Regarding, "Why Agnosticism?" 😎
For purely personal purposes only (thus, burden of proof is irrelevant):
Theism: There is a God ... I think.
Atheism: There is No God ... I think.
Agnosticism: I Don't Know ... of this I am certain!
Practical Agnosticism: So now what do I do?
Regarding "intelligence behind the scenes" 😉 ...
1. Could be a projection of what we humans want to see.
2. Could instead be a physical "meta-law" of self-organization, an overall synergistic effect from all physical laws functioning in unison. Defined empirically (?), it could theoretically be tested for.
3. Could be an infinite number of spacetimes (again, theoretically testable), in which case a well-ordered, biofriendly universe like ours arose simply because, sooner or later, it would.
I thought this thread was getting too quiet. 🤣
Originally posted by Mindship
Regarding "intelligence behind the scenes" 😉 ...
1. Could be a projection of what we humans want to see.
Originally posted by MindshipDoes this imply "intelligence" there's nothing really anything smart about it. Its just convinient and helpful to life. Life arose because the universe was freindly towards life. The universe is not tailor made to life. We arpse because we had the right characteristics to survive/form in this universe.
2. Could instead be a physical "meta-law" of self-organization, an overall synergistic effect from all physical laws functioning in unison. Defined empirically (?), it could theoretically be tested for
3. Could be an infinite number of spacetimes (again, theoretically testable), in which case a well-ordered, biofriendly universe like ours arose simply because, sooner or later, it would.
3. Could be an infinite number of spacetimes (again, theoretically testable), in which case a well-ordered, biofriendly universe like ours arose simply because, sooner or later, it would.
4. However... IF an infinite number of spacetimes/universes exist, with an infinite set of possibilities, could not, in one such universe, "God" exist? And if so--then God being "God"--wouldn't "He" then extend into all the universes, perhaps even adding an "intelligently designed" spacetime here and there?
(Personally, I'm not keen on ontological arguments, but I'm curious as to what others make of this).
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well it's easy, we agnostics just see that it is not the evidence that decides what is real, but what is in fact real is real.We just admit to the fact that we don't know for sure, and I believe you actually realize that as well.
And how do you define what is real?
Yes, I accept that we do not know everything. However certain things we humans have been able to establish as facts. The composition of the Moon for example. It won’t suddenly be argued that our satellite is made of green cheese. In the same way… I have seen no evidence, not a shred of irrefutable evidence to support the existence of a deity… I doubt such a deity would suddenly reveal itself as it once did according to sacred texts.
Originally posted by Regret
My religion does not believe he stopped 😉 But I understand your position and can respect it. I won't bother responding because I believe you are stating your view, and I agree that there is little, if any, scientific tangible proof of the validity of religion.
But if said deity did not stop, where is the intervention? You may respond if you can, I do not preach, I merely present my view and – heck – I may be wrong. I accept this. Do you accept the fact that YOU may be wrong?
Originally posted by Regret
I do view a tangible evidence is the various health laws, but they could have been common sense for the most part.Here is ours, I will add comments of my own following:
5-7 Alcohol use, 6 qualifies the use of wine in sacrament - not fermented wine.
8 Nicotine
9 Our prophets say this is due to tannin and caffeineThe rest is fairly straight forward I think.
Research this out, it was earlier (1833) than science had shown most of it to be a good idea. I think it is a small evidence.
D&C? I do not understand this. Are you referring to a text from 1833 as proof of divine intervention? The knowledge that abuse of alcohol would lead to health-problems is as old almost as alcohol.
9 – Hot drinks are not for the belly? Eh, no? Says what prophet? I see no reference to nicotine or tannin in the text from 1833, nor do I see this as proof of divine intervention. Perhaps you can enlighten me? 🙂
Originally posted by Alliance
This is only acceptable if I admit that in the purest terms, atheism is not provable.
