Is agnosticism a cop-out?

[Ross Dolan]

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).

Yes, we agree. You seem to think we don't.

It is rare that anyone is required to prove a negative

Anyone who asserts a negative assumes the onus of having to prove it.

So...it is best not to assert a negative.

We agree there. You seem to think we don't.

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.

You are absolutely correct. I agree with you...and have said nothing to disagree with that.

We agree on this. You seem to think we don't.

It cannot be proven that no gods exist.

You are correct.

We agree on this. You seem to think we don't.

It COULD be proven that god or gods exist, but NOT proven that they don't exist.

I agree totally. You seem to think we don't.

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.

Yes, you are correct. Over the last two and a half decades I have written almost those identical words hundreds of timesw in almost a dozen different forums.

It seem totally obvious to me.

We agree.

But for some reason you seem to think I do not agree on those things and think I need to be educated about them

Why?

 

[Cypress]

Science calls it Probability, not sheer coincidence.

The origin of the universe, from my perspective, has to be explained scientifically on the basis of cause-and- effect. I don't think statistical probability in an of itself is and explanation.

 

[Phantasmal]

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.

The origin of the universe, from my perspective, has to be explained scientifically on the basis of cause-and- effect. I don't think statistical probability in an of itself is an explanation.

Who created the Creator? If all things need a Creator?

 

[Cypress]

Is agnosticism a cop-out?​

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

^^ Gotta love the Bible thumper who doesn't even bother to attend church, makes no effort to emulate the example of Jesus, and then present themselves as morally superior to everyone else.

 

[Cypress]

Who created the Creator? If all things need a Creator?

I don't know if there is a creator. I'm just trying to frame the right questions.

Jewish and Islamic scholars will claim God is eternal, and outside of space and time , so it doesn't need a cause. I think the Taoists similarly believe the Tao is eternal.

 

[Phantasmal]

I don't know if there is a creator. I'm just trying to frame the right questions.

Jewish and Islamic scholars will claim God is eternal, and outside of space and time , so it doesn't need a cause. I think the Taoists similarly believe the Tao is eternal.

Sure, they do…but energy is also neither created nor destroyed. Maybe, god is energy

 

[Cypress]

Sure, they do…but energy is also neither created nor destroyed. Maybe, god is energy

That's the weird thing about the Big Bang, matter and energy were apparently created from nothing, and we currently do not have an accepted scientific theory for why the big Bang happened.

I think there's a possibility we might eventually have an physical explanation for what caused the big Bang, but it might take a scientific field or discipline that doesn't exist now and we can't concieve of

 

[Phantasmal]

That's the weird thing about the Big Bang, matter and energy were apparently created from nothing, and we currently do not have an accepted scientific theory for why the big Bang happened.

I think there's a possibility we might eventually have an physical explanation for what caused the big Bang, but it might take a scientific field or discipline that doesn't exist now and we can't concieve of

I thought I read a theory that energy existed before the Big Bang. It’s been awhile…I’ll have to look it up. Something addressed in Quatum theory.

This isn’t my forte, it’s way over my head in some instances.

 

[Cypress]

I thought I read a theory that energy existed before the Big Bang. It’s been awhile…I’ll have to look it up. Something addressed in Quatum theory.

This isn’t my forte, it’s way over my head in some instances.

No, I appreciate that you have put a lot of thought to this . It's interesting!

There's plenty of speculative ideas about what existed before the Big Bang. One is 'eternal inflation'. The problem is there isn't a scap of tangible evidence to support them.

When cosmologists study the big Bang, if the go all the way back to the earliest fraction of a second, they hit a wall - because at that point our understanding of physics breaks down. We can't reconcile the physics of the very small (quantum mechanics) with the physics of the very large (general relativity). That's where the search for a theory of everything begins.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Long time, no see!

Been back for a bit, Phantasmal.

Enjoying being back.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

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

No. Agnosticism is simply admitting "I don't know, nobody knows and there's no evidence to support either view".

 

[Cypress]

No. Agnosticism is simply admitting "I don't know, nobody knows and there's no evidence to support either view".

Sounds good.

I would modify your definition to say I could cite circumstantial evidence and logical inference to support either side, it's just that the evidence and reasoning of either side has not convincingly persuaded me.

