If you are HONEST, you are AGNOSTIC

[Hawkins]

There is no evidence for any “spirit” of the type you describe.

One needs to believe because you don't know for sure. Humans need to belief a lot almost on everything.

Religion exists due mainly to an advocate about whether life continues to exist after death. Since no human knows for sure, not a single one, thus everyone literally has a religion as a common belief shared by humans with a similar thought. Science won't help that much because science is basically observation and experiment based. Long before the emergence of science, humans already defined that whatever spiritual doesn't lie in our space/time, including gods, ghosts souls/spirits and etc.. It means we humans can't "go there" to gather scientific evidence. In the end, it boils down to one's faith to believe whether they exist or not.

Everyone has a faith on whether life continues simply because 1) you don't know for sure, and 2) it concerns your life. You don't think that you need to consider the possibility of what could possibly happen because you assume that nothing happens more likely developed from the absence of evidence. Humans have the basic instinct of concerning own life unless you assume it won't go beyond the point of death. This is where your faith is, perhaps without your own awareness (possibly as a result of your faith being firmly developed through education and out of the fallacy that the absence of evidence being the evidence of absence).

 

[Hawkins]

That does not answer the question I posed. You just deflected, unsuccessfully. I am genuinely curious what you find the harm to be?

There is no harm in a God belief.
There is also no harm in believing that a rock has intelligence.

The two are completely different. Humans in majority get to a truth of any kind by means of human witnessing. There are serious testimonies of God's existence, but not rock with intelligence.

 

[Hawkins]

AGNOSTICISM is about your HONEST perceptions and interpretations of your own experiences. If you cannot see beyond the horizon, you don’t pretend you do.

Of course, you can gather information from credible sources who have seen something beyond YOUR horizon, but that is tentative information that could be a basis for your belief(s).

No one credible to me has ANY information about Earth’s origins. We can only theorize based on patterns of evidence from various credible sources. Beyond that ...

If you are not agnostic, you are playing a make believe game. If so, you have faith in fantasy instead of reality, in my opinion.

The kind of truth can only be approached by human witnessing. It's outside the reach of human science or human technology. If you have no faith in science you won't start to study them or to explore onward. Faith behaves the same as a responsibility of one's own life.

If you are honest and responsible, becoming a believer is natural.

 

[Justin Richardson]

I have much much more faith in my own honesty (about my ignorance) & intelligence than any “priest” or other religious “authority”.

Everyone has their own definition of what Faith is. There is no wrong answers. All should be respected.

 

[Avatar4321]

AGNOSTICISM is about your HONEST perceptions and interpretations of your own experiences. If you cannot see beyond the horizon, you don’t pretend you do.

Of course, you can gather information from credible sources who have seen something beyond YOUR horizon, but that is tentative information that could be a basis for your belief(s).

No one credible to me has ANY information about Earth’s origins. We can only theorize based on patterns of evidence from various credible sources. Beyond that ...

If you are not agnostic, you are playing a make believe game. If so, you have faith in fantasy instead of reality, in my opinion.

God is a credible source. If you've recieved information from Him that information is credible

 

[Magnificat]

Most/many scientists believe OUR observable “universe” came out of a “Big Bang”, not from “nothing”.

There is zero evidence of anything existing prior to the ''big bang''. In fact, the evidence is that space and time came into existence at the exact same time, which occurred as a result of the ''big bang''.

If there is no ''creator'' then it would seem that everything indeed came from ''nothing''.

Atheists always try to ignore causality. They say they believe in science, yet they ignore the one thing that makes modern science possible. Cause and effect. The universe cannot exist unless Someone caused it to exist. They try their best to dance around it, but it refuses to go away. They have a million "scientific" theories that try to explain it. But none of them can get around the fact that there MUST be a cause, that was uncaused, that started everything. They have failed to do so. Which is the very reason for steady state and multiple universes, and even Hawking stating that gravity is responsible. Well, Mr Hawking. Where did gravity come from?

 

[Magnificat]

In the world of science, there is no need for a beginning and end. The universe could have always existed, without a creator.

The prevailing science says that the universe came into existence via the ''big bang''. Who or what caused the ''big bang''? Did it cause itself? Serious questions.

Serious answer. OUR universe started with a big bang. It could have been started by the collision between two other universes. We have no idea. The important thing to remember here is that time is just a measurement that man invented. Time does not even have to exist in the history of the universe. It could even be nothing but a giant circle of events. In fact, scientists agree that before the big bang, as far as we are concerned, time did not exist at all.

I'd love to see you try out that argument next time your car payment is due.

