...at questionable logic in labeling YOU as really an Agnostic & NOT really an Atheist!

https://www.tiktok.com/@billyhumphrey212/video/6811558221128469765?source=h5_m&_r=1

With a heartfelt "thanking you in advance" for your kind time & response!!!

Or so it seems to me...

We are all agnostics because none of us knows either way.
But I have never heard an atheist say they KNOW with 100% certainty that God does not exist.
Even Richard Dawkins says there’s about a 99.9% probability that the God described by the Bible is non-existent, because you can never prove a negative. It’s like proving a tiny teapot is not orbiting the Earth. How does one go about doing that?
We do not live in a pre-determined universe, we live in a probabilistic universe, meaning we have to rely upon probabilities because nothing is certain in a universe composed of 95% Dark Matter/Energy.

"We do not live in a pre-determined universe, we live in a probabilistic universe, meaning we have to rely upon probabilities"

"Never tell me the odds!" - Han Solo

That's actually very interesting, because in Einstein's Block Universe everything is pre-determined because it has already happened. So how do we make sense of an apparently deterministic world? Statistics.

But at a fundamental level, what is chaos and what is order? How are we to know the difference except subjectively? That is where religion comes in. The decline of religion could be an indication that science is warming up to spiritual principles.

Einstein refused to accept Quantum Weirdness, which is why he said, ‘God does not play dice with the universe.”
But, as it turned out, quantum weirdness was real and God (nature) does play dice with the universe, only the dice are loaded, in favor of matter over anti-matter. Otherwise we wouldn’t exist and neither would anything else for that matter.

https://scitechdaily.com/einstein-wrong-nature-does-play-dice-unknown-mechanism-leads-to-quantum-interference-in-simple-reaction/

In the beginning God said, "Let there be light".

I am very comfortable being an apathyist. Not caring if there is a God or not is freeing. It just does not matter.

https://i2.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2022/01/IMG_4343.jpg?w=750&ssl=1

Edit: A handy guide for us all as we navigate these troubled waters:

https://i2.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2022/01/Screen-Shot-2022-01-25-at-8.25.48-PM.png?w=1000&ssl=1



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/03/2022 06:27PM by caffiend.

There is one thing I dislike about that graph and one thing I like a lot--and they are the same thing.

First, the bad part. There should be no line circumscribing all there is to know, for from our perspective the room to learn is infinite and extends without limit beyond the edges of the page.

Now the good part. The graph is an excellent description of the theistic problem of the God of the Gaps. What changes over time is that the inner circle, signifying what an individual human or all humanity knows, expands outward. Since God exists beyond that circle, its expansion pushes God further out of the picture. One day he'll be pushed off the page and eventually he'll be ushered out the door.

The Christian theist has thus demonstrated one of the fundamental problems of belief in God: s/he is a moving target,

That and the problem of, what created the Creator?

caffiend Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> n/t


The singularity, the same thing that lies at the center of every black hole.

Before that, there was another universe.
And before that, another singularity and another universe.
According to Roger Penrose.

https://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-11/was-big-bang-preceded-another-universe-which-was-preceded-another-universe/

"The Christian theist has thus demonstrated one of the fundamental problems of belief in God: s/he is a moving target,"

Double standard much? This is exactly what science does. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Will someone please explain to bradley the fallacy in that argument?

It would help to use short words.

There is one thing I dislike about that graph and one thing I like a lot--and they are the same thing.

First, the bad part. There should be no line circumscribing all there is to know, for from our perspective the room to learn is infinite and extends without limit beyond the edges of the page.

COMMENT: I am not sure that with respect to finite beings in a finite universe, the "room to learn is infinite." That strikes me as a bit of a reach. However, when dealing with "infinities" the discussion always seems to be problematic in one way or another, so I will let this be a passing comment, rather than a criticism.
_______________________________________________

Now the good part. The graph is an excellent description of the theistic problem of the God of the Gaps. What changes over time is that the inner circle, signifying what an individual human or all humanity knows, expands outward. Since God exists beyond that circle, its expansion pushes God further out of the picture. One day he'll be pushed off the page and eventually he'll be ushered out the door.

COMMENT: The circles represent epistemic limits, not ontological limits. As such, God does not get "pushed off the page." Even if human knowledge had infinite potential, God's knowledge is (supposedly) an infinite present reality. Your view suggests that humans can draw closer and closer to the knowledge of God (sounds a bit Mormon), but that does not undermine in any way God's existence, or God's knowledge. The so-called "God of the Gaps" argument only applies to theistic explanations of facts of experience that cannot currently be explained by science. It has nothing to do with God's knowledge or existence.
_________________________________________

The Christian theist has thus demonstrated one of the fundamental problems of belief in God: s/he is a moving target,

COMMENT: Not so.

