How an Agnostic Might Come to Believe the Universe Cannot Possibly have been Created by a God

[9-10ths_Penguin]

*Demonstrable signs.

A sign wouldn't be much of a sign if it wasn't demonstrable.

 

[Jumi]

A sign wouldn't be much of a sign if it wasn't demonstrable.

Depends if it's a sign just for you or something that a religion peddles as a sign. [notice i'm playing devil's advocate here]

 

[Jumi]

Miracles and intercessory prayer aren't specific to revealed religion. Neither is the idea that the existence of gods can be inferred from things we can observe.

Neither are they universal.

 

[PureX]

I took my cue from this in the OP. If God does not exist but we believe in God that belief can be of consequence.

And does it really even matter if God exists or not if the consequences of our believing that God exists gains us real-world advantages?

 

[PureX]

Neither are they universal.

So what? Relative truth is not "universally true", and relative truth is the only truth that we humans can ascertain. So it's all the truth there is, for us.

 

[shmogie]

Please Note: I offer the following as a for fun thought exercise, and not as a description of my own views on the matter. Enjoy!​

Let us posit that X exists but cannot by any means -- either empirical, rational, or other means -- be demonstrated to exist. That is, the existence of X cannot be deduced, inferred, observed, nor detected.

If such is the case, can it be said that X -- even if if it exists -- is of no possible consequence?

By "consequence", I mean "having an effect on something." That is, can it be asserted that, if X cannot be deduced, inferred, observed, nor detected, then X cannot have any consequences that can be deduced, inferred, observed, or detected -- and that, if that is so, then X can be said to be of no consequence?

Put differently, if something exists, but cannot in anyway be known to exist - even in theory -- then can it be said that it has, or can have, any consequences? Would having consequences entail that it could be -- at least in theory -- known to exist?


For example, if a god exists but cannot by any means be demonstrated to exist, then can that god be of any consequence? And if it cannot be of any consequence, can it be logically described as a creator?

Please note: If there exists a god that could not be demonstrated to exist, and if that were to entail that the god could not be of any consequence, then that would seem to argue that the god could not have created the universe. Moreover, the god could not have created the universe even if the god could never be demonstrated to not exist.

By that means, the agnostic position ("We cannot know whether or not a god exists") would seem to logically entail "A god cannot have created the universe", assuming, of course, that the god was defined in the manner in which X has been defined.

What fun!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Neither are they universal.

I agree: some people do believe in gods for no reason they can identify. Still, any time a theist can give a reason for their belief, they're implying that their god is the sort of god that an agnostic claims does not exist.

"The existence of gods is unknowable" only works for gods that have absolutely no measurable or observable impact on anything within the sphere of human knowledge.

 

[PureX]

Wow surprising that you are getting disagreement.

You have said if X has physical existence then X also has physical consequence.

Therefore if X does not have physical consequence then X does not have physical existence.

This is merely playing with a conditional and its contrapositive.

@joe1776 was correct in pointing out your jump from no detectable consequence to no consequence. These are distinguishable. An agnostic can claim that god is unknowable. This means that there is no detectable consequence not that there is no consequence.


If a god exists that god has physical consequence.

The fictional notion of gods exists and have physical consequences.

Can we point to any consequence that comes from the former god rather than the latter fictional notions of gods?

We, after the introduction of a god concept, are still left with the same choices of belief:
1) A god exists.
2) God is unknowable, (at least currently) and therefore equally as probable as not probable.
3) No god exists.

You are assuming, here, that physicality is an essential component of existence. Which would mean that our conscious awareness does not exist because it has no physicality of it's own. Which is obviously an irrational conclusion when what we claim to be consciously aware of is existence, itself.

The real problem here is that we keep addressing the issue of the "existence of God" while hiding our bias in inarticulate vagaries. If we asked the question, "does God physically exist?" we would be having a very different discussion and far less disagreement. Instead, we leave the question unarticulated, and therefor vague, by asking, "does God exist" and allowing our own biased definitions of what it means to "exist" to answer the question for us and then let our egos defend that bias to absurdity.

Whereas, if we were to articulate the question properly, we would have to face the definition of what it means to "exist", up front, which is no easy or simple task. And which will force us to face our cognitive conceptual limitations (and biases) along side whatever answer we choose. Something our egos tend want us to avoid at all cost.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The real problem here is that we keep addressing the issue of the "existence of God" while hiding our bias in inarticulate vagaries. If we asked the question, "does God physically exist?" we would be having a very different discussion and far less disagreement. Instead, we leave the question unarticulated, and therefor vague, by asking, "does God exist" and allowing our own biased definitions of what it means to "exist", to answer the question for us and then let our egos defend that bias to absurdity.

If you really think that a concept of God is God and not just an image of God or a symbol denoting God, then I'd say the egotism is all with you: how great are you if you can contain the entirety of God within yourself?

 

[PureX]

If you really think that a concept of God is God and not just an image of God or a symbol denoting God, then I'd say the egotism is all with you: how great are you if you can contain the entirety of God within yourself?

How does my holding a concept of God automatically infer that I "contain the entirety of God within (my)self", except by the blind (and biased) assumption that God doesn't 'exist' anywhere or in any way but as an idea in my particular mind?

