Is agnosticism a cop-out?

[Cypress]

This all reminds me of the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard in criminal law.
It doesn't mean the same thing to all people.

I've served on juries where fellow jurors didn't seem to have a clue what reasonable doubt was.
Their prime motivation was peer pressure from other jurors.
Their opinion was whatever the majority thought.

My disrespect for people like that is not something that I tried too hard to disguise,
but that's a totally different subject.

Agnostics don't think the possibility of a supreme being is beyond a reasonable doubt.

I think there's sufficient evidence to pretty much prove
that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and all-loving god
doesn't exist. I'm not absolutely positive because I'm not omniscient myself,
but I'm sure enough to call myself an atheist rather than an agnostic.

I see plenty of circumstantial evidence for at least the possibility that a purposeful organizing force underlies the universe.

Something came from nothing.
Rational mathematical organization rather than random chaos.
Precisely fine tuned mathematical physical laws to allow for atomic matter.
Life coming from non-life.

That is not evidence for a God of Abraham. But they require an explanation beyond sheer coincidence and fantastical luck.

 

[Hume]

I see plenty of circumstantial evidence for at least the possibility that a purposeful organizing force underlies the universe.

Something came from nothing.
Rational mathematical organization rather than random chaos.
Precisely fine tuned mathematical physical laws to allow for atomic matter.
Life coming from non-life.

That is not evidence for a God of Abraham. But they require an explanation beyond sheer coincidence and fantastical luck.

So, you believe in God but not God. Makes sense.

 

[Cypress]

So, you believe in God but not God. Makes sense.

Being potentially open to "at least the possibility" is perfectly good agnostic position to take.

I see plenty of circumstantial evidence for at least the possibility that a purposeful organizing force underlies the universe.

 

[Hume]

Being open to "at least the possibility" is perfectly agnostic position to take.

Yes, skepticism. Anything might be true.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

I see plenty of circumstantial evidence for at least the possibility that a purposeful organizing force underlies the universe.

Something came from nothing.
Rational mathematical organization rather than random chaos.
Precisely fine tuned mathematical physical laws to allow for atomic matter.
Life coming from non-life.

That is not evidence for a God of Abraham. But they require an explanation beyond sheer coincidence and fantastical luck.

You know the explanation that works for me.
In an infinite universe, everything that's possible manifests itself an infinite number of times.
Somewhere, a being that looks exactly like I look is typing this very sentence,
and that being is not a replica of me--just a random manifestation like myself.

That would include everything that seems to exist in a precise order
as well as everything that actually looks completely random.

123456 has the same chance of winning the lottery as any other non-repeating, six number combination.

 

[Ross Dolan]

This all reminds me of the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard in criminal law.
...

Agnostics don't think the possibility of a supreme being is beyond a reasonable doubt.

I think there's sufficient evidence to pretty much prove
that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and all-loving god
doesn't exist.

I do not think there IS sufficient evidence to "pretty much prove" (whatever that means) that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and all-loving god doesn't exist...

...but like I've heard you express elsewhere, Nifty, I just cannot understand why anyone with any intelligence at all, would worship and pretend love for the god of the Bible...a god which is purported to possess those traits.

In any case, I am willing to suspend my judgement of whether it is "unlikely" to exist...in order to make this further observation...

I'm not absolutely positive because I'm not omniscient myself,
but I'm sure enough to call myself an atheist rather than an agnostic.

...if I were sure enough such a god does not exist...I would still think it much more appropriate to call myself an agnostic than an atheist, because a god (or many gods) which are not omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, or all-loving...might exist. And "atheism" no matter the contrivances of people who use the word as a descriptor...intend for it to mean "NO GODS EXISTS."

In any case, using the word as a descriptor is not a cop-out.

I seldom use it to describe my position any more. I have found it even more appropriate to simply state my position...and leave descriptors out of it.

They seem less often used as identifiers...and most often used for name-calling... "Atheists suck cocks!" or "agnostics take it up the ass."

 

[Daylight63]

I do not think there IS sufficient evidence to "pretty much prove" (whatever that means) that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and all-loving god doesn't exist...

To my knowledge no one is ever required to prove the negative. How would one possibly prove God DOESN'T exist?

 

[Ross Dolan]

To my knowledge no one is ever required to prove the negative.

Well if the negative is offered as an assertion...the person making the assertion does bear the burden of proof. One should be careful about asserting negatives.

