Alliance and the Agnostic Argument

Originally posted by dadudemon
"I don't believe in God" would be non-<insert the name of the religion to which "God" refers to here>

You can be a theist, atheist, agnostic, apatheistic(thanks to Quiero for informing me about that one), or a nontheist. You may call yourself a nontheist because that is an "ism". Ther's probably some others but I prefer to keep narrowed down to those.

You may, imo, be apatheistic. Search out that religion....you may find that this "label" fits better for what you are looking for.

Fair enough. I just think that nontheist describes me best, but no one really uses it so I usually have to explain it to people. It's generally easier just to say I'm atheist.

And was that last sentence inviting me to search for a new label? Thanks and all, but I did my searching for a long time and was very thorough about it. If I was forced to choose a religion, I'd probably go with Taoism, whose philosophies and ideas I consider an admirable way to live life...but I can't consider myself any religion and flat-out don't believe in either a God/gods or nearly any paranormal phenomenon which would validate some belief beyond materialism.

Originally posted by lord xyz
You don't understand what I'm saying. As a result, you're argument has been against a point I haven't made. I understand Agnosticism is not Theism, and that agnosticism believes god can't be proved or disproved, my point is is that it can be disproved, and agnostics don't realise this. For some reason you mistook that as saying agnostics are thesits, or are a type of theist. I never said that.

No. Now you are using a red herring.

Agnosticism CANNOT be disproved. Neither can a belief in Deity or simply not believing in any form of transcendent reality.

Also, your entire argument against Agnosticism has been a straw man. In all fairness, it may not have been intentional on your part and may just simply have been a misunderstanding of Agnosticism.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Fair enough. I just think that nontheist describes me best, but no one really uses it so I usually have to explain it to people. It's generally easier just to say I'm atheist.

Fair enough.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
And was that last sentence inviting me to search for a new label?

Yes...and no. I figured that you may be interested a new name for what you want to call yourself. I, personally, don't care for the labels unless you define yourself by that specific label.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Thanks and all, but I did my searching for a long time and was very thorough about it.

Good.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
If I was forced to choose a religion, I'd probably go with Taoism, whose philosophies and ideas I consider an admirable way to live life...but I can't consider myself any religion and flat-out don't believe in either a God/gods or nearly any paranormal phenomenon which would validate some belief beyond materialism.

Fair enough. Sounds good to me.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes...and no. I figured that you may be interested a new name for what you want to call yourself. I, personally, don't care for the labels unless you define yourself by that specific label.

I dislike them too. But it's impossible to exist without them in casual conversation because there's rarely time to go terribly in-depth. We need 1-2 words that describe us generally so that interested parties have an idea of what we are. Do people stereotype? Absolutely. So it sucks, but it's largely unavoidable.

I always get annoyed with online dating sites (never actually used one yet, but I like taking the personality tests) because some just have "non-religious" after about 6 denominations of Christian to choose from, or they only have agnostic/atheist and don't allow you to clarify yourself. You can check "other" sometimes, but that doesn't really tell the person anything. Would a write-in box with maybe 100 word limit kill them? I'd be irked if I ever actually used one of the sites.

<--- Prometheist, short for Prognostic MetaTheist:

"I wanna know, but since there's no proof either way, I believe in believing in a God because I see less benefit to not believing."

renske

Originally posted by lord xyz
No.

Atheists recognise religion to be made up and use that as evidence to not believe it, theists instead believe it to be fact, and agnostics believe it's impossible to know whether it's fact or not. When speaking scientifically, something that's made up, isn't true. Since agnostics don't believe religion isn't true, they must not know that it's made up.

You are wrong. Agnostics might very well disbelieve in all Religions of the world and still say it is impossible to know whether a God exists. The concept of God is not solely based in the systematic and dogmatic manifestation of it called "Religion".

Originally posted by lord xyz
No.

Atheists recognise religion to be made up and use that as evidence to not believe it, theists instead believe it to be fact, and agnostics believe it's impossible to know whether it's fact or not. When speaking scientifically, something that's made up, isn't true. Since agnostics don't believe religion isn't true, they must not know that it's made up.

Atheists simply don't believe that there is a higher power, simple as that.

You don't have to belong to a religion to be a theist.

And agnostics simply believe that such knowledge is unknowable.

Most of these personal decisions are made independent of whether you believe religious doctrine. Once you've decided what you believe, then you apply doctrine.