I think I get what you're saying, though, and I agree that if I proclaim that "my God is God" (as some theists do) then I am presuming unto myself the ability to contain the entirety of God within me (or at least the knowledge of such). Which is quite absurd, I think.

 

[shmogie]

Please Note: I offer the following as a for fun thought exercise, and not as a description of my own views on the matter. Enjoy!​

Let us posit that X exists but cannot by any means -- either empirical, rational, or other means -- be demonstrated to exist. That is, the existence of X cannot be deduced, inferred, observed, nor detected.

If such is the case, can it be said that X -- even if if it exists -- is of no possible consequence?

By "consequence", I mean "having an effect on something." That is, can it be asserted that, if X cannot be deduced, inferred, observed, nor detected, then X cannot have any consequences that can be deduced, inferred, observed, or detected -- and that, if that is so, then X can be said to be of no consequence?

Put differently, if something exists, but cannot in anyway be known to exist - even in theory -- then can it be said that it has, or can have, any consequences? Would having consequences entail that it could be -- at least in theory -- known to exist?


For example, if a god exists but cannot by any means be demonstrated to exist, then can that god be of any consequence? And if it cannot be of any consequence, can it be logically described as a creator?

Please note: If there exists a god that could not be demonstrated to exist, and if that were to entail that the god could not be of any consequence, then that would seem to argue that the god could not have created the universe. Moreover, the god could not have created the universe even if the god could never be demonstrated to not exist.

By that means, the agnostic position ("We cannot know whether or not a god exists") would seem to logically entail "A god cannot have created the universe", assuming, of course, that the god was defined in the manner in which X has been defined.

What fun!

A deductions can be made from non observable expediencies, these deductions can be rational.

The alleged precursor to the big bang, the singularity, has never or will ever be observed. There is no mathematical evidence for it, since the mathematics break down in retrograde before it is ever reached. It is a story, yet, it can rationally be deduced.

If only two possibilities exist, and one is proven false, then the other, though there is no proof for it must be true, logic 101

Agnostics are lazy, I can say that, since was one once myself.They give themselves permission to know nothing, and excuse themselves from doing the work to know something.

You say that Creation by God cannot be known. That isn't true. What is true is that it cannot be deduced in a rational manner according to how you define the terms and rules.

The scientific method does not exclude God, it only excludes God within the framework of the scientific method. That method makes no pretense of being the arbiter of truth in all things, only in those things that fit within it's stated framework.

 

[Jumi]

I agree: some people do believe in gods for no reason they can identify.

Of course I can, to be an example, identify the reason why I have a God. I don't say it's demonstrable in laboratory setting or try to sell it to some atheist or agnostic. I don't think you would get anything out of it even if I did. Neither would I gain anything if you came to the same result as I did. On the contrary.

Still, any time a theist can give a reason for their belief, they're implying that their god is the sort of god that an agnostic claims does not exist.

I don't think agnostics generally say gods don't exist. That would make them gnostic.

"The existence of gods is unknowable" only works for gods that have absolutely no measurable or observable impact on anything within the sphere of human knowledge.

Have you thought it through? How well can you measure events that are basically coinflips going either way, if there's a lot of them you end up with a result and the other you end up with another result. It would still be natural, yet you couldn't demonstrate it if it was an event that was fudged.

 

[Jumi]

So what? Relative truth is not "universally true", and relative truth is the only truth that we humans can ascertain. So it's all the truth there is, for us.

Even though I'm theist I don't believe in anything he listed as theists arguing for in post #36, so perhaps I'm biased.

 

[PureX]

I generally agree... though agnosticism also leaves the option that this god created the universe in a way that we could never know he did it.

But yes: in a lot of ways, agnosticism is much more extreme than atheism. By saying that God (or gods) is unknowable, the agnostic is effectively claiming that every single god that would leave a measurable or observable trace necessarily does not exist.

They're really arguing that, if a god or gods exist, these gods:

- left no "fingerprints" on creation that points to them
- revealed no scriptures
- weilded no miracles (or at least none seen by us)
- sent no messengers or prophets
- have never and will never answer prayers in a verifiable way

Basically, if someone claims that the existence of gods is unknowable, they're implying that if a god would be knowable if it existed, that god necessarily does not - and cannot - exist.

If an agnostic claims that we cannot know of the existence of God, this does not infer that there can be no evidence (such as you listed above). It simply states that the evidence cannot be verified by we humans. Therefor, to accept it as evidence, or not to, is a matter of choice based on personal desire, and faith. And they are declining to make that choice at this time, ... and perhaps indefinitely, given the ongoing lack of information.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Of course I can, to be an example, identify the reason why I have a God. I don't say it's demonstrable in laboratory setting or try to sell it to some atheist or agnostic. I don't think you would get anything out of it even if I did. Neither would I gain anything if you came to the same result as I did. On the contrary.

There's much more to "demonstrable" than what can be tested in a lab. You're adding that bit on.

I don't think agnostics generally say gods don't exist. That would make them gnostic.