 

[Daylight63]

Yes, we agree. You seem to think we don't.

I clearly disagree with your structuring of the request. I don't see how it can be logically done.

Anyone who asserts a negative assumes the onus of having to prove it.

Not really. It is actually up to the people who think something exists to prove that it does.

I am not required to prove that the Easter Bunny does not exist.

So...it is best not to assert a negative.

That and it is very tricky from a logic perspective.

 

[Daylight63]

Jewish and Islamic scholars will claim God is eternal, and outside of space and time , so it doesn't need a cause.

That's called "Special Pleading".

WHY doesn't God require a cause? Because we define him thusly.

It's 100% circular reasoning.

That's probably why you are so attracted to it.

 

[Ross Dolan]

I clearly disagree with your structuring of the request. I don't see how it can be logically done.

I have no idea of what you are saying here. What request have I structured?

Quote what you want me to defend.

Not really. It is actually up to the people who think something exists to prove that it does.

Bullshit. If someone assert that there are no gods...the onus for proving that falls on them. You spoke about what logicians would do. Ask a logician about that...and you will see that I am correct. It cannot be done, but if someone wants to give it a go...I'll hear them out.

I am not required to prove that the Easter Bunny does not exist.

If you assert that the Easter Bunny does not exist...YOU BEAR A BURDEN OF PROVING THAT THE EASTER BUNNY DOES NOT EXISTS.

You were lecturing me...and you do not even know that?

That and it is very tricky from a logic perspective.

If you think it is tricky...fine with me.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

The prominent atheist Richard Dawkins claimed agnostics are just people who are too chickenshit to admit they are atheists.

Richard Dawkins, one of Four Horsemen of New Atheism AKA militant atheism, throws bombs for money. He's too chickenshit to lable himself a 7 on his own Spectrum of Theistic Probability.

Regardless of his beliefs, I think he's in it for the money.

Spectrum of theistic probability - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Yes, we agree. You seem to think we don't.



Anyone who asserts a negative assumes the onus of having to prove it.

So...it is best not to assert a negative.

We agree there. You seem to think we don't.



You are absolutely correct. I agree with you...and have said nothing to disagree with that.

We agree on this. You seem to think we don't.


You are correct.

We agree on this. You seem to think we don't.



I agree totally. You seem to think we don't.



Yes, you are correct. Over the last two and a half decades I have written almost those identical words hundreds of timesw in almost a dozen different forums.

It seem totally obvious to me.

We agree.

But for some reason you seem to think I do not agree on those things and think I need to be educated about them

Why?

Perry Pud-Puller is a contrarian.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Perry Pud-Puller is a contrarian.

I have no idea of who he is. My first contact with him.

 

[Cypress]

Richard Dawkins, one of Four Horsemen of New Atheism AKA militant atheism, throws bombs for money. He's too chickenshit to lable himself a 7 on his own Spectrum of Theistic Probability. Regardless of his beliefs, I think he's in it for the money.

Dawkins certainly made a lot more money as an author and an atheist pundit than he did as a professor of zoology.

When it comes to cosmology and the origin of the universe, I don't like to place a lot of stock in scientists who are either heavily atheist or strongly religious. There is too much temptation for them to massage the laws of science to fit their preconceived notions.

I tend to really appreciate the cosmological views of scientists who are either agnostic, pantheistic, or don't proclaim a strong preference either way and keep their minds open. Einstein was pantheistic and I always felt I could trust his judgement to be relatively free of religious or atheistic bias.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Dawkins certainly made a lot more money as an author and an atheist pundit than he did as a professor of zoology.

When it comes to cosmology and the origin of the universe, I don't like to place a lot of stock in scientists who are either heavily atheist or strongly religious. There is too much temptation for them to massage the laws of science to fit their preconceived notions.

I tend to really appreciate the cosmological views of scientists who are either agnostic, pantheistic, or don't proclaim a strong preference either way and keep their minds open. Einstein was pantheistic and I always felt I could trust his judgement to be relatively free of religious or atheistic bias.

Agreed. Atheists whine they are only "disbelieving" but the fact remains they believe "when you're dead, you're dead" without evidence. Agnostics at least admit it's an unknown and worth researching.