At least that's the way smart people should do it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You are wrong. Agnostics might very well disbelieve in all Religions of the world and still say it is impossible to know whether a God exists. The concept of God is not solely based in the systematic and dogmatic manifestation of it called "Religion".

Originally posted by Strangelove
Um wow. That's absolutely wrong.

Atheists simply don't believe that there is a higher power, simple as that.

You don't have to belong to a religion to be a theist.

And agnostics simply believe that such knowledge is unknowable.

Most of these personal decisions are made independent of whether you believe religious doctrine. Once you've decided what you believe, then you apply doctrine.

At least that's the way smart people should do it.

Stated better than I could have stated...however, I did post links to definitions so I don't know how I could have said it better.

Theist: There is a God.
Atheist: There is no God.
Agnostic: I don't know.

Anything beyond this methinks is overthink.

Originally posted by Mindship
Theist: There is a God.
Atheist: There is no God.
Agnostic: I don't know.

Anything beyond this methinks is overthink.

Eh. Theist should probably be subdivided into "I believe there's a God" and "There is a God" (not equivalent statements). Most are the former, while the latter isn't as defensible.

Same with atheist. "I don't believe in God" and "There is no God." I know more of the former for both theists/atheists.

Originally posted by Mindship
<--- Prometheist, short for Prognostic MetaTheist:

"...I believe in believing in a God because I see less benefit to not believing."

renske

That really sums me up right there.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Also, your entire argument against Agnosticism has been a straw man. In all fairness, it may not have been intentional on your part and may just simply have been a misunderstanding of Agnosticism.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You are wrong. Agnostics might very well disbelieve in all Religions of the world and still say it is impossible to know whether a God exists. The concept of God is not solely based in the systematic and dogmatic manifestation of it called "Religion".

Originally posted by Strangelove
Um wow. That's absolutely wrong.

Atheists simply don't believe that there is a higher power, simple as that.

You don't have to belong to a religion to be a theist.

And agnostics simply believe that such knowledge is unknowable.

Most of these personal decisions are made independent of whether you believe religious doctrine. Once you've decided what you believe, then you apply doctrine.

At least that's the way smart people should do it.

Yes.

Yes, atheists do too.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Eh. Theist should probably be subdivided into "I believe there's a God" and "There is a God" (not equivalent statements). Most are the former, while the latter isn't as defensible.

Same with atheist. "I don't believe in God" and "There is no God." I know more of the former for both theists/atheists.

Both agnostics and atheists are skeptics of the god belief, yes? The difference of course is that atheists are sure that there is no evidence, and agnostics said you can't know. Philisophically, agnostics are right, you can't know. Scientifically, there is no evidence. An agnostic who is open to the idea of religion, which has been the agnostic I've refered to throughout the debate is incorrect.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Yeah, okay. Isn't that synonymous with Atheist though?

Besides, I mentioned that I'm talking about terms of science.

What does "talking about terms of science" in your opinion change about my point?

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Eh. Theist should probably be subdivided into "I believe there's a God" and "There is a God" (not equivalent statements).

Originally posted by lord xyz
Both agnostics and atheists are skeptics of the god belief, yes? The difference of course is that atheists are sure that there is no evidence, and agnostics said you can't know. Philisophically, agnostics are right, you can't know. Scientifically, there is no evidence. An agnostic who is open to the idea of religion, which has been the agnostic I've refered to throughout the debate is incorrect.

Depends on how you use the term atheist. This statement of yours: atheists are sure that there is no evidence, is false. I'm not sure there is no evidence, and others are the same way. I'm fairly confident there isn't any, but I wouldn't say there's no chance of error (as no one can about anything).

As I see it:
Agnosticism: We can't know, so there may or may not be a god.
Atheism: We can't know, but I believe there isn't a god.

Both begin with the logical statement that "we can't know." Hell, let's take Richard Dawkins. Even he says that his version of atheism is technically agnosticism because we can't be certain of anything (I can't formally cite the quote, but it's from an early chapter in "The God Delusion"😉.

It's my observation that most people believe atheists DENY the existence of God, rather than simply not believing in one. Again, "There is no God" and "I don't believe in God" are not equivalent statements, but both can be considered atheism.

Originally posted by Mindship
There is a God does sound like a statement of fact, but in essence it is saying the same thing as I believe there's a God. The difference is, with There is a God, "I believe" is implied (whether the theist believes that or not; many do like to see God as a fact).

