Can we admit that agnosticism is the logical way of thinking?

[magnifier661]

You have direct contact with REALITY and all the REAL evidence that points to those things. Reason allows you to deduce those things exist. Unlike an IDEA that has no basis in REALITY and lacks REAL evidence.

The reality is that life has never been produced without life. There have been many trials that tried to stimulate the creation of life without life. All have failed. During the expansion of the universe; it was theorized that the universe expanded faster than the speed of light; outside the natural laws. Again... Another non-reality theory.

 

[MarAzul]

Not quite, it requires ignoring too much evidence although "Incomplete" as Kurt Gödel would say. Gödel, perhaps the foremost logician of the last century, pointed out (I'll shorten the paper a whole bunch) that it takes more
faith to believe in the random creation of life without the creator than it does to believe in the creator. He used considerable mathematics to make the point but I won't trouble you with that here.
Both Gödel and Einstein were Pantheist

I posted this on a different forum just a couple days ago about another likely Pantheist.

My take on Thomas Jefferson is that he was not a religious man in the sense of belonging to any church of the time he lived. If his time had been a bit later he may have considered himself a Pantheist, but almost for certainly not and atheist.

The wording he used in the Declaration of Independence makes it one of the greatest
documents of all time, a prescription for freedom for any man willing to accept the idea
that our rights do indeed come from our creator. There is no need to discuss your rights with men because granting of rights is above the pay grade of any man no matter how
powerful, charismatic or benevolent. It does not require you to belong to any church or religion to accept this truth.

The Constitution was then created (after a bit of fuss) to protect those rights the creator endowed upon the people who must work daily, to keep this independence from
being erroded by charlatans and Pipe Pipers that come often with a less than truth.

I think this means our creator gave us our rights but he is not going to see you keep them, that's our job.

It seems to me to be completely logical to accept the Judeo-Christian philosophy of living while
taking the Pantheism view of the creator, not quite so hands on and personal, but still not a
no rules, anything goes. I think that may have been the intent of the majority of those that created this country.

 

[magnifier661]

Not quite, it requires ignoring too much evidence although "Incomplete" as Kurt Gödel would say. Gödel, perhaps the foremost logician of the last century, pointed out (I'll shorten the paper a whole bunch) that it takes more
faith to believe in the random creation of life without the creator than it does to believe in the creator. He used considerable mathematics to make the point but I won't trouble you with that here.
Both Gödel and Einstein were Pantheist

I posted this on a different forum just a couple days ago about another likely Pantheist.

My take on Thomas Jefferson is that he was not a religious man in the sense of belonging to any church of the time he lived. If his time had been a bit later he may have considered himself a Pantheist, but almost for certainly not and atheist.

The wording he used in the Declaration of Independence makes it one of the greatest
documents of all time, a prescription for freedom for any man willing to accept the idea
that our right do indeed come from our creator. There is no need to discuss your rights with men because granting of rights is above the pay grade of any man no matter how
powerful, charismatic or benevolent. It does not require you to belong to any church or religion to accept this truth.

The Constitution was then created (after a bit of fuss) to protect those rights the creator endowed upon the people who must work daily, to keep this independence from
being erroded by charlatans and Pipe Pipers that come often with a less than truth.

I think this means our creator gave us our rights but he is not going to see you keep them, that's our job.

It seems to me to be completely logical to accept the Judeo-Christian philosophy of living while
taking the Pantheism view of the creator, not quite so hands on and personal, but still not a
no rules, anything goes. I think that may have been the intent of the majority of those that created this country.

WOW good job Marzy! Repp'd

 

[Denny Crane]

The reality is that life has never been produced without life. There have been many trials that tried to stimulate the creation of life without life. All have failed. During the expansion of the universe; it was theorized that the universe expanded faster than the speed of light; outside the natural laws. Again... Another non-reality theory.

They haven't failed. The reasons they don't succeed are really complex and literally take longer than the scientists' lifetimes.

 

[MarAzul]

They haven't failed. The reasons they don't succeed are really complex and literally take longer than the scientists' lifetimes.

