has no belief in god” and I was surprised that you labeled it “atheist”. And you wonder why I accuse you of mixing up belief and knowledge. First, lack of belief in any god is atheism. Full stop. Second, it is different from drawing conclusions about anything. Say someone thinks that the universe is so awful that the very concept of any god ruling it makes him sick. To not be sick, he believes no gods exist. I don’t think he’s concluded anything, he doesn’t even want to think about it, but he’s still a strong atheist. > [@](#): > > If you had included “agnostic” in your list, how would you have defined it? He can be almost anywhere in the continuum. It is an orthogonal position. > [@](#): > > Well, they’re sure tangled up in this discussion. There are things that I think I know, and I also believe them. There are things that I don’t know, but I also believe them. I would say that atheists don’t know that there aren’t any gods, but they believe that there aren’t any gods. However, I may be wrong, because I sure can’t get an atheist to admit to this. Agnostics don’t know whether there are any gods and don’t have a “belief” on the subject one way or the other. We’ve said a zillion times it is not about knowledge. Just belief. You can believe in things you don’t know, and certainly can lack belief in them. > [@](#): > > You most certainly CAN assume they exist. You can arbitrarily choose to believe that Vulcans exist. The problem is that if I try to ask you whether you believe that any intelligent aliens exist in the universe, you start demanding that I tell you what kind of aliens on which planet I’m inquiring about. So, for me, the analogy looks like > > **Theist** : I believe there are intelligent aliens out there. (Some theists believe they have been visited and probed by them.) > **Agnostic** : I don’t know what to believe. I think it’s possible, but really can’t say that I believe or don’t believe we’ll find any. > \*\*Atheist \*\*(I thought): I believe there are no intelligent aliens out there. > \*\*Atheist \*\*(in this debate): Which planet are we talking about? What kind of aliens? Me. I believe aliens exist. You start to list stars, one by one (bring a lunch) and ask me if I believe there are aliens around that star. I have to say know. When you get done, and I have never said yes to any of your questions, you can ask me why I believe aliens exist again? However in this case if you asked me if I believe aliens don’t exist around each star, I’d answer no also. I lack belief, period. Though I’m very willing to start believing in an alien when we get evidence of one. Why do I believe there are no gods but don’t believe there are no aliens? Because the model of the universe I have says that aliens which do exist might be unknown to us, while if a god existed he would have dropped in and left evidence. I believe that UFOs don’t exist for this very reason. > [@](#): > > I can’t figure out what I might have said that convinced you that I need you to explain the null hypotheses or experimental design to me. That would be equating Occam’s Razor and the Null hypothesis. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2015, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460/309 "2015-06-07T17:37:55Z")
> [@tigerwoods](#): > > it is not my understanding that this ‘singularity’ is an actual thing from which ‘the universe’ sprang. my understanding is that the ‘singularity’ is where our maths/models relating to the early universe breaks down. is this not right? And…? The fact that the universe has no known physical description at _t_=0 doesn’t invalidate the useful descriptions we have of it for any positive non-zero value of _t_, which are “useful” in the scientific sense of being consistent with observations. The paradox of the non-physicality of the singularity can either be dismissed as irrelevant because it has no observational consequences – though the inference of a beginning arises from observational fact, or we can try to explain it away through novel theories of spacetime geometry. Either way we’re dealing with something that transcends physical reality as we understand it. It is not, however, in itself, an \*a priori \* argument for God. > [@tigerwoods](#): > > could you quote any leading cosmologists that actually think that the stuff/energy from which the universe is made had some kind of magic beginning? Could you quote where I ever claimed that it came about by “magic”? > [@tigerwoods](#): > > this storybook ‘god’ character only gets discussed in a semi serious fashion because of the passive-indoctrination we all go through. No, the concept of “God” can be discussed in a serious fashion in any philosophical context that isn’t limited by the silly assumptions of traditional institutional religions. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2015, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460/310 "2015-06-07T18:36:40Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > No, the concept of “God” can be discussed in a serious fashion in any philosophical context that isn’t limited by the silly assumptions of traditional institutional religions. But he is saying that the _reason_ it is discussed in the first place is because of the active/passive indoctrination we all go through. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2015, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460/311 "2015-06-07T19:16:41Z")