I disagree, but not because "I believe" isn't implied in the statement sometimes....but because a lot of times it isn't implied. I've known people who will say "There is a God" and are actually saying There is a God. Not "I believe..." Same with some atheists.

And how atheism is generally understood by non-atheists (either articles I've read, how the dictionary defines it, or anyone I've ever discussed the matter with in my life) is "There is no God." They believe that that's what I, and other, atheists, are saying.

So I do feel like the distinction is necessary, because the "I believe" may be implied to you and I, but it certainly isn't for everyone.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
So I do feel like the distinction is necessary, because the "I believe" may be implied to you and I, but it certainly isn't for everyone.

Perhaps "Belief is implicit" might be a better wording than "'I believe' is implied," as the former bypasses the theist's intent.

Originally posted by Mindship
Understood. That's why I added, "whether the theist believes that or not; many do like to see God as a fact."

Perhaps "Belief is implicit" might be a better wording than "'I believe' is implied," as the former bypasses the theist's POV. The distinction you're making might be better applied to types of theists, rather than types of theism.

Fair enough. I hadn't thought of it that way, but it's a nice alteration of my original idea....theists rather than theism. We're obviously playing semantics somewhat, but I feel like they're important distinctions.

I just see it as necessary because of my personal experiences with it. One of the more common questions I receive after saying I'm an atheist is "How can you say God definitely doesn't exist?" or some permutation on that idea. Some qualify it with the cliche "you can't prove a negative" line as well. Basically, they don't see that "I believe" is implied for most atheists, so I have to spell it out.

It's also why I've taken to calling myself non-theist more often than not. Confusion arises with that word too, but at least they don't start the discussion with erroneous assumptions.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Fair enough. I hadn't thought of it that way, but it's a nice alteration of my original idea....theists rather than theism. We're obviously playing semantics somewhat, but I feel like they're important distinctions.

I just see it as necessary because of my personal experiences with it.

Again, I understand what you're saying. And I would even agree that in a debate with someone, it definitely helps to know if you're dealing with an "open" theist or a "closed" theist (if I may label your distinction).

In which case, perhaps I should've stated my initial post as (eg):
Theism: Belief that there is a God.

👆

Any more and we'd just be going in circles. Nice discussion though...probably helped me articulate my own views on it a bit.

Originally posted by Ordo
So over the 4th I was arguing with my friends. One came up with a proposition that I have been thinking about for a while. Our argument was unseccesful. I wanted to see if this generated some discussion here.

IDEA:

Agnositcs are the only rational religous position becuase when it comes down to it, there is no proof that god exists or does not exist.

When it comes down to it, athiests and those who are relgious are essentially both in the same error.

The Existence of God and the First Law of Thermodynamics

Patrick R. Briney, Ph.D.

The fall semester has begun and classes are in session once again. For many of you, the debate over God’s existence is still fresh on your minds. Prior to the end of spring session, Doug Krueger and I debated the topic of God’s existence. A follow up debate ensued via numerous emails, which, thankfully involved others than myself. These communications led down many paths, so I introduce the main point of contention once again.

Krueger attacked my presentation for the existence of God by attempting to discredit my description of scientific laws and definition of words. Following is a justification of my claims.

The first law of thermodynamics

I represent the first law of thermodynamics as claiming that “energy cannot be created by natural means.” Krueger claims that this is not what the first law of thermodynamics says (recorded on video during the spring 2002 debate). He objects to the use of “natural means,” claims that the statement must conform to a “word for word” definition, and that the first law of thermodynamics does not apply to origin of energy. I offer first the meaning of “natural means” (arguments 1-3), second I deal with the complaint that there is no “word-for-word” quote that states the first law of thermodynamics the way I do (argument 4), third I show how the first law of thermodynamics applies to the origin of energy (arguments 5-7), and fourth I show why the supernatural is the rational conclusion (arguments 8-9).

Argument for the meaning of “natural means.”

Argument one I.

1. Science derives conclusions based on physical and chemical properties of the material world.

2. Physical and chemical properties of the material world are referred to as natural phenomena.

3. Therefore, science derives conclusions based on natural phenomena.

Argument two II.

1. Natural phenomena are caused by natural processes and properties of the material world.

2. Natural processes and properties of the material world are sometimes referred to as natural means1.

3. Therefore, natural phenomena are caused by natural means.

1 A correct definition of natural according to Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.: “2. Conformed to the order, laws, or actual facts, of nature; consonant to the methods of nature; according to the stated course of things, or in accordance with the laws which govern events, feelings, etc.; not exceptional or violent; legitimate; normal; regular; as, the natural consequence of crime; a natural death.”

