NewStats: 3,259,594 , 8,170,576 topics. Date: Sunday, 25 May 2025 at 04:45 PM 4r2c2k

Finally, a Nigerian club to .

DeepSight:

Pr0ton, thank you for taking the time to give a detailed and reasoned response. Many are so flippant in discussions concerning these serious existential matters these days, that it is always refreshing when one comes across a person who accords such discourses the seriousness they deserve.



Fair enough, and most appreciated.



My dear friend, I doubt that we little human beings are in any position to draw this line with respect to what we can or should be agnostic on. The mere twin facts of our own existence and the size of the universe are enough to strike us with silent wonder with respect to what else or who else may be out there. Most cosmological scientists these days believe that given the size of the universe and the abundant presence of carbon therein, it is extremely unlikely that we are the only life - intelligent or otherwise - in the universe. And if we can hold out that possibility, it is not unreasonable to fall into even greater and more silent wonder when faced with the question as to what may exist beyond our universe. There is no reason for you to peremptorily foreclose or delimit the conversation in that regard, and you are too limited - too vastly limited to decree that no one may reasonably envisage the subject of the existence of God or gods.

I can only grant that you may reasonably reject the existence of the sort of God or gods described by religions - some of which can be shown to be ontologically inconsistent and therefore either impossible or improbable. But as I pointed out to you earlier, many people have different perceptions of "God" or "gods" - and you would be wise therefore not to generalize in this matter. There are so many different persuasions on the matter that in fact you simply cannot reasonably generalize. Where do you want to place the Deist? The Pantheist? The Panentheist? The Autotheist? The Dystheist? The Maltheist?

To put this in context I am forced to repeat myself with respect to the size of the universe: Imagine a grain of sand. Just a single grain of sand at the beach. Imagine that within that grain of sand a solar system exists and in that solar system a planet exists and on that planet, 7 billion people dwell. Now none of these 7 billion people have ever stepped out of this grain of sand and not only do they make presumptions as to what may exist at the other end of the beach, they are so bold as to "draw the line" with respect to the existence of beings on other continents far away from that beach, and even other worlds outside the planet on which that beach is situated, the beach where that grain of sand is.

This only represents a faint clue as to what you are doing by presumptuously "drawing line(s)" against the existence of this or that beyond our universe. When you consider it carefully it must become out-rightly ridiculous even in your own sight that you do so.



Sincerely, I personally have no idea as to the consciousness of God or gods - I only know that it is a matter well above our pay grade. My private philosophy regarding the existence of God has become a little complex: and perhaps this is not the place to delve into it properly as it is bound to raise too many complex, mysterious and puzzling questions.

Nevertheless I cannot imagine that you are in a position to insist that all definitions of God require the factor of consciousness (and in this I trust you refer to the sense of a self-conscious personality). I can conceive of, and I certainly know of many theistic persuasions that do not quite see "God" this way - some perceiving "IT" more as a neutral all-pervading force. Nor does this mean they are dis-entitled to the application of the word "God" - as the principal common factor for the definition of "God" is its role as the origin, and to a lesser extent, sustainer, of all things.



What is wrong with the possibility of spirituality? What does spirituality mean to you?
For me, the spiritual is inevitably real.



You have a point here, and to be honest, I had feared you would bring it up. I had held back my more thorough view on this subject, on of my fear that it would muddy the waters before we even understand one another. However, as you have been astute enough to point this out, I will take the plunge.

In truth, when I use the words "time and space" here, I have only used them in the way materialists and scientists like to use them. I have used them simply in a casual and convenient way. However if you go through my posts on this forum spanning a decade, you will see that I do not believe in this type of materialistic time and space. However, for the sake of clarity, and on of the limitations of language, let us call this type of materialistic/ scientific time and space "finite time" and "finite space". And let us say that our words above refer to this finite time and finite space.