If nothing else, that people tend to still use “God” when speaking about a generic god or gods alone seems to suggest that. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2015, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460/312 "2015-06-07T21:10:22Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > But he is saying that the _reason_ it is discussed in the first place is because of the active/passive indoctrination we all go through. That’s fair enough, and probably indeed the reason that it’s a popular discussion. It is not, however, the reason that I discuss it and I am surely not alone, and it’s not generally reason that it’s discussed in philosophy. > [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > If nothing else, that people tend to still use “God” when speaking about a generic god or gods alone seems to suggest that. It may seem to, but that’s a frivolous point. To me the small-g “god” is a word that suggests ancient mythology, and just begs to be pluralized. I tend to capitalize it just because it seems to suggest the unity and primacy of a single idea. I find it hard to believe that any serious discussions about the nature of God (or god, if you prefer) are over the question of whether the anthropocentric Judeo-Christian God as depicted in the Bible literally exists. Really? Is anyone who isn’t a raving born-again evangelical lunatic worried that perhaps God is getting pissed off that people don’t believe in him and may be getting ready to smite us with some seriously bad weather? ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2015, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460/313 "2015-06-07T21:53:11Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > It may seem to, but that’s a frivolous point. To me the small-g “god” is a word that suggests ancient mythology, and just begs to be pluralized. I tend to capitalize it just because it seems to suggest the unity and primacy of a single idea. I find it hard to believe that any serious discussions about the nature of God (or god, if you prefer) are over the question of whether the anthropocentric Judeo-Christian God as depicted in the Bible literally exists. Really? Is anyone who isn’t a raving born-again evangelical lunatic worried that perhaps God is getting pissed off that people don’t believe in him and may be getting ready to smite us with some seriously bad weather? I too find it hard to believe that any serious discussions about the nature of god or gods are over the question of that particular God - that’s why I find it interesting that so many people, when speaking about the former, tend to use the latter term. And I wonder whether at least part of the reason you associate “God” with the unity and primacy of a single idea and “god” with ancient mythology is as a result of the kind of bleed-through of the deity usually associated with that term through culture. ---
**Author:** ![tigerwoods](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47c2d/32.png) [@tigerwoods](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tigerwoods)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2015, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460/314 "2015-06-08T01:31:02Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > …though the inference of a beginning arises from observational fact… i disagree. it’s an inference for a much smaller, compressed, or different state. ‘beginning’ seems like such a sloppy, loosely defined concept. an incomplete description based on what we think of as ‘beginnings’ for abstract objects here in our local part of the universe. beginnings seemingly being new combinations of perhaps eternal ‘stuff’. > [@](#): > > Either way we’re dealing with something that transcends physical reality as we understand it. It is not, however, in itself, an \*a priori \* argument for God. an argument for the who or the what or the how now? this badly defined god concept is a (bad) solution looking for a problem. itself a loose a concept attempting to explain this loose ‘beginning’ concept. > [@](#): > > Could you quote where I ever claimed that it came about by “magic”? no i cannot. i’m just using ‘magic’ to describe what a god might do. how would you describe the creative act of a god? > [@](#): > > No, the concept of “God” can be discussed in a serious fashion in any philosophical context that isn’t limited by the silly assumptions of traditional institutional religions. i disagree. our passive or first-hand indoctrination virtually ensures that. i don’t think i’ll meet a westerner before i die that hasn’t already had the concept of a magic, personal god squirted into their skull. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2015, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460/315 "2015-06-08T03:19:44Z")
> [@tigerwoods](#): > > i disagree. our passive or first-hand indoctrination virtually ensures that. i don’t think i’ll meet a westerner before i die that hasn’t already had the concept of a magic, personal god squirted into their skull. It’s happening now - Westerners who are casually atheist are having children and not indoctrinating them. It’s near impossible to get away from all the social advertising of religion - particularly around Christmas - but I’m confident indifference to religion will grow. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2015, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460/316 "2015-06-08T05:00:53Z")
