If you are HONEST, you are AGNOSTIC

[ViewFromAbove]

For those who answered my question about the benefits in belief in God, thanks. However, I'm waiting for the OP to answer as I'm interested in that answer.

Whatever makes YOU happy, but don’t pretend your beliefs are based on reality.
The benefits of natural realism outweigh those of supernatural inventions, in my opinion.

 

[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.

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

What information have YOU received from your perception of God? Why do you believe your perceptions are credible?

 

[Old Man Grumbles]

For those who answered my question about the benefits in belief in God, thanks. However, I'm waiting for the OP to answer as I'm interested in that answer.

Whatever makes YOU happy, but don’t pretend your beliefs are based on reality.
The benefits of natural realism outweigh those of supernatural inventions, in my opinion.

I'm glad you have your opinions and beliefs. I asked a question. I didn't accuse or belittle someones belief because it is different than mine.

In the end it comes down to this, when I die and you turn out to be right I've lost nothing. However, when you die and I turn out to be right, you've lost everything.

 

[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.

Wouldn’t the material world be that evidence?

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

The material/natural world we perceive provides LOTS of evidence for evolution through self-organization and emergence processes.
Your “spirit” perception is not based on any credible evidence or rational thought, in my opinion.

 

[ViewFromAbove]

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.

Honesty about one’s ignorance is not a curse; it’s rational. Scientists practice objectivity 99% of the time, and usually conclude their research with probabilities based on their data and “more research needed”.

 

[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.

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

and now ill pray to al gore and mother earth

No need to pray; just open your mind to objectivity and honesty about what is known and what is not from a rational perspective.

 

[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.

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.

How do YOU know anything about a creator or what transpired thousands, millions or billions of years ago? Be honest!

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

I already explained that. Dr. Who's Tardis blew up at the end of time was thrown back to the beginning of time and created the Universe.

Scientifically impossible. The effect cannot precede the cause.

Maybe you don't know everything. I know I don't.

I know enough to know that some scientists don't know anything.

They may not know everything. But to say they don't know anything is to either lie or to be willfully ignorant.

 

[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.

That is what I said. Claiming that they are agnostic is somewhat arrogant, wouldn't you say?

You are confusing arrogance with honesty about ignorance.
To be dishonest and pretend you know something beyond your experiences or rational perceptions of knowledge is arrogant.

 

[ViewFromAbove]

For those who answered my question about the benefits in belief in God, thanks. However, I'm waiting for the OP to answer as I'm interested in that answer.

Whatever makes YOU happy, but don’t pretend your beliefs are based on reality.
The benefits of natural realism outweigh those of supernatural inventions, in my opinion.

I'm glad you have your opinions and beliefs. I asked a question. I didn't accuse or belittle someones belief because it is different than mine.

In the end it comes down to this, when I die and you turn out to be right I've lost nothing. However, when you die and I turn out to be right, you've lost everything.

Pascal’s wager (your thought preference) is not rational, and it’s ethnocentric.

Why would a benevolent God punish you for being honest about your ignorance?
I’m an ethical person and strongly believe in the “golden rule” principle. It makes no sense that a just god would punish me for exercising my “god given” empathy.

Even if you believe in a Christian God, would you not be punished for being an “infidel” if the Islamic God existed?
Religion is a cultural artifact.

 

[Taz]

To see proves god is real.

What about blind people, did god fuck them up on purpose?

 

[ViewFromAbove]

It seems that theists and atheist agree on one thing, agnostics are despicable cowards. They have that one thing in common. that absolutist way of thought. Me? I don't care.

Other way around.
If you are not HONEST about your IGNORANCE, then you are the coward.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

That is what I said. Claiming that they are agnostic is somewhat arrogant, wouldn't you say?

You are confusing arrogance with honesty about ignorance.
To be dishonest and pretend you know something beyond your experiences or rational perceptions of knowledge is arrogant.

