Is agnosticism a cop-out?

ZenMode said:
Religious people tend to look for and "find" evidence for what they want to believe.
Click to expand...



Cypress said:
Isaac Newton, Galileo, and Johanes Kepler thought the natural laws and physical constants of nature were convincing evidence of providential design. What kind of evidence do you want?
Click to expand...

Dutch Uncle said:
They were most certainly pushing an agenda. It was an echo chamber/circle jerk of atheists. Although I'd heard a few of the arguments for atheism before, it was educational be surrounded by a group of them and hearing all of their arguments supporting atheism.
Click to expand...

The major problem in all this is the use of the words "belief" and "believe." In the context of a discussion about whether the true nature of existence (the REALITY) contains a GOD or not...the words "belief" and "believe" should be replaced with the expression "BLIND GUESS"...because that is all any assertions about any creating entity exists or does not exist...can ever be.

We fool ourselves by using, "I believe..."...and we severely limit any meaningful access to the truth by so doing.

The TRUTH on the issue is obvious...glaringly obvious. The TRUTH is..."I, PERSONALLY, DO NOT KNOW IF THERE ARE NO GODS OR IF THERE IS AT LEAST ONE GOD...AND THERE IS NO WAY I CAN CONCEIVE OF TO DETERMINE WHICH IT IS."

PERIOD. FULL STOP.

Granted, if a Creator GOD exists and wants to let us in on ITS existence, IT certainly could do so in an unambiguous way. But unless (and until) that happens...the only thing a human can do is to BLINDLY GUESS.

The scientific and logical basis claimed by some atheists is total BULLSHIT...and anyone with a functioning brain realizes that.

The "I have a personal relationship with God" is just as much BULLSHIT.

Agnosticism is the only meaningfully reasonable position to take on the issue.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Although very intelligent and well educated, you are correct that Hoyle limited himself by sticking to a theory that conflicted with evidence.
Click to expand...
Right, Fred Hoyle was actually a brilliant guy who made seminal contributions to astronomy.

Einstein hated the Big Bang so much initially that he added a mathematical fudge factor to his equations of general relativity to make cosmic expansion go away.

But to his credit, Einstein eventually accepted he made a mistake, and accepted the idea of an expanding universe. In some sense, I really tend to trust Einstein's judgment because he was not emotionally committed to either atheism or to Christianity. He was not a prisoner of either. He seems to have been some kind of a pantheist.
 
Cypress said:
Atheists are just as much prisoners of their preconceived beliefs.

Many physicists did not want to believe in the Big Bang because it implied a moment of creation. Some of them actively spent years trying to deny the Big Bang because they did not like it's implications, astrophysicist Fred Hoyle for one.

As soon as we started to become aware of how finely tuned the universe is, some scientists tried to sweep it under the carpet with highly speculative guesses about a multiverse or eternal inflation. Some of them don't like the implications of fine tuning.

I am not omniscient, and never will be. Science is a powerful tool. But science will never lead to omniscience and will never be the answer to everything.
Click to expand...
I was born and raised a Christian as most of today's atheists surely were, so the only preconceived beliefs would lean toward believing in God.

What has happened in the past really isn't relevant as it relates to the lack of evidence for any gods. Humans today use a belief in gods in much the same way they have for millennia - to explain things they don't understand or can't explain.
 
Ross Dolan said:
The major problem in all this is the use of the words "belief" and "believe." In the context of a discussion about whether the true nature of existence (the REALITY) contains a GOD or not...the words "belief" and "believe" should be replaced with the expression "BLIND GUESS"...because that is all any assertions about any creating entity exists or does not exist...can ever be.

We fool ourselves by using, "I believe..."...and we severely limit any meaningful access to the truth by so doing.

The TRUTH on the issue is obvious...glaringly obvious. The TRUTH is..."I, PERSONALLY, DO NOT KNOW IF THERE ARE NO GODS OR IF THERE IS AT LEAST ONE GOD...AND THERE IS NO WAY I CAN CONCEIVE OF TO DETERMINE WHICH IT IS."

PERIOD. FULL STOP.

Granted, if a Creator GOD exists and wants to let us in on ITS existence, IT certainly could do so in an unambiguous way. But unless (and until) that happens...the only thing a human can do is to BLINDLY GUESS.

The scientific and logical basis claimed by some atheists is total BULLSHIT...and anyone with a functioning brain realizes that.

The "I have a personal relationship with God" is just as much BULLSHIT.

Agnosticism is the only meaningfully reasonable position to take on the issue.
Click to expand...
Yes, none of us know if gods exist. What is the evidence today for the existence of the god of any of the world's religions?
 
Dutch Uncle said:
FWIW, I've never seen verifiable evidence of the supernatural.
Click to expand...

That word "supernatural" also needs some tidying-up work by the lexicographers.

The question, "Does the supernatural exist?" actually makes no sense.

If something "exists"...then it is a part of nature. It may be a part of nature that humans are incapable of detecting (or understanding), but if it DOES EXIST...then it is not supernatural.

The supernatural CANNOT exist, because if a thing exists...it is not outside of nature.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Agreed. IMO, that would be breaking the rules. :)

IF there is a creator, then the age-old question of "why bother?" comes into play. Entertainment? To create souls? We're just "Sims" in a supernatural game? As @Cypress keeps correctly pointing out, the Universe seems to run in a logical, predictable fashion with laws of physics governing its operation. One variable is life which can alter objects set in motion since the Big Bang even if it can't change the laws of physics.

FWIW, I've never seen verifiable evidence of the supernatural. No ESP, no telekinesis, no magic, nothing outside the laws of physics. While there may be some weird things going on at the quantum level, on our level, no magic, no supernatural activities.
Click to expand...
"IF there is a creator, then the age-old question of "why bother?"