I guess you can say that in essence atheism is NOT provable, since you cannot prove the non-existence of a thing. To me, however, atheism should be the foundation or “the first”. Any religious or spiritual philosophy is based on added (an unproven) assumptions and is therefore extremely non-occamian if you like 😄
Originally posted by Mindship
Regarding, "Why Agnosticism?" 😎
For purely personal purposes only (thus, burden of proof is irrelevant):
Theism: There is a God ... I think.
Atheism: There is No God ... I think.
Agnosticism: I Don't Know ... of this I am certain!
Practical Agnosticism: So now what do I do?
😆
Originally posted by The Omega
But if said deity did not stop, where is the intervention? You may respond if you can, I do not preach, I merely present my view and – heck – I may be wrong. I accept this. Do you accept the fact that YOU may be wrong?
We believe that the sciences have evolved through God's intervention. We believe he has inspired men to do things that previously were unheard of. We believe that God's intervention is not always overt, and easily recognizable.
We also believe that the true Gospel will not conflict with scientific fact, I must be clear, though, that unproven inference is not fact.
I personally believe that God works using advanced methods of science that we have not reached, I do not believe in a true supernatural. I believe all God does is some advanced form of science. This makes his intervention easily explained by science, so I am not sure which occurrences are God and which occur naturally. Also, if he works through science many interventions may have been set in motion in the past at some point. This would give science the history to explain many things without necessitating God as cause. It is interesting to note that bigger miracles occurred earlier in the history presented in the Bible, and fewer occur as it progresses. This does not mean that I do not believe God could intervene with immediate action, I just am unsure if he does.
I do believe in the idea of spirit, but spirit is combined with the physical form and is a part of what we observe. There is no manner to differentiate between spirit and body. The body and spirit are one soul, that is what we believe. Spirit imo is merely some of what we see in the body as it functions, it is a part of the body (in this sentence body is the soul I stated, I believe the body we examine in the living state is the soul, spirit and body combined.) When a person dies, the missing activity and/or material is what the spirit was. I do not believe the spirit to immaterial, it is made up of some material.
I choose not to respond because I do not believe that enough scientific evidence is present to convince you of my position. So any debate would end in an stance of evidence on your side and neither of us giving in on our stance.
I do believe I could be wrong. I feel that religion should be studied and belief should be maintained, faith in that belief should be held. But, that belief, like any opinion should be malleable. The scriptures I follow suggest that man should be humble, open hearted and open minded. To believe that you cannot be wrong leads to the plasticity that makes us human hardening, and an unchanging being cannot progress to a better state. Also, if I am wrong, that possibility will allow me to adjust to the true state of affairs that exists, when the time comes. I believe that the Pharisees and Sadducees of the New Testament had this fault. They believed they knew what the scriptures said, but their interpretation was wrong. They were unable to accept the alternate interpretations and the manner of Christ's first coming.
Originally posted by The Omega
D&C? I do not understand this. Are you referring to a text from 1833 as proof of divine intervention? The knowledge that abuse of alcohol would lead to health-problems is as old almost as alcohol.
9 – Hot drinks are not for the belly? Eh, no? Says what prophet? I see no reference to nicotine or tannin in the text from 1833, nor do I see this as proof of divine intervention. Perhaps you can enlighten me? 🙂
D&C = Doctrine and Covenants, our book of revelation that describes in more detail how the Church's organization occurs.
I use the health law as a proof, yes. I believe that health laws in religions are evidence of some form of intervention.
It is my opinion, if you disagree with them as evidences, that is fine. It is not a big deal to me, I think that they can be. If they are not, it isn't a big deal to me, I only thought they might be.
Your statements. I understand the alcohol one. The tobacco reference is nicotine. All smoking and chewing products were discouraged at the release of this health law. The items used containing nicotine. The Hot drinks were referring to coffee and tea, and have been stated as the drinks referred to from the presentation of the health law. Later in the Mormon history, particularly the 1930's-40's it was stated that the reason for these was tannin and caffeine. At this point it was suggested that any drink containing these was not to be used. Also, there are references that suggest that drinks containing substances that cause the body to speed up, are in essence heating the body.