I was listening to a Bible radio station, and the commentator was bemoaning secularism in Britain. She told an amusing story about a delivery man who asked, “What is Easter about, then?” I can’t really say I’d like to live in a land where the meaning of Easter is unknown; I can’t find myself celebrating ignorance of any kind. And…I really doubt that the “man on the street” in Britain is that ignorant. But the angst and woe and hyperbole in the radio comments were vaguely amusing. It echoed the usual “War on Christmas” crap. ---
**Author:** ![Razncain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@Razncain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razncain)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2015, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460/317 "2015-06-08T14:31:13Z")
> [@tigerwoods](#): > > it is not my understanding that this ‘singularity’ is an actual thing from which ‘the universe’ sprang. my understanding is that the ‘singularity’ is where our maths/models relating to the early universe breaks down. is this not right? There are various theorems on this, I believe some physicists say that they _all_ break down, I think quite a few others say only _some,_ can’t imagine they would have anyway of experimentally testing it on the Planck scale. AFAIC, God really is unemployed these days, scientists never have had a use for him, anyhow. It’s a very natural world, there really is nothing else left for God to do, not that he ever had anything to do, and that includes lighting the big firecracker. For the last few decades, the physicists and cosmologists have really got going on this with Hawking and other names often being brought up. The conservation of mass-energy laws that have been confirmed empirically time and time again with many experiments over the last century, and the oscillations of a vacuum fluctuation energy that ties in nicely with Einstein’s theories give an explanation of what was certainly possible what caused the BB, with God once again not required, needed, wanted, or of any help at all as usual. There are many things that can be extrapolated out of this, and none of it points to God. The long and short of it, is, mass-energy cannot be created or destroyed and in the universe it has always remained constant. ---
**Author:** ![psikeyhackr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/97f17d/32.png) [@psikeyhackr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psikeyhackr)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2015, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460/318 "2015-06-08T15:34:08Z")
Yes! As a transcendental agnostic I presume that if there is a ‘god’ then he/she/it has a lower opinion of religion than I do. Maybe there are people who know there is a god and can prove it. But if so wouldn’t they have figured out why this god doesn’t just reveal himself? So by agnostic I simply mean that I don’t know and do not presume what anyone else does or does not know. But no one has provided me with good enough evidence yet. Apatheism Forever! Or at least until The Big Guy decides to give up on The Mystery. LOL psik ---
**Author:** ![Smartass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4491bb/32.png) [@Smartass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smartass)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2015, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460/319 "2015-06-08T17:47:59Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > Atheists often see agnostics as being somehow afraid of what the theists might think of them. That they don’t identify as atheist (which we think they actually are) because of the repercussions it would have. I suspect there’s something to this, at least in terms of atheist perception of agnostics. Can’t say whether it’s true of agnostics in general–it’s certainly not true that I care much what theists think of me. However, I hate when anyone can say “I told you so to me”, and I’m thinking I would hate it more if theists could do it (and be right). Still, I don’t base any part of my core personal beliefs on what a theist (or really, anyone else) might think. -VM ---
**Author:** ![Smartass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4491bb/32.png) [@Smartass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smartass)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2015, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460/320 "2015-06-08T17:55:25Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > I have a deeper problem with “unknowable.” It’s quite an assertive declaration. It’s making a positive claim about the universe. It not only says that there is no evidence at this time for God’s existence, but that no evidence will – or even can – be uncovered in the future. I agree. I would say that I’m pessimistic about us ever really knowing, but I wouldn’t declare that the answer is unknowable. As you’ve pointed out, there are many posited gods that, if they existed, we would know. And I don’t personally waste a great deal of time supposing that, say, the Christian God exists. I _believe_ that He doesn’t. -VM [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460.md?page=17)