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

[PureX]

You're right. I misused the word "surmised" in the OP. I've edited the OP.

Thanks, that does make a difference. And I corrected my response accordingly.

 

[PuerAzaelis]

Put differently, we are talking about whether there is such a thing as a cause that cannot be known to be a cause.

Karl Popper dealt with the problem of first principles by saying that they could not be demonstrated, but they could be falsified.

That is, we do not have demonstrable knowledge of what they are, but we do have demonstrated knowledge of what they are not.

 

[PureX]

That might or might not be true, but it is surely off topic and irrelevant in this thread. The OP does not propose a god that can be "demonstrated to exist as a reasoned possibility/probability". You might as well be talking about turnips in a thread on cars.

There is no way for a human to propose the existence of a thing as an existential absolute. To do so would require omniscience, which we clearly do not possess.

We can propose the 'apparent' existence of a thing. We can propose our 'experienced' existence of a thing. We can propose the 'logical' existence of a thing. We can propose our 'desired' existence of a thing. We can propose the 'imagined' existence of a thing. But we cannot determine the absolute existence of anything except the idea of existence, itself. (I think therefor I am.) And even that we can't prove apart from our own conscious self-certainty.

So every existential proposal we humans can proffer must be understood as being proffered as some degree of probable, rather than as an absolute truth. HOW probable then depends on what we think we know, now, relative to what we don't know, yet, and how this might change what we think we do know if we were to come to know more. We humans do not live in the land of truth. We live in the land of relative probability.

 

[sun rise]

I'm not seeing the relevance to the OP. Could you elaborate, please?

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.

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."

 

[nPeace]

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!

Could you explain please... How did you arrive at the idea that God cannot be detected, and why do you assert that God cannot be inferred?

 

[Salvador]

Nobody knows how our universe began its expansion from being a near cosmic singularity. There's a chance our universe has always existed in some form or another, and indeed wasn't actually "created" into existence.

Right?

Reference: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.3093.pdf

Physics Letters B
Volume 741, 4 February 2015, Pages 276-279
open access
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269314009381


Cosmology from quantum potential
Author links open overlay panelAhmedFarag AliabSauryaDasc
Redirecting

 

[osgart]

I have conformed my thinking to an iphone keyboard and can not readily deduce or inductively reason that there is an evidence for God that can be inferred from observance of anything in existence.

I hope i am not damned by the limitation.

Is there a church to worship X in?

 

[Skwim]

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.

Such as the unknown, eight-legged fartnaughter who causes the weather to produce hurricanes in September?

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

It would be of consequence if I live in the path of his hurricanes. Thing is, our lack of knowledge of him has no bearing on what he does.

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?

As I've tried to show, yes it can have consequences.

Would having consequences entail that it could be -- at least in theory -- known to exist?

Not necessarily at all. Just think of how many natural phenomena disrupted the lives of primitive people who had no idea of what produced them.

For example, if a god exists but cannot by any means be demonstrated to exist, then can that god be of any consequence?

Sure. If the wholly unknown god Psoriasis exists and is inflicting itching, scaling, and pain. on our skin. There is indeed a consequence to his existence: our misery.

.

 

[sayak83]

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!

Yes. One can be an agnostic atheist.

 

[Willamena]

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 it is proposed, then that places it firmly in the category of "fiction." If it is not proposed, then it effectively doesn't exist.

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?

​

Of course it is of consequence. A lot of good fiction has had tremendous impact on our lives, our culture, and or our way life.

The only way that "X" would have no consequence at all is for X to not be proposed at all. If it has consequences, then, by definition, there is something that they are a consequence (con-sequence) of.

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?

1. If a posited god cannot be demonstrated to exist, then it effectively does not exist, and its proposition is appropriately described as "fiction." Fiction has consequences.
2. 'God as creator' can be understood as symbolic, and so have consequences. a) Things are. b) As things are, why are things?​

All it takes to "have an effect on something," i.e. someone, is to be aware of something proposed, whether real or fictional.

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.

I don't follow the logic.

If A cannot be demonstrated to actually exist, and so cannot entail E, then A cannot have property P. I'm not buying it. A, with all its properties not demonstrated, says nothing about it having property P.

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!

The agnostic position is about us (epistemology), not god.

 

[Willamena]

Put differently, we are talking about whether there is such a thing as a cause that cannot be known to be a cause.

At first blush, the answer would seem to be "yes", I think. But then the question arises, "If a cause has knowable consequences (If a cause has a knowable effect or effects) does that mean the cause itself must be in some way knowable?"

If we answer "yes", that would imply there is no such thing as a cause that cannot be known to be a cause.

Superficially and trivially, there can be causes that are unknown. If we call something a "known consequence" of a cause, though, then we have surmised a cause and brought it into a place where it can be dealt with. That's the beauty of fiction.

If we answer "no", that would raise all sorts of interesting questions about what it means to say an unknowable cause caused something knowable. For instance, is that logically equivalent to saying nothing created something? In other words, would we have any means of distinguishing between an unknowable cause (or unknowable god) causing the universe and nothing causing the universe?

The way to distinguish between them is that one is fiction and the other is impossible.

 

[blü 2]

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.

Then the statement "X exists" is untenable.

Even the Higgs boson didn't exist, despite the great temptation of the theoretical evidence to think so, until its reality was satisfactorily demonstrated. Then, the attribution of the Higgs boson to past physics became possible, but only then.

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?

Imaginary things have always been capable of generating psychological consequences. Obama's birthplace was an imagined thing (a convenient lie) intended to affect election results, for example. The belief that martyrs went straight to heaven notoriously caused hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Christians in the 2nd and 3rd centuries to volunteer for the arena. The members of Heaven's Gate chose to commit suicide for a place on the Mother Ship. On and on.

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?

If we rule out the psychological consequences (belief, misunderstanding, delusion &c) then no, by definition.

In fact, there is no difference in reality between a wholly undetectable real thing and an imaginary thing, since the real thing can never be shown to be real.

 

[Curious George]

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!

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.

 

[Sunstone]

Could you explain please... How did you arrive at the idea that God cannot be detected, and why do you assert that God cannot be inferred?

The OP presents a hypothetical and is not meant to be taken as representative of any known notions of god.

 

[Jumi]

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?

So are we only talking about creator gods?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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!

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.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So are we only talking about creator gods?

It seems to me we're talking about any god which, if it existed, would give a sign of its existence.

 

[Jumi]

It seems to me we're talking about any god which, if it existed, would give a sign of its existence.

*Demonstrable signs.

 

[Jumi]

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.

Yes these - you provided are all quite specific to revealed religions.

If someone prays to a tree and the tree doesn't answer in a verifiable way, it's a fault of ascribing false ideas to what trees do.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes these - you provided are all quite specific to revealed religions.

If someone prays to a tree and the tree doesn't answer in a verifiable way, it's a fault of ascribing false ideas to what trees do.

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.