Nifty was careful.

How would one possibly prove God DOESN'T exist?

I have no idea. I certainly could not...and have often said that it cannot be proven that no gods exists.

 

[Daylight63]

Well if the negative is offered as an assertion...the person making the assertion does bear the burden of proof. One should be careful about asserting negatives.

It still makes no sense logically. You cannot prove God doesn't exist unless you can experience all of the universe simultaneously (he could always be hiding somewhere).

It is rare that anyone is required to prove a negative and in cases like this universal type negative it cannot in any way be proven. Nor would any logician ask one to prove such a claim, for the reasons stated.

I have no idea. I certainly could not...and have often said that it cannot be proven that no gods exists.

It cannot be proven that no gods exist. It COULD be proven that god or gods exist, but NOT proven that they don't exist.

Imagine if you set out to prove God DOES NOT EXIST, how would you go about that? Well you'd look in the universe somewhere and even outside of the universe. You check location "X" in the universe and God is not there. But God could be way across the universe at location "Y". So you would have to be able to see both "X" and "Y" simultaneously and extrapolate that out to all points in the universe (and outside of the universe).

As such there is no way to prove God DOESN'T exist. But if you found him you could easily prove that he DOES.

 

[Phantasmal]

I do not click on those kinds of links, Cypress...so I did not hear what that guy (or those people) had to say , but I fail to understand how saying, "I do not know" can possibly be a "cop-out."

I do not know if no gods exist. I realize there are people who make the blind guess that no gods exist...but I see no value in making that blind guess.

I do not know if at least one god exists. I realize there are people who make the blind guess that at least one god exists...but I see no value in making that blind guess.

How can that possibly be construed as a cop-out?

If the people in that linked piece did make a good case for something, perhaps you can give us a Readers Digest version of it.

Bravo! I let the mystery be!

 

[Phantasmal]

I do not click on those kinds of links, Cypress...so I did not hear what that guy (or those people) had to say , but I fail to understand how saying, "I do not know" can possibly be a "cop-out."

I do not know if no gods exist. I realize there are people who make the blind guess that no gods exist...but I see no value in making that blind guess.

I do not know if at least one god exists. I realize there are people who make the blind guess that at least one god exists...but I see no value in making that blind guess.

How can that possibly be construed as a cop-out?

If the people in that linked piece did make a good case for something, perhaps you can give us a Readers Digest version of it.

Long time, no see!

 

[Daylight63]

but I'm sure enough to call myself an atheist rather than an agnostic.

There is a type of atheism that allows for this. It's called Implicit Atheism. It's the same logic that scientists use.

 

[Phantasmal]

I see plenty of circumstantial evidence for at least the possibility that a purposeful organizing force underlies the universe.

Something came from nothing.
Rational mathematical organization rather than random chaos.
Precisely fine tuned mathematical physical laws to allow for atomic matter.
Life coming from non-life.

That is not evidence for a God of Abraham. But they require an explanation beyond sheer coincidence and fantastical luck.

Why?

 

[Daylight63]

Why?

Here's the best understand I have of this line of reasoning:

1. The person was told that there was a God at some point in their development putting the idea of things outside of the realm of the universe into possible play.

2. The person sees the world around them and is mystified as we all are. Science can answer some of their questions and it can answer many more but they lack the ability to understand the science so they are left with the mystery.

3. The mystery seems and feels quite deep and profound to the person. So they dig back through their brains and bring up the concept of something/some intelligence beyond space and time (God for lack of a better word).

So far so good. It's a placeholder explanation for those things the observer either doesn't understand scientifically or that science has not yet developed a firm understanding of.

For some people the next step is the one that is logically fraught. It is the one where they select their favorite VERSION of this "God". Whether it be Christiant or Woo-Woo-Woo-Wooism or whatever. Because that is only available from what OTHER PEOPLE tell you about God. When it comes to the point of selecting a specific VERSION of God then it becomes more difficult to justify.

I rather assume that folks like @Cypress like the "Deist" kind of God. One that is mushy to the point of no meaningful descriptors other than a placeholder for the mysteries he sees in the universe that either he doesn't understand or science doesn't yet have an explanation. It's fine insofar as it carries no meaning or imperative and as such can easily be dismissed as just another person's fanciful imaginations.