 

[Magnificat]

AGNOSTICISM is about your HONEST perceptions and interpretations of your own experiences. If you cannot see beyond the horizon, you don’t pretend you do.

Of course, you can gather information from credible sources who have seen something beyond YOUR horizon, but that is tentative information that could be a basis for your belief(s).

No one credible to me has ANY information about Earth’s origins. We can only theorize based on patterns of evidence from various credible sources. Beyond that ...

If you are not agnostic, you are playing a make believe game. If so, you have faith in fantasy instead of reality, in my opinion.

It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

You mentioned information. What, exactly, is information? Information is neither matter or energy. It is immaterial. It can be expressed in many ways. But no matter how one does so, the information remains the same. Information can be spoken. It can be recorded in several different formats. You could even use smoke signals. The medium doesn't matter. Information never changes. Another interesting thing about information. It originates exclusively from intelligent minds. All of creation, including DNA, is information. One last thing. Nature is incapable of creating information. Where does that leave us?

 

[ding]

AGNOSTICISM is about your HONEST perceptions and interpretations of your own experiences. If you cannot see beyond the horizon, you don’t pretend you do.

Of course, you can gather information from credible sources who have seen something beyond YOUR horizon, but that is tentative information that could be a basis for your belief(s).

No one credible to me has ANY information about Earth’s origins. We can only theorize based on patterns of evidence from various credible sources. Beyond that ...

If you are not agnostic, you are playing a make believe game. If so, you have faith in fantasy instead of reality, in my opinion.

It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

There is no evidence for any “spirit” of the type you describe.

Wouldn’t the material world be that evidence?

Assuming of course spirit did create the material world, right?

 

[ding]

The curse of the agnostic is that they don’t know. This includes not knowing there is evidence or is not evidence. For if they knew there was or wasn’t, they wouldn’t be agnostic.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

AGNOSTICISM is about your HONEST perceptions and interpretations of your own experiences. If you cannot see beyond the horizon, you don’t pretend you do.

Of course, you can gather information from credible sources who have seen something beyond YOUR horizon, but that is tentative information that could be a basis for your belief(s).

No one credible to me has ANY information about Earth’s origins. We can only theorize based on patterns of evidence from various credible sources. Beyond that ...

If you are not agnostic, you are playing a make believe game. If so, you have faith in fantasy instead of reality, in my opinion.

gee ill have to give up my belief that their is a god

and now ill pray to al gore and mother earth

 

[K9Buck]

Most/many scientists believe OUR observable “universe” came out of a “Big Bang”, not from “nothing”.

There is zero evidence of anything existing prior to the ''big bang''. In fact, the evidence is that space and time came into existence at the exact same time, which occurred as a result of the ''big bang''.

If there is no ''creator'' then it would seem that everything indeed came from ''nothing''.

A “singularity” is not “nothing”.
A single cell (zygote) is not “nothing”.
There are many species of zygotes.
There could be many singularities.
No evidence does not mean something does not exist.
WE DON’t KNOW many things!
Agnostics are HONEST about their ignorance.

You are ignoring the preponderance of evidence for a creator. Once upon a time, there was no time, nor was there a universe. In a fraction of a second, that all changed. What caused it? You sound more like an atheist than an agnostic.

 

[K9Buck]

Faith should not be blind, in my opinion.
Should be based on evidence, especially your own.

I wholeheartedly agree. In my view, there is a preponderance of evidence to support a creator as well as life after death. That is why I have faith in such things.

There is lots of evidence for cosmic & bio evolution. None for life after death.

None except the countless eye-witness accounts from resuscitated people.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

To see proves god is real.

Only to you. Which is precisely what makes that, "not evidence".

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

None except the countless eye-witness accounts from resuscitated people.

Which vary widely and, as we know, are the hallucinations of a dying brain. So no, that's not evidence, either.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You are ignoring the preponderance of evidence for a creator. Once upon a time, there was no time, nor was there a universe. In a fraction of a second, that all changed. What caused it?

Not only is that not evidence, it is just you pretending to have an answer to question that you don't actually know the answer to.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And the Grammer Nazi's in this forum need to go fuck themselves.

*GrammAr

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You cannot have a creation without a Creator.

Says you. You know, insisting there is a creator is not actually evidential or argumentative support for the existence of a creator.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So, just for discussion's sake, tell me what harm is there in believing there is a God?

The harm comes in the incidental beliefs and behaviors that arise from such a belief.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The two are completely different. Humans in majority get to a truth of any kind by means of human witnessing.

Utter, laughable nonsense. That's why we had to wait for empiricism to actually know things about our universe. Prior to empiricism, human witnessing -- I.e., the most unreliable evidence which exists -- told us demons caused disease.