Bumping because the first 3-4 posts from Alliance and Mindship back on page 1 are very well-done, and I agree with the majority of what they posit.
Originally posted by Alliance
Conclusion: As long as athiests admit that in absolute terms there is no correct answer....athiesm is justifiable.
Which would be my only caveat, but Alliance put it well. Nothing can be proven in absolutist terms...our existence and everything we experience is subjective so there is no objectively definable way to prove something. This can be used as a cheap "hiding spot" for those whose beliefs don't stand up to rational argument (i.e. faith) or it can be a small concession while we agree that there are many things that are reasonable to treat as factual based on evidence.
not to cockride digi but i agree again. i agree with alliance and mindship on some points, but then again i have some insights.
there not be any definitive way to know who is right. i have 0 logical proof to the contrary of atheism. there is likely no god, and if there was a god in most religions you wuldnt get into heaven anyways. this way i live without obligations to a sect i dont believe in and i dont have to use my time praying for a maybe. life should be lived without fear of torture(hell) which i plan on doing
I personally believe that God works using advanced methods of science that we have not reached, I do not believe in a true supernatural. I believe all God does is some advanced form of science. This makes his intervention easily explained by science, so I am not sure which occurrences are God and which occur naturally. Also, if he works through science many interventions may have been set in motion in the past at some point. This would give science the history to explain many things without necessitating God as cause. It is interesting to note that bigger miracles occurred earlier in the history presented in the Bible, and fewer occur as it progresses. This does not mean that I do not believe God could intervene with immediate action, I just am unsure if he does.
If god used "advanced science" then how did he come into being in the first place? Intelligence comes into existence late in the time line of the universe- and any god would first have to develop further than we have- which seems unlikely, especially if it 'created' us.
Originally posted by Jbill311that doesnt seem likely. dont ever say im arguing in gods favor, but technically he would be following sciences rules or maybe not. according to most people god is above this universe, which means he can ignore all the rules that govern this universe, but he cant. cause he isnt real
If god used "advanced science" then how did he come into being in the first place? Intelligence comes into existence late in the time line of the universe- and any god would first have to develop further than we have- which seems unlikely, especially if it 'created' us.
Originally posted by chickenlover98
not to cockride digi but i agree again. i agree with alliance and mindship on some points, but then again i have some insights.there not be any definitive way to know who is right. i have 0 logical proof to the contrary of atheism. there is likely no god, and if there was a god in most religions you wuldnt get into heaven anyways. this way i live without obligations to a sect i dont believe in and i dont have to use my time praying for a maybe. life should be lived without fear of torture(hell) which i plan on doing
It's ok, cock ride all you want.
313
...
A writer I respect greatly (Michael Shermer) wrote an article on the subject of agnosticism at one point and made some important distinctions:
Atheism, as it is commonly used, often times means "the denial of God" which is philosophically and scientifically untenable to maintain, as opposed to "a non-belief in God" which is much less absolutist. One would have to clarify the distinction so as not to associate with that, and many do (like myself).
As a statement of scientific validity, agnosticism is the only tenable position, but means such a wide variety of things (usually, that one is "open" to the possibility of a god or uncertain) that it is usually easier to simply call oneself a theist or an atheist.
Therefore, he called himself nontheist as a matter of personal choice (meaning, no belief in a God or gods, not the absolute denial of a God) and considered himself agnostic as a statement of universal observation. Because saying "I have no belief in a God" is different than "I believe there is no God." Subtle difference, granted, but present.
I would tend to agree, and have taken to calling myself non-religious more often than atheist, simply because I have to choose between trudging through this kind of semantic mire to make myself understood, or allowing others to make false assumptions about my beliefs.
Originally posted by DigiMark007That's alright.
😂Sorry, only read the first 10 posts or so before skipping to this page.
Anyways, I read it here again and I keep reading the "You can't prove a negative" line...but that's not actually true. Obviously there are multiple ways one could sufficiently prove a negative statement. There certainly is in mathematics. Maybe a "negative" has to be defined more exactly though.