“3. Having to do with existing system to things; dealing with, or derived from, the creation, or the world of matter and mind, as known by man; within the scope of human reason or experience; not supernatural; as, a natural law; natural science; history, theology.”

“I call that natural religion which men might know . . . by the mere principles of reason, improved by consideration and experience, without the help of revelation. --Bp. Wilkins.”

A correct definition of means according to The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company: “5. To have as a consequence; bring about: Friction means heat.”

Argument three III.

1. Scientific laws are based on recurring natural phenomena.

2. Natural phenomena are caused by natural means. (II, 3)

3. Therefore, scientific laws are based on recurring natural phenomena caused by natural means.

Argument for stating a generalized truth of a scientific law rather than a word-for-word quote.

Argument four IV.

1. Scientific laws are generalizations based on recurring facts or events.2

2. Generalizations based on recurring facts or events are expressed in a variety ways rather than formulated into official, single, word-for-word quotes.

3. Therefore, scientific laws are expressed in a variety ways rather than formulated into official, single, word-for-word quotes.

2According to WordNet Dictionary ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University: a law of nature is “a generalization based on recurring facts or events (in science or mathematics etc): ‘the laws of thermodynamics.’”

Argument for generalized claim of the first law of thermodynamics.

Argument five V.

1. The first law of thermodynamics is a scientific law.

2. Scientific laws are based on recurring phenomena caused by natural means. (III, 3)

3. The first law of thermodynamics is a scientific law based on recurring phenomena caused by natural means.

Argument six VI.

1. The first law of thermodynamics states, among other things, that energy cannot be created.3

2. That energy cannot be created is based on recurring phenomena caused by natural means.

3. Therefore, the first law of thermodynamics stating that energy cannot be created is based on recurring phenomena caused by natural means.

Thus, it is correct to say that according to the first law of thermodynamics, energy cannot be created by natural means.

§ 3Dr. Robert H. Gowdy, Associate Professor, Chair of the Physics Department at Virginia Commonwealth University states on his web site at http://www.people.vcu.edu/~rgowdy/mod/022/imp3.htm that, “Although energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can be converted from one form into another.” [emphasis mine]

§ At http://www.unlv.edu/courses/ENS100/devine/03chap/tsld014.htm, sponsored by the University of Nevada at Las Vegas, Dr. Darren Devine states the 1st Law of Thermodynamics as, “In any physical or chemical reaction, energy cannot be created or destroyed. It can only be changed from one form to another.” [emphasis mine] [Accessed September 2002]

§ From Dr. Richard B. Hallick at The University of Arizona at http://www.blc.arizona.edu/courses/181GH/rick/energy/energy.html, he describes the first Law of Thermodynamics as, “Energy cannot be created or destroyed; different forms of energy are interconvertible.” [emphasis mine]

Argument for applying the first law of thermodynamics to origin of the universe.

Argument seven VIIa

The first law of thermodynamics states that there is no naturally occurring gain or loss of energy in a system.
No naturally occurring gain or loss of energy in a system means that new energy cannot be naturally created in a system.
The first law of thermodynamics states that new energy cannot be naturally created in a system.

Argument seven VIIb

The natural creation of energy is a natural increase of energy in a system.
A natural increase of energy in a system violates the FLT.
Therefore, the natural creation of energy violates the FLT.

Argument seven VIIc

The universe is a system of energy.
All known systems of energy conform to the FLT.
Therefore, the universe conforms to the FLT.

The first law of thermodynamics describes that energy is conserved, thus detecting new forms of energy is not the result of natural creation but rather a change in form of existing energy. Because we are dealing with a physical phenomenon under physical conditions, the first law of thermodynamics is understood to apply only to natural conditions. The question posed is, “How did energy begin to exist without violating the first law of thermodynamics?”

Krueger responds saying that the first law of thermodynamics did not exist at singularity. This is explained by others, who rationalize that under such conditions there were probably no laws or matter as we know them today during the singularity. However, this begs the question of energy origin. At issue in this discussion is not the origin of the singularity, but the origin of the energy from which the singularity came into existence.