If there is a absentee landlord type of god, then there isn't really a reason to reveal itself. We are just ants in a celestial ant farm.

If the god is the God of Abraham, and "eternity of torture" is on the table, then it would be psychopathic for a god to not reveal itself.
 
Ross Dolan said:
The major problem in all this is the use of the words "belief" and "believe." In the context of a discussion about whether the true nature of existence (the REALITY) contains a GOD or not...the words "belief" and "believe" should be replaced with the expression "BLIND GUESS"...because that is all any assertions about any creating entity exists or does not exist...can ever be.

We fool ourselves by using, "I believe..."...and we severely limit any meaningful access to the truth by so doing.

The TRUTH on the issue is obvious...glaringly obvious. The TRUTH is..."I, PERSONALLY, DO NOT KNOW IF THERE ARE NO GODS OR IF THERE IS AT LEAST ONE GOD...AND THERE IS NO WAY I CAN CONCEIVE OF TO DETERMINE WHICH IT IS."

PERIOD. FULL STOP.

Granted, if a Creator GOD exists and wants to let us in on ITS existence, IT certainly could do so in an unambiguous way. But unless (and until) that happens...the only thing a human can do is to BLINDLY GUESS.

The scientific and logical basis claimed by some atheists is total BULLSHIT...and anyone with a functioning brain realizes that.

The "I have a personal relationship with God" is just as much BULLSHIT.

Agnosticism is the only meaningfully reasonable position to take on the issue.
Click to expand...
Agreed, which is why agnosticism is the most logical position on the matter. It's okay to believe of "disbelieve" in an existence beyond the mortal, but those beliefs should not limit one's search for facts AKA the truth of a matter.
 
Cypress said:
Right, Fred Hoyle was actually a brilliant guy who made seminal contributions to astronomy.

Einstein hated the Big Bang so much initially that he added a mathematical fudge factor to his equations of general relativity to make cosmic expansion go away.

But to his credit, Einstein eventually accepted he made a mistake, and accepted the idea of an expanding universe. In some sense, I really tend to trust Einstein's judgment because he was not emotionally committed to either atheism or to Christianity. He was not a prisoner of either. He seems to have been some kind of a pantheist.
Click to expand...
Theories are good, but facts are better. Einstein changed his theories in the face of facts. Hoyle did not.
 
ZenMode said:
"IF there is a creator, then the age-old question of "why bother?"

If there is a absentee landlord type of god, then there isn't really a reason to reveal itself. We are just ants in a celestial ant farm.

If the god is the God of Abraham, and "eternity of torture" is on the table, then it would be psychopathic for a god to not reveal itself.
Click to expand...
That's one way to look at it.

Doubtful. If there is a Hell and if God is all-loving, all-merciful and all-knowing, then Hell is a choice, not a sentencing.
 
Neoclitorus said:
so maybe you'll quit pretending particle physicists opinions on god matter more.
Click to expand...
Even the New Testament is clear that one can look for God's revelation in the properties and organization of nature.

Physicists opinions count because they understand the fundamental nature of reality and the lawful behavior of the universe better than anyone else.
 
Ross Dolan said:
That word "supernatural" also needs some tidying-up work by the lexicographers.

The question, "Does the supernatural exist?" actually makes no sense.

If something "exists"...then it is a part of nature. It may be a part of nature that humans are incapable of detecting (or understanding), but if it DOES EXIST...then it is not supernatural.

The supernatural CANNOT exist, because if a thing exists...it is not outside of nature.
Click to expand...
Supernatural: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe.

In short, outside the Natural Universe and the laws contained within it.


www.merriam-webster.com

Definition of SUPERNATURAL

of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil; departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature… See the full definition
www.merriam-webster.com www.merriam-webster.com
 
ZenMode said:
Humans today use a belief in gods in much the same way they have for millennia - to explain things they don't understand or can't explain.
Click to expand...
That may have been the case for the pagan and animist spiritual practices of the Neolithic and Bronze age.

I don't know any Christians in my family or social circle that are looking primarily at Christianity for answers to astrophysics, molecular biology, earthquakes, weather and meteorology. They are looking to Christianity as a way to live their lives in meaningful ways.
 
Cypress said:
That may have been the case for the pagan and animist spiritual practices of the Neolithic and Bronze age.

I don't know any Christians in my family or social circle that are looking primarily at Christianity for answers to astrophysics, molecular biology, earthquakes, weather and meteorology. They are looking to Christianity as a way to live their lives in meaningful ways.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying your family/social circle are doing this, but many people will keep beliefs to themselves, particularly if they know that those beliefs will make them look crazy. That being the case, there are a lot more than zero Christians who believe their god, today, is sending tornadoes, storms and other destructive weather as punishment for immoral beliefs and behavior.
 
ZenMode said:
@Cypress ^^^^^Additionally^^^^^^

Not only do those Christians believe that weather events are punishment from God, many celebrate these events as evidence that the end is near and God will soon return to Earth.

Have you not met Paul Begley???

View: https://www.youtube.com/live/b4o2FkO_8GE?si=q4KGwDvTx5RMUIZf
Click to expand...
American evangelical fundamentalist Christians are a small minority of world Christianity.

Do you typically use outliers to define a whole group? I mean, I could use the Soviets or the Khmer Rouge to define all atheists.
 
ZenMode said:
Yes, but he also implied that we shouldn't have an opinion which, in theory, would make it reasonable to structure your life around the God of Abraham or Allah.
Click to expand...
Implied? Or are you reading into it? What quote, in particular, offended you? Why not ask him instead of assert your own opinion over your perceived opinion of @Ross Dolan's post?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top