Yo Leach and Adam, what if someone believes there could be a chance that a God might exist, but isn't sure due to no concrete evidence being presented?
Would he be a theist or an atheist?
Well, you can be "agnostic" toward any number of notions (God or otherwise). Just wait until the evidence comes in. But that doesn't necessarily indicate what you do or do not believe. You could be agnostic toward the existence of God (meaning you don't know for sure), but still believe. Atheists basically have to remain somewhat agnostic because there's also no conclusive proof of no God...
But with that being said: as far as how the evidence aligns, there's no good evidence to demonstrate any sort of personal God and there's plenty of evidence to demonstrates impersonal natural processes (Big bang, evolution through natural selection, etc). God is really no more than an attempt to solve the problem of infinite regression, to make that beginning point. But that beginning point is likely some law of physics that we have yet to discover and possibly never will. Call that "God" if you want, but it gets you deism at most. Definitely not Allah or Yahweh or SATAN (my favorite, lol) or any other sort of personal entity that is directly involved in the world.
You’re preaching to the choir about the implications that agnosticism begets deism as opposed to direct theism. Most religions hold to a childlike and fictitious god-like figure that revels in pettiness; textbook examples of a grand patriarch are dubious at best.
I’m in agreement to the latter point of your post, but I do believe there is a clear schism between atheism and agnosticism: there are varied beliefs that intersect between both sides of the spectrum, to claim that there is no such thing as agnostic is akin to Jordan Peterson claiming atheists aren’t really atheists. I’d personally place myself within the agnostic-atheist camp generally, even though I find others within said camp to be just as certain as their counterparts.
The macrocosmic sphere of religion generates much hostility from me as much as staunch atheism does.
Well I actually believe deep down every one is a theist. If you listen carefully to Richard Dawkins I don't think he has a problem with the concept of God he just seems to really hate Christians.
He has issues.
__________________ Watch what people are cynical about, and one can often discover what they lack.
- General George Patton Jr
very simple all laws gave a beginning or a law giver, something or someone with a mind to set the law in motion.
so if he (patent leech) says a physical law gave birth to our universe/other laws, you still need to answer where did that law come from. would you then say that another law gave birth to said law that gave birth to the cosmos ad infinitum ? nope not possible. for you still have to face the fact that as information is proven to come from a mind a law must(that primal law of physics per his statement.) then have to come from an infinitely complex mind.
Semantics for the loss! This is a spectacularly bad argument. Scientific laws are observations with the highest level of explanatory and predictive power. It is descriptive of natural phenomena, nor proscriptive from a lawgiver.
i havent said they arent descriptive of a natural phenomena, every body knows that. I am well aware that the only way to know these laws is to observe.
The point is did these laws form themselves?
Which is why i said that ifa law provided the many laws which govern the cosmos(per patient leech's statement), should it not follow that another law provided that singular law that provided the rest? would it go ad infinitum? or would you quit with attributing such a precise cosmos to some random law that had other singular laws behind it, and try the alternative(i.e if you're willing to admit the alternative in question here)
KMC Community Forums
Mar 25th, 2019 06:28 PM