This kind of "agnosticism" or whatever it actually is is a perfectly legitimate way to while away the mental hours.

 

[Phantasmal]

Here's the best understand I have of this line of reasoning:

1. The person was told that there was a God at some point in their development putting the idea of things outside of the realm of the universe into possible play.

2. The person sees the world around them and is mystified as we all are. Science can answer some of their questions and it can answer many more but they lack the ability to understand the science so they are left with the mystery.

3. The mystery seems and feels quite deep and profound to the person. So they dig back through their brains and bring up the concept of something/some intelligence beyond space and time (God for lack of a better word).

So far so good. It's a placeholder explanation for those things the observer either doesn't understand scientifically or that science has not yet developed a firm understanding of.

For some people the next step is the one that is logically fraught. It is the one where they select their favorite VERSION of this "God". Whether it be Christiant or Woo-Woo-Woo-Wooism or whatever. Because that is only available from what OTHER PEOPLE tell you about God. When it comes to the point of selecting a specific VERSION of God then it becomes more difficult to justify.

I rather assume that folks like @Cypress like the "Deist" kind of God. One that is mushy to the point of no meaningful descriptors other than a placeholder for the mysteries he sees in the universe that either he doesn't understand or science doesn't yet have an explanation. It's fine insofar as it carries no meaning or imperative and as such can easily be dismissed as just another person's fanciful imaginations.

This kind of "agnosticism" or whatever it actually is is a perfectly legitimate way to while away the mental hours

Here's the best understand I have of this line of reasoning:

1. The person was told that there was a God at some point in their development putting the idea of things outside of the realm of the universe into possible play.

2. The person sees the world around them and is mystified as we all are. Science can answer some of their questions and it can answer many more but they lack the ability to understand the science so they are left with the mystery.

3. The mystery seems and feels quite deep and profound to the person. So they dig back through their brains and bring up the concept of something/some intelligence beyond space and time (God for lack of a better word).

So far so good. It's a placeholder explanation for those things the observer either doesn't understand scientifically or that science has not yet developed a firm understanding of.

For some people the next step is the one that is logically fraught. It is the one where they select their favorite VERSION of this "God". Whether it be Christiant or Woo-Woo-Woo-Wooism or whatever. Because that is only available from what OTHER PEOPLE tell you about God. When it comes to the point of selecting a specific VERSION of God then it becomes more difficult to justify.

I rather assume that folks like @Cypress like the "Deist" kind of God. One that is mushy to the point of no meaningful descriptors other than a placeholder for the mysteries he sees in the universe that either he doesn't understand or science doesn't yet have an explanation. It's fine insofar as it carries no meaning or imperative and as such can easily be dismissed as just another person's fanciful imaginations.

This kind of "agnosticism" or whatever it actually is is a perfectly legitimate way to while away the mental hours.

The Laws of Physics allows for the creation of the Universe without a creator, at least that is the position of Steven Hawkings.

 

[Cypress]

You know the explanation that works for me.
In an infinite universe, everything that's possible manifests itself an infinite number of times.
Somewhere, a being that looks exactly like I look is typing this very sentence,
and that being is not a replica of me--just a random manifestation like myself.

That would include everything that seems to exist in a precise order
as well as everything that actually looks completely random.

123456 has the same chance of winning the lottery as any other non-repeating, six number combination.

My two cents:

An infinite universe, and natural laws that can vary infinitely are assumptions that are not based on tangible evidence.

The idea that we live in a little tiny corner of the universe where the natural laws and physical constants are all precisely tuned to allow atomic matter, molecules, chemistry, and biology to exist seems too convenient to me. I think it's still an open intellectual and philosophical question.

 

[Cypress]

Why?

Because I don't believe in sheer coincidence. That's a fundamental tenet of science.

 

[Cypress]

The Laws of Physics allows for the creation of the Universe without a creator, at least that is the position of Steven Hawkings.

True.

Many physicists think Hawking's idea is unsatisfactory. The other thing Hawkings fails to address is why do the mathematical laws of physics exist, and where do they come from? That's a legitimate intellectual question many physicists struggle with.

 

[Phantasmal]

Because I don't believe in sheer coincidence. That's a fundamental tenet of science.

Science calls it Probability, not sheer coincidence.

 

[Truth Detector]

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmZrcCCS-z0

Is agnosticism a cop-out?​

No, it's just stupid and lacks morality. Next stupid question?