The guy commits the fallacy of "begging the question" by arbitrarily writing "God" inside the circle of what we can know. He provides no evidence for that assertion (that God's existence is knowable).

He also misdefines an atheist as one who has decided there is no god. More accurate definition (and etymologically more correct) is one who has no belief in the existence of god or gods. An agnostic is therefore also an atheist.

He is trying to make one kind of atheist into another kind.

nli Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> He also misdefines an atheist as one who has
> decided there is no god. More accurate definition
> (and etymologically more correct) is one who has
> no belief in the existence of god or gods.

Twelve of one to a dozen of the other.
(On a scale of one to a hundred.)

An
> agnostic is therefore also an atheist.

An agnostic is a functional atheist.
Six of one to a half-dozen of the other.

Can we now get to something meaningful, like how many etymological hypotheses can be stacked on the head of a pin?

Whoa, he made the international sign of the donut!

Right off the bat the guy in the video creates a strawman by misrepresenting Atheism as a belief. Atheism is not a belief that a god does not exist.
And since all gods are equally real, which gods are "agnostics" unsure about ?

Agnosticism is about epistemology. It is about what we can "know." "Gnosis" literally defined is "knowlege."

Atheism and Theism are "beliefs". Not knowledge. An agnostic either believes "god(s)" do exist, or they do not believe. Agnosticisms is not some strange point outside both. The agnostic is either a "theistic agnostic" or and "atheistic agnostic." There are no other alternatives.

Atheists may lack a belief based on good reasons, or bad reasons. The same for theists. But both still have a belief.

T. H. Huxley coined the term and defined it himself as (paraphrasing here) proportioning the acceptance of an assertion to the evidence. We can not know any positive assertion with perfect certainty because we do not have access to all information. However, I assert that we can know some negative assertions with absolute certainty. For example, I will say that there is no such thing as a square circle. I assert that with 100% certainty that it is true. Such as thing would entail a violation of the non-contradiction law of logic.

Now most atheists just assert that theists simply have NOT met their burden of proof, and thus they lack a belief in the theist's god. But some atheists (for example me) outright deny the existence of some "PARTICULAR" god(s) because a defined by the theist thier gods characteristics are contradictory, and thus can NOT exist.

The old example of "can your god create a rock so large it can not move it?" If the proposed god can not create such a rock then it is not "all-knowing." If the proposed god can create such a rock, then he is not "all powerful." So if your god is defined as a being/entity which is all knowing AND all powerful, then that god can not exist.

The TickTok video starts off by defining atheism as ONLY positive atheism (outright denial of a deity). By doing so, he is dishonest by omitting the fact that MOST atheists are not asserting that no god(s) exist. Rather most atheist's simply haven't been convinced that the assertion "god exists" is justified. And thus reject it until such time as the theist can make a rational and justified case. The TikToker engaged in a strawman fallacy.


HH =)

There are no other alternatives?
What about Pantheism? Or Deism?

Pantheism and Deism are still forms of theism. So, yes. it applies.


HH =)

So you’d toss somebody like Einstein in with the ‘Theist’ camp?
Even though he believed the word ‘god’ was just a euphemism for ‘nature’?

your referring to Einstein is just an appeal to authority fallacy. Why was Einstein and expert on "god(s)"? If he wasn't then his opinion was just a valid as Joe Schmoe the plumber transvestite. He was a brilliant theoretical physicist, but what did he know of "god" and its characteristics? Nothing.

By the way... the same Einstein who wrote this?," The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.”

Einstein had no consistent position when he used the term "god." So yes, I reject Einstein's conception of god, because he was inconsistent when using the term (this is being generous).

HH =)

Nature was Einstein's mysticism, so he was kind of a Gaia guy without the Birkenstocks and surfboard. Although I'm not sure about the surfboard. See here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dEL_BT_Z6Yg

You can't have God play dice if there is no God. But then going Atheist creates a conundrum because the other atheists don't believe your notions of what God isn't. Everyone walks in his own way after his own not-God.

> But then going Atheist creates a conundrum because
> the other atheists don't believe your notions of
> what God isn't. Everyone walks in his own way
> after his own not-God.

