If you are HONEST, you are AGNOSTIC

[K9Buck]

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.

 

[Vandalshandle]

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.

 

[K9Buck]

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.

Well, it would seem logical that something or, someone, has ALWAYS existed and which did NOT require another to cause it to come into existence. There is NOTHING in our universe that can cause itself to come into existence. So, it seems logical, again, to surmise that our universe was indeed created and created by a being that is OUTSIDE of said universe.

As far as I am concerned, those who are unwilling to accept these simple, logical truths are in delusional denial.

 

[Vandalshandle]

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.

Well, it would seem logical that something or, someone, has ALWAYS existed and which did NOT require another to cause it to come into existence. There is NOTHING in our universe that can cause itself to come into existence. So, it seems logical, again, to surmise that our universe was indeed created and created by a being that is OUTSIDE of said universe.

As far as I am concerned, those who are unwilling to accept these simple, logical truths are in delusional denial.

..and as far as I am concerned, your whole thread is based on a false primes. You are, in fact, a theist.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Yes and No ViewFromAbove

We can also just consider it "agreeing on terms"
for a common frame of reference.

We can't prove love exists, or life exists, either.
We just agree what we are referring to, and agree on "common terms"
to refer to those abstract faith based things or concepts.

We can't prove there is "justice" in the world.
That's also faith based.
But we agree what we are talking about,
and we agree to call it "justice."

Same with God and Jesus.
If we believe there are universal truths or laws in life or the universe,
we can "agree" to call those "God's laws" or "God's truth" to mean
they are absolute and universal across the board for everyone.

That's just agreeing on vocabulary, and religious terms and symbols are just another language system for
"laws or principles" we "call universal by definition."

The laws of nature, of science and physics are already out there,
and we have faith those are universal and nonchanging.
Those are equally faith based, but we AGREE what is considered
established truth, and we AGREE on a language for those laws.

Same with laws of the state or church, just languages for
principles that people agree to use amongst themselves.

If you don't agree or don't relate to one group's language for the laws,
you go join another. If these truths or laws are really universal,
they exist regardless what terminology we use to describe them.

We can't "prove" them - they are all "theoretical" or "faith based" on some level.
but we can AGREE what to call them and agree to follow the same laws.

 

[K9Buck]

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.

Well, it would seem logical that something or, someone, has ALWAYS existed and which did NOT require another to cause it to come into existence. There is NOTHING in our universe that can cause itself to come into existence. So, it seems logical, again, to surmise that our universe was indeed created and created by a being that is OUTSIDE of said universe.

As far as I am concerned, those who are unwilling to accept these simple, logical truths are in delusional denial.

..and as far as I am concerned, your whole thread is based on a false primes. You are, in fact, a theist.

It's not my thread. Yes, I am a theist.

 

[Darkwind]

Do you know who else is honest? Baboons are honest. They have an honest evaluation of their perceptions and experiences.

Do you know what is wrong with baboons? They lack the higher level ability to conceptualize things beyond, "banana", "water", "sex".

Just some food for thought to those who have the ability, to be honest with their perceptions and experiences.

You do not appear to understand honesty.
Nothing wrong with being ignorant. Your honesty about it would reflect well on your intelligence as well as emotional security.

But I'm not ignorant. You're attempt to pigeonhole anyone who does not believe as you do is mostly ignorant but wholly arrogant.

You are ignorant about Earth’s creation.
Don’t worry about your ego.
We ALL are ignorant about that topic.

If that helps you sleep at night, go for it.

 

[sparky]

It's called 'faith' because no proof is necessary

thx

~S~

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

~S~

 

[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.

 

[ding]

God is looking down upon on us just like we might look down on an ant hill watching the ants working away, totally oblivious to our presence.

Well, if he's looking down and watching us do our ant business ... he's not oblivious to us ... just possibly indifferent.

If, however, we see him toying with a magnifying glass ... then indifference might be trending towards antagonism.

If we start with the premise that spirit created the material world and created laws of nature which not only predestined beings that know and create to arise but also to mold or evolve their level of consciousness, then it is not a giant leap to believe that the perception of indifference is in error.

 

[the other mike]

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.

So anyone who chooses not to label themselves agnostic, atheist, Christian or whatever else is being dishonest ?

 

[ViewFromAbove]

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.

 

[ViewFromAbove]

You can be honest with yourself. But it is much easier if you have faith in yourself to be honest.
I wonder how many Agnostics are out there, that are truly honest with themselves when they have no one else to believe in? Do they actually have faith in themselves when they are Godless?

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

 

[ViewFromAbove]

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.

There is not much difference IMO between an Agnostic and a Deist. Per the definition, a true Agnostic has neither a belief nor dis-belief in God. A Deist believes that the circumstantial evidence supports the existence of a God or some higher intelligence/power but no beliefs beyond that.

An agnostic does not share Deist beliefs.
No evidence, including “circumstantial”.

The ordered universe and the existence of life certainly is circumstantial evidence.

It’s also circumstantial evidence for cosmic & biological evolution.

 

[ViewFromAbove]

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.

So you are now deciding you know what people believe more than they do?

Atheists are people who do not believe in any god. For you to claim that they are actually agnostic is the height of arrogance.

A common definition of ATHIEST is:
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods

A “strong athiest” disbelieves there is any god, while a “weak athiest” simply has no belief in a god (hence a-theist).
An agnostic (don’t know!) is also a weak athiest.

 

[Old Man Grumbles]

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.

I agree with both statements on their face value. So, may I pose another question to you;

Are there benefits to believing in God? If yes, what would some of those benefits be?

 

[Indeependent]

Do you know who else is honest? Baboons are honest. They have an honest evaluation of their perceptions and experiences.

Do you know what is wrong with baboons? They lack the higher level ability to conceptualize things beyond, "banana", "water", "sex".

Just some food for thought to those who have the ability, to be honest with their perceptions and experiences.

You do not appear to understand honesty.
Nothing wrong with being ignorant. Your honesty about it would reflect well on your intelligence as well as emotional security.

Subjective Honesty is an oxymoron.

 

[ViewFromAbove]

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.

 

[ViewFromAbove]

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.

 

[ViewFromAbove]

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.