First off, I have to say that I don't really go by this new fad of calling any claim of knowledge "gnostic." Gnosticism is a specific religious movement; we don't call anything and everything that arrives somewhere on a Saturday "Seventh-Day Adventist," do we?

And that's right: they don't usually claim this. The implication is that agnosticism is often hypocritical... or at least not the middle ground between theism and atheism that it's often portrayed as.

Have you thought it through? How well can you measure events that are basically coinflips going either way, if there's a lot of them you end up with a result and the other you end up with another result. It would still be natural, yet you couldn't demonstrate it if it was an event that was fudged.

Right: a natural explanation would fit the facts. While we might not be able to exclude a god, there wouldn't be any reason to invoke one as an explanation. It would appear to us as a sequence of random events; any "fudging" would be undetectable.

 

[Jumi]

First off, I have to say that I don't really go by this new fad of calling any claim of knowledge "gnostic." Gnosticism is a specific religious movement; we don't call anything and everything that arrives somewhere on a Saturday "Seventh-Day Adventist," do we?

Your distaste for the way the word is used today is noted. I'd use Gnostic theist outside of the Gnostic movements of today and the past. I think I even used the Gnostic Atheist label for a short while.

And that's right: they don't usually claim this. The implication is that agnosticism is often hypocritical... or at least not the middle ground between theism and atheism that it's often portrayed as.

It's a different position, not one that I'd expect people who are not agnostics to be the best proponents of including both of us in that.

Right: a natural explanation would fit the facts. While we might not be able to exclude a god, there wouldn't be any reason to invoke one as an explanation. It would appear to us as a sequence of random events; any "fudging" would be undetectable.

Right, you get my point. That's one argument for an undetectable "magician" type god. You wouldn't need to use it as an explanation and neither would you be able to demonstrate it, but it could still have an effect.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If an agnostic claims that we cannot know of the existence of God, this does not infer that there can be no evidence (such as you listed above). It simply states that the evidence cannot be verified by we humans.

I think you're just rephrasing what I'm trying to say.

Therefor, to accept it as evidence, or not to, is a matter of choice based on personal desire, and faith.

No; the choice to accept something as evidence when it isn't is irrational. Agnosticism condemns theism as unreasonable.

And they are declining to make that choice at this time, ... and perhaps indefinitely, given the ongoing lack of information.

...while also implying that people who have "made the choice" had no justification for their choice and that any god-concept that would have properly allowed a choice is necessarily wrong.

 

[Sunstone]

A deductions can be made from non observable expediencies, these deductions can be rational.

The alleged precursor to the big bang, the singularity, has never or will ever be observed. There is no mathematical evidence for it, since the mathematics break down in retrograde before it is ever reached. It is a story, yet, it can rationally be deduced.

If only two possibilities exist, and one is proven false, then the other, though there is no proof for it must be true, logic 101

Agnostics are lazy, I can say that, since was one once myself.They give themselves permission to know nothing, and excuse themselves from doing the work to know something.

You say that Creation by God cannot be known. That isn't true. What is true is that it cannot be deduced in a rational manner according to how you define the terms and rules.

The scientific method does not exclude God, it only excludes God within the framework of the scientific method. That method makes no pretense of being the arbiter of truth in all things, only in those things that fit within it's stated framework.

You've got the OP all wrong. Please go back and read it carefully this time.

 

[PureX]

No; the choice to accept something as evidence when it isn't is irrational. Agnosticism condemns theism as unreasonable.

First, you don't get to determine for anyone and everyone else what they can or cannot accept as reasonable evidence. Secondly, some agnostics may condemn accepting evidence based on faith and desire as being irrational, but I would assert that to condemn others for acting on their their faith and/or desire in the face of their unknowing is even more irrational. And arrogant, too. In fact, I would assert that to act on faith and desire when knowledge is unavailable (as the agnostic agrees it is) is logical, reasonable, and effective.

...while also implying that people who have "made the choice" had no justification for their choice and that any god-concept that would have properly allowed a choice is necessarily wrong.

Their justification was desire and the positive effect of faith. Both quite real and reasonable motives for having made their choice. But the agnostic can't see this, which is WHY he is still stuck in the 'Limbo' of his agnosticism.

What you are describing, however, isn't really agnosticism at all. It's agnostic atheism.

 

[Curious George]

You are assuming, here, that physicality is an essential component of existence. Which would mean that our conscious awareness does not exist because it has no physicality of it's own. Which is obviously an irrational conclusion when what we claim to be consciously aware of is existence, itself.

The real problem here is that we keep addressing the issue of the "existence of God" while hiding our bias in inarticulate vagaries. If we asked the question, "does God physically exist?" we would be having a very different discussion and far less disagreement. Instead, we leave the question unarticulated, and therefor vague, by asking, "does God exist" and allowing our own biased definitions of what it means to "exist" to answer the question for us and then let our egos defend that bias to absurdity.

Whereas, if we were to articulate the question properly, we would have to face the definition of what it means to "exist", up front, which is no easy or simple task. And which will force us to face our cognitive conceptual limitations (and biases) along side whatever answer we choose. Something our egos tend want us to avoid at all cost.

Our consciousness does physically exist according to my statement--that is, it has physical consequence.