Spot on Denny. They haven't failed! They just haven't succeeded. Truth.

 

[magnifier661]

They haven't failed. The reasons they don't succeed are really complex and literally take longer than the scientists' lifetimes.

How convenient. So because you can't observe, it's truth because we just don't have the technology to observe it?

 

[MarAzul]

How convenient. So because you can't observe, it's truth because we just don't have the technology to observe it?

Pardon me, but I do not know of anyone that has succeeded in creating life without starting with life. Is that truth? They have not failed, but have not succeeded either. I Think that is true.

 

[Further]

Once again, you want to debate, but only with your definitions. Who cares if the majority of atheists have a different definition of atheism, lets go ahead and use a Christians definition. As long as you play this game, the conversation will stagnate.

 

[Denny Crane]

How convenient. So because you can't observe, it's truth because we just don't have the technology to observe it?

If you mix biological (Carbon based) molecules and water in a beaker and let it sit there for a million years, life may form. The thing is, time frames of that scale were involved in the formation of life.

It doesn't fail to happen because the scientist gets bored and quits after a month. What we do know from that is that it doesn't happen in a month or less.

 

[MarAzul]

So we are very unlikely to ever see success on the life creation front? We won't make it that long. But then if someone did succeed they would pass the creator test
and screw up the whole debate.

Ah well it makes my head hurt, I think I will stick with Kurt, he's a pretty savvy guy.

 

[magnifier661]

Pardon me, but I do not know of anyone that has succeeded in creating life without starting with life. Is that truth? They have not failed, but have not succeeded either. I Think that is true.

Well I can assume we can travel faster than the speed of light, but since we haven't, it's truth.

Okay gotcha

 

[MarAzul]

Well I can assume we can travel faster than the speed of light, but since we haven't, it's truth.

Okay gotcha

Oh I don't know if that is truth or not. I don't know how to do it nor do I know anyone that does. But I don't think truth fits in this. It's just incomplete knowledge.

 

[magnifier661]

Oh I don't know if that is truth or not. I don't know how to do it nor do I know anyone that does. But I don't think truth fits in this. It's just incomplete knowledge.

Well I don't know anyone that produced life without life, nor have empirical observation of singularity and movement faster than the speed of light. How can you skew this to your benefit then?

 

[magnifier661]

If you mix biological (Carbon based) molecules and water in a beaker and let it sit there for a million years, life may form. The thing is, time frames of that scale were involved in the formation of life.

It doesn't fail to happen because the scientist gets bored and quits after a month. What we do know from that is that it doesn't happen in a month or less.

This is a bunch of crap. Obviously, you are trying to make an excuse that this cannot be observed. Problem... If it's not observable, then it's purely "hypothetical".

 

[Further]

If you mix biological (Carbon based) molecules and water in a beaker and let it sit there for a million years, life may form. The thing is, time frames of that scale were involved in the formation of life.

It doesn't fail to happen because the scientist gets bored and quits after a month. What we do know from that is that it doesn't happen in a month or less.

We also know that the math works and supports the hypothesis. So although we do not have definitive proof, we have a hypothesis driven by science, and math that backs up that hypothesis. So the math, is at least partial evidence that that the hypothesis is legitimate, even without waiting out the million years.

Then there is the question of what is life. We are getting closer and closer to developing real AI that self replicates. Does that count?

But none of that means that god does or does not exist. Lets say tomorrow that scientists announce that they made life just from the right ingredients, the religious would say that god provided the conditions and the template for life so in the end, it still is gods creation. There is no response to that. If you choose to believe in an all powerful god, then there does not exist anything that can disprove the all powerful.

Disproving G is impossible if G is all powerful. But I, along with many atheists, suggest that we do not need to disprove G, we simply need see some tiny shred of evidence, otherwise there is nothing to reach the level of even contemplation. I believe in the chair I'm sitting in, I believe that planes can fly at 35,000 feet. I don't believe that there is a monkey with 210 boobs or that there is a god. I can't prove a 210 boobed monkey isn't swinging a very milky path through a jungle right now. But there is no need to prove that, since it's a ridiculous notion. It's possible, but without proof, so unlikely that it reaches a level of unlikeliness that I can say I don't believe in the super-multi-titted-monkey.