Krueger claims that something can come from nothing, hence the singularity originated from absolutely nothing. He cites his authority as Dr. Bill Harter, physics professor of the University of Arkansas. I talked with Dr. Harter, and he confirmed that he told Krueger essentially that the demonstration of something from nothing occurred in the 1930’s. However, he erroneously cited an experiment to support the claim that something can come from nothing, which in fact was a demonstration only of energy transition from radiation to particle energy in a vacuum. I asked for a relevant reference that indeed supported the claim that something can come from nothing, but none has been offered--and for good reason. There has never been a demonstration of something coming from nothing. The transition of radiation energy inside a vacuum into particle energy is something from something.

Krueger claims that the first law of thermodynamics does not apply to the origin of energy. He erroneously implies that energy originated from the singularity.

Citing the vacuum experiments of radiation to particle energy, it is argued that if particles can originate from radiation in a vacuum, then a singularity of massive proportion could arise from a quantum fluctuation of energy in the same way. Put into perspective, the appearance of the singularity that resulted in the formation of this present universe (estimated to be about 3 x 1051 kg), is claimed to be no different than the appearance of effervescent particles (estimated to be about 9 x 10-31 kg) in a vacuum (Russell Humphreys, Starlight and Time, 1994). Noteworthy, is that this line of reasoning shows admission on the part of physicists that (i) quantum fluctuation experiments under today’s conditions and laws are used to explain the appearance of the singularity, and (ii) that the singularity appeared from pre-singularity energy (something from something). This reasoning of (i) is only justified if the laws of energy today are assumed to be the same as those prior to the appearance of the singularity. Thus, it is consistent and appropriate to apply the same conditions and laws (such as the first law of thermodynamics) to the energy existing prior to the singularity.

Argument for natural to supernatural
There are three possible causes for origin of energy: 1) from nothing, 2) from something natural, and or 3) from something supernatural. The supernatural choice is the most rational. Why? First, there are no experiences or justifications for concluding that something comes from nothing. Second, something from nothing is contrary to the first law of thermodynamics of science. Such a claim contradicts the established law of thermodynamics, which, as shown above, is justifiably applied to the origin of energy. Reasonable explanations must have some rational basis for the interpretation. Credible explanations do not contradict laws of science. Claiming that something can come from nothing is a serious violation of common sense, experience, and scientific law.

The second possible cause for the origin of energy is just as incredible as coming from nothing. Observations demonstrate that, without exception, new energy is not naturally created. It can change form but net energy is conserved.

In the following arguments, I refer to the context of “confined to natural conditions” to clear up misrepresentation and to emphasize that from the field of science we are dealing with natural conditions. The laws that exist today show that energy cannot be created by natural means. Krueger erroneously equates the contradiction of law with lack of understanding. Thus, he wrongly represents me as saying that because the natural origin of energy is not known, the supernatural is a reasonable conclusion. What I actually claim is that because the laws show that a natural origin of energy cannot occur, a supernatural origin of energy is the logical conclusion.

Argument eight (ii) VIII. Energy cannot originate from something natural.

The origin of the universe requires the creation of energy.
The creation of energy cannot occur by natural means. (VI, 3)
Therefore, the origin of the universe cannot have occurred by natural means.

Of the possible causes for the origin of energy, the supernatural is the most credible. The explanations that the energy came from nothing or from “something by natural means” are not plausible within the confinement of scientific laws.

Argument nine IX. Energy is created supernaturally.

The creation of energy is an event that occurs contrary to natural laws.
Events that occur contrary to natural laws are supernatural.
Therefore, the creation of energy is supernatural.

It has been stated that the conclusion that a supernatural event was responsible for the creation of energy is based on lack of knowledge. However, this explanation wrongly equates lack of knowledge with contradiction of laws. The natural laws as they are known today are violated by natural explanations (contradiction). A supernatural cause for the origin of energy does not suffer this dilemma.

It has also been argued that the supernatural must be proscribed because we have no way of determining its mechanisms. This thought is seriously flawed because (i) it confuses what happened with how it happened as though they are one and the same thing, (ii) it requires that in order for something to exist, understanding its mechanism of operation is necessary, (iii) it forces the conclusion to be a natural explanation by prejudicially excluding the possibility of a supernatural cause from consideration, and (iv) it insists on a natural explanation regardless of its violation to the first law of thermodynamics.

In summary, the first law of thermodynamics supports the claim of a supernatural creation of energy and thus, the entire universe, and the following points are true.

1. The first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created by natural means.

2. The universe exists as energy.

3. Therefore the first law of thermodynamics states that the universe cannot be created by natural means.

4. If the universe was not created by natural means, then it was created supernaturally.

http://www.mbbc.us/materials/articles/firstlawdebate.htm