There you go again, taking the good thing about atheism--the freedom to do exactly what one wants--and pretending like it is in some way bad.

Assuming anarchy is bad. Maybe we have religious freedom exactly to allow anarchy, like it's a good thing.

So maybe we exmos just don't like being bossed around by tin pot dictators in the COB.

bradley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Assuming anarchy is bad.

What? Freedom of religion and freedom of thought are anarchy? Equivocation in the service of reactionary politics is on full display.


------------
> Maybe we have religious
> freedom exactly to allow anarchy, like it's a good
> thing.

You should consider the purchase of a dictionary.

The word must have gone the way of "gay". If you tell someone you are gay, they might take it to mean something about gender preference.

You said the freedom to do what one wants.
I said ok, anarchy.
You said that was reactionary politics, which is the demonization of anarchists by control freaks.
Okay, but I'm not a control freak.

So what is freedom? Is it permission? You could have said atheism is permission to do what one wants. I see freedom as a room without walls. Freedom to do what one wants means no walls. No walls means no authority. We are talking about mindspace. There are no cops up there, no speed limits. Okay, sometimes I crash and burn but nobody gets hurt.

I get to think anything I want. For now, until I'm Winston in 1984. But for now, there are no thought police. I would call that anarchy.

Anyway, I come here to muse because Mormonism opened such a wonderfully complex world on the philosophy of being. Mormons may be simple, but the metaphysics they illustrate is not. They leave more questions regarding the relationship between mind and matter than answers.

Now, as to atheism, I tried. I really did. But I couldn't reconcile it with observed teleological effects, evidence of the afterlife, or flat out miracles. I also didn't like the atheist club, but that may be a personal preference because I don't like any club.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/05/2022 12:51AM by bradley.

What ‘evidence’ of an afterlife?

"Pantheism and Deism are still forms of theism. So, yes. it applies."

COMMENT: Well, you're right, both are traditionally deemed forms of theism. However, both are radically different from traditional, Western religion. Your post above (and my response to it) does not apply to either because these forms of theism are generally not incoherent or inconsistent. They avoid these criticisms by avoiding the notion of a 'personal' God that is assumed to be 'all-powerful' in order to be worthy of worship. (Of course, they are subject to other criticisms.)

I see nothing to disagree with here.


HH =)

This is the best post I have ever read from you. Well done! I will only expand upon one statement:

"The old example of "can your god create a rock so large it can not move it?" If the proposed god can not create such a rock then it is not "all-knowing." If the proposed god can create such a rock, then he is not "all powerful." So if your god is defined as a being/entity which is all knowing AND all powerful, then that god can not exist."

COMMENT: What this shows is that the traditional view of God as omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, is incoherent at best, and inconsistent at worst. In either case, an atheistic response is *rationally* required. Even worse, if theism necessarily involves a logical contradiction (inconsistency), then atheism is *logically* required!

I relish the compliment. *blushes*

HH =)

In the first place, no atheist would claim that the existence of God is 'impossible.' So, this entire line of argument is a strawman. The distinction between an atheist and an agnostic has nothing to do with possibility, it is a judgment based upon evidence, and therefore, on probability. An atheist merely asserts that given the evidence (or lack thereof) he or she has a belief that God does NOT exists. An agnostic is psychologically uncertain one way or the other about such existence.

One can see immediately that both 'atheism' and 'agnosticism' represent psychological states, as do all beliefs. As such, both are substantive beliefs, just as theism is. Atheism is the belief that God does not exist. (Claims to the contrary, i.e. that atheism is merely the absence of belief in God are nonsensical and only show that such a claimant has no understanding of psychology.)

Secondly, it can be noted that the question in the link of the OP was epistemological not ontological: It was about human knowledge, not about existence. Although theism may place God ontologically outside of human knowledge (His existence as being unknowable), it cannot place God's influence outside of human knowledge. Otherwise, God's existence would be trivial. In other words, a theist has to say that God's effect in the world, both as to His creation, and subsequent influence, is within the scope of human knowledge, and therefore can be evaluated as such. An atheist can then very correctly look at the world of his accessible knowledge, and claim that God cannot be found, and that therefore God does not exist.

That is your answer!

No one has the right to attack another persons personal opinions.

Because it is simply a persons opinion.

Anyone who attacks another persons personal opinion is a liar.

If I want to say I am an alien from the planet Ytrfg that is my personal opinion. You might not like what I am so get over it.

If I say you are an alien from Kolob then I am an idiot.

There is a difference.

Idiots are plentiful nowadays.