No, I am claiming that it is arrogant to claim to know what someone believes more than they do. If someone does not believe in any god, they are, by definition, and atheist. To claim that they are an agnostic is arrogant and insulting.

 

[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?

The material/natural world we perceive provides LOTS of evidence for evolution through self-organization and emergence processes.
Your “spirit” perception is not based on any credible evidence or rational thought, in my opinion.

Sure it is. The laws of nature existed before space and time were created from nothing.

 

[ding]

For those who answered my question about the benefits in belief in God, thanks. However, I'm waiting for the OP to answer as I'm interested in that answer.

Whatever makes YOU happy, but don’t pretend your beliefs are based on reality.
The benefits of natural realism outweigh those of supernatural inventions, in my opinion.

I'm glad you have your opinions and beliefs. I asked a question. I didn't accuse or belittle someones belief because it is different than mine.

In the end it comes down to this, when I die and you turn out to be right I've lost nothing. However, when you die and I turn out to be right, you've lost everything.

Pascal’s wager (your thought preference) is not rational, and it’s ethnocentric.

Why would a benevolent God punish you for being honest about your ignorance?
I’m an ethical person and strongly believe in the “golden rule” principle. It makes no sense that a just god would punish me for exercising my “god given” empathy.

Even if you believe in a Christian God, would you not be punished for being an “infidel” if the Islamic God existed?
Religion is a cultural artifact.

Pascal’s wager Is misunderstood. The benefits of faith are so overwhelming that not having faith is irrational. And by benefits I mean to say benefits in living life.

 

[ding]

To see proves god is real.

What about blind people, did god fuck them up on purpose?

You mean like homosexuals?

 

[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.

Honesty about one’s ignorance is not a curse; it’s rational. Scientists practice objectivity 99% of the time, and usually conclude their research with probabilities based on their data and “more research needed”.

Science is the study of nature to discover the order within nature so as to make predictions of nature. Since it is performed by humans, bias is still a risk. So I question that 99% of the time they are truly objective. With that said, I do believe they try to be objective.

By definition science is never truly conclusive because if new information comes along everything is fair game to change.

My point about agnostics is that they aren’t really agnostic because if they were they wouldn’t hold any opinions on the existence or non-existence of a creator. By definition they not only do not know they believe it is not possible to know.

Most self professed agnostics are atheists.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

In the end it comes down to this, when I die and you turn out to be right I've lost nothing.

No, you didnt cover all the possibilities.

Perhaps you die, and it turns out you picked the wrong religion, then you suffer for eternity.

Or, you die, and the real god only appreciates people who didn't believe in God, as the real god knows there is no evidence of a god. Then, you suffer for eternity.

Pascals wager is a steaming pile of hot garbage. And it's inherently a dishonest proposal.

 

[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.

That is what I said. Claiming that they are agnostic is somewhat arrogant, wouldn't you say?

You are confusing arrogance with honesty about ignorance.
To be dishonest and pretend you know something beyond your experiences or rational perceptions of knowledge is arrogant.

No, I am claiming that it is arrogant to claim to know what someone believes more than they do. If someone does not believe in any god, they are, by definition, and atheist. To claim that they are an agnostic is arrogant and insulting.

I am not claiming to know what others believe!-
I am simply saying that if you/others are not honest about your ignorance and claim knowledge of a god, then YOU claimants are arrogant ... OR put up your evidence.

An ignostic (don’t know) is also a weak atheist (no belief). If you admit ignorance, then you have no belief ... if you are honest and logical.

 

[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.

Wouldn’t the material world be that evidence?

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

The material/natural world we perceive provides LOTS of evidence for evolution through self-organization and emergence processes.
Your “spirit” perception is not based on any credible evidence or rational thought, in my opinion.

Sure it is. The laws of nature existed before space and time were created from nothing.

Huh?? How do YOU know that?
Space and time created from “nothing”?
Even if you were a philosopher of physics, you cannot justify that claim.