 

[Denny Crane]

Well I don't know anyone that produced life without life, nor have empirical observation of singularity and movement faster than the speed of light. How can you skew this to your benefit then?

You come to a traffic light. It's green. Has it ever been red?

 

[magnifier661]

Once again, you want to debate, but only with your definitions. Who cares if the majority of atheists have a different definition of atheism, lets go ahead and use a Christians definition. As long as you play this game, the conversation will stagnate.

With my definition? I am using the Webster's Dictionary. I am also using the definition set forth by "Atheism.org"; the biggest atheist website out there.

 

[magnifier661]

We also know that the math works and supports the hypothesis. So although we do not have definitive proof, we have a hypothesis driven by science, and math that backs up that hypothesis. So the math, is at least partial evidence that that the hypothesis is legitimate, even without waiting out the million years.

Then there is the question of what is life. We are getting closer and closer to developing real AI that self replicates. Does that count?

But none of that means that god does or does not exist. Lets say tomorrow that scientists announce that they made life just from the right ingredients, the religious would say that god provided the conditions and the template for life so in the end, it still is gods creation. There is no response to that. If you choose to believe in an all powerful god, then there does not exist anything that can disprove the all powerful.

Disproving G is impossible if G is all powerful. But I, along with many atheists, suggest that we do not need to disprove G, we simply need see some tiny shred of evidence, otherwise there is nothing to reach the level of even contemplation. I believe in the chair I'm sitting in, I believe that planes can fly at 35,000 feet. I don't believe that there is a monkey with 210 boobs or that there is a god. I can't prove a 210 boobed monkey isn't swinging a very milky path through a jungle right now. But there is no need to prove that, since it's a ridiculous notion. It's possible, but without proof, so unlikely that it reaches a level of unlikeliness that I can say I don't believe in the super-multi-titted-monkey.

I actually think that God already did this. Have been saying this for a while. I am saying or agreeing that evolution is a very real possibility; but was designed.

 

[MarAzul]

Damned if I know. Nor do I know how we got this far down this trail.

 

[magnifier661]

You come to a traffic light. It's green. Has it ever been red?

Yes. But being red has been observed... Next?

 

[Denny Crane]

Then there is the question of what is life. We are getting closer and closer to developing real AI that self replicates. Does that count?

There is the question of what is god.

 

[Denny Crane]

Yes. But being red has been observed... Next?

Maybe not this specific light.

At least you're acknowledging the Objective REALITY.

 

[magnifier661]

Maybe not this specific light.

At least you're acknowledging the Objective REALITY.

But you can observe that specific light if you want to. You cannot observe singularity, nor life being created without life.

 

[Further]

With my definition? I am using the Webster's Dictionary. I am also using the definition set forth by "Atheism.org"; the biggest atheist website out there.

you are reading stuff into the definition that does not exist.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

a) a disbelief in the existence of deity

it just says a disbelief, in other words, not believing in. It does not say certainty that there does not exist. An atheist simply does not believe in god. you are assuming more than that. You are assuming to know what belief is verses knowing. I don't know, but I believe. I don't know, but I don't believe.

And from Atheists.org this is what it says

WHAT IS ATHEISM?

No one asks this question enough.

The reason no one asks this question a lot is because most people have preconceived ideas and notions about what an Atheist is and is not. Where these preconceived ideas come from varies, but they tend to evolve from theistic influences or other sources.

Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God." Some dictionaries even go so far as to define Atheism as "wickedness," "sinfulness," and other derogatory adjectives. Clearly, theistic influence taints dictionaries. People cannot trust these dictionaries to define atheism. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as "there is no God" betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read "there are no gods."

Why should atheists allow theists to define who atheists are? Do other minorities allow the majority to define their character, views, and opinions? No, they do not. So why does everyone expect atheists to lie down and accept the definition placed upon them by the world’s theists? Atheists will define themselves.

Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion. While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. Two commonly used retorts to the nonsense that atheism is a religion are: 1) If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color, and 2) If atheism is a religion then health is a disease. A new one introduced in 2012 by Bill Maher is, "If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position."

The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings. Some of the best debates we have ever had have been with fellow atheists. This is because atheists do not have a common belief system, sacred scripture or atheist Pope. This means atheists often disagree on many issues and ideas. Atheists come in a variety of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds. We are as unique as our fingerprints.

 

[Further]

Scientists theorized for 40+ years about the existence of the Higgs-Bozon. There was no way to see, touch, smell, or observe it until last year. But the math worked, so many people BELIEVED the Bozon to exist. They never had proof, but they did have evidence in the way of math and how other particles acted to suggest the existence. Now, we developed a way to observe the Bozon, and guess what, we now know it exists.

 

[magnifier661]

you are reading stuff into the definition that does not exist.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism



it just says a disbelief, in other words, not believing in. It does not say certainty that there does not exist. An atheist simply does not believe in god. you are assuming more than that. You are assuming to know what belief is verses knowing. I don't know, but I believe. I don't know, but I don't believe.

And from Atheists.org this is what it says

Well how convenient. To disbelieve? LMAO Let's look that up shall we?


doubt - discredit
Have no faith in God, spiritual beings, or a religious system.
Be unable to believe (someone or something).

What's the difference?

 

[Denny Crane]

But you can observe that specific light if you want to. You cannot observe singularity, nor life being created without life.

You can observe the singularity or the creation of life. Given the right circumstances.

You sometimes go through a traffic light when it's yellow because you have clues from other lights hat the yellow lasts a bit of time. We know about these things that baffle you because we have similar clues based in reality.

Why guess the Christian god created life when it could have been Pele, goddess of the volcano that did? There's an actual volcano, not even that much of a REAL thing you can misjudge the qualities of for the Christian god.

 

[magnifier661]

Scientists theorized for 40+ years about the existence of the Higgs-Bozon. There was no way to see, touch, smell, or observe it until last year. But the math worked, so many people BELIEVED the Bozon to exist. They never had proof, but they did have evidence in the way of math and how other particles acted to suggest the existence. Now, we developed a way to observe the Bozon, and guess what, we now know it exists.

That particle is what theorized the expansion of the universe; but it is only a theory. And tell me how this observation explains the expansion again?

Also, do you believe mass is eternal?

 

[magnifier661]

You can observe the singularity or the creation of life. Given the right circumstances.

You sometimes go through a traffic light when it's yellow because you have clues from other lights hat the yellow lasts a bit of time. We know about these things that baffle you because we have similar clues based in reality.

Why guess the Christian god created life when it could have been Pele, goddess of the volcano that did? There's an actual volcano, not even that much of a REAL thing you can misjudge the qualities of for the Christian god.

Maybe Peele did? I think there is more support that a designer is needed than by chance.

AND you can say this can be observed, but it hasn't, therefor life without life hasn't been observed. Fill me in when science has, then we can talk.

 

[Further]

Well how convenient. To disbelieve? LMAO Let's look that up shall we?


doubt - discredit
Have no faith in God, spiritual beings, or a religious system.
Be unable to believe (someone or something).

What's the difference?

The difference is simple. There is no belief in the existence, but that does not mean that we know for certain, just that there is no reason to give any respect to the concept of god. As I said, I don't know there is not a 210 boobed monkey. But without something to make me think its a possibility I just don't believe.

There are some things that have an answer. 2 plus 2 is 4. I can say I don't believe it is 7.8, but I can also say I know that 2+2 does not equal 7.8 because there is an answer that can be had. With God, there is no possible final answer because there is no way to prove that something (anything) does not exist. Try and prove that unicorns don'e exist in alternate universes. There is no way for you to look, no way for you to know.