Because in truth, I believe in infinite time and infinite space - both of which are self-existent and cannot be created, cannot "start" - cannot "begin" - cannot "end" - cannot "expand" and so forth. This self-existent infinite time and space, in my worldview, are components of what I call God. Indeed, this is a good juncture at which to tell you that I have once described "God" as I see IT, on this forum, as "the sum of all self-existent laws."

Therefore again, please be wary of generalizing and drawing lines on what people may perceive of as "God."

Moving back to your point - it is in that infinite time and space, which transcends our finite realm, that I assert there remains the open possibility of causes which transcend our realm.



Putting religious fantasies aside, the pure concept of God as an eternal source-point of existence also has both philosophical and logical credence.



So long as the vacuum is not a perfect vacuum, it is presumptuous to say that virtual particles have no cause. Indeed the only reason they refer to a quantum vacuum is in a bid to demonstrate that something can emerge from nothing - which fails straightaway, because the alleged quantum vacuum, as we have agreed, is not "nothing" or empty either. It is absurd to observe anything whatsoever emerging from something else and conclude that it is causeless. The very fact that it emerges from something else is enough to strike that thought away - even if the particulars - the specific scientific details - as to how it emerges remain unknown!

Now when you add to this the fact that virtual particles are not in fact a "thing" per se - but only a transient quantum fluctuation - then this line of reasoning must be put firmly away from discussions about causality. Because once we acknowledge that such alleged quantum vacuums are not "empty" then it becomes both mischievous and duplicitous to use fluctuations therein as proof that causality is not required in order to instigate movement. Those alleged vacuums contain low gaseous pressure, and thus a (very rough) example would be to say that this is like alleging that ripples in the wind are causeless, if one does not know how such ripples come about.

This is cast iron logic, and this will not change no matter how many scientists swoon over the false idea that virtual particles disprove causality.



Good. Hence my recommendation of agnosticism as wise and honest.

You have made valid points and I agree with almost everything you have pointed out. If this is what agnosticism is defined as then it is rational. My original objection was with holding uncertainty about whether the gods of known religions exist, as that has been what most agnostics I have met seem to argue for. I understand your God word simply means originator of all things and which can be interchanged with any other related term. This is also my position, that is, the truth about the origin of the universe is not known yet and may not be knowable. Including whether or not there exists a force that created everything.

I think the term that describes our position is what is called agnostic atheism.

If it means anything to you, Merry Christmas.

Crystyano:



Fields ....... alright.

Anyway...,

Being means existing..... not existence.
Anything with limits needs space to be possible...


Existence has no limit...

As for change,

It still has to do with limits...


No limit....no change...

Crystyano:


If a quantum vacuum can't be empty,then saying no real particle can be found in it is a contradiction....


If the particles are not real,then the vacuum is empty.....

Fields are not particles. Fields can exist without particles. A quantum vacuum can be filed with field (at zero point energy) without real particles.

There's nothing like every existence...

Space and time have to do with how long something with a beginning and end can exist ....

Existence itself has no beginning/end so it's not affected by time and space...




DeepSight...

Existence means being. You need space for being to be possible. Without space being is not possible. Time comes in where there is a change.

Crystyano:



Have you seen my email



I need you to help me to stop those bastards!!

Honestly, I really don't know what you're talking about. I don't even know the story. But I'll check my email again.

First, let me point out that contrary to what your posts suggest, I do not hold or know the absolute truth of the workings of the universe. Even in science, and to a great extent, nothing can be regarded as absolute truth concerning our reality. With that, I agree with some part of your response like the problem of consciousness and science not answering the questions of why. On that front, and strictly by the definition of the word agnosticism, I am agnostic. Everyone is agnostic about something as no one is an island or fountain of knowledge.

Where I draw the line as regards agnosticism is where the topics of God/gods are being introduced. And I want to have your clear and explicit intention when you use the word God. The way I see God, and the way it is defined as, is as a conscious supreme being. If you do not mean God in that sense then I do not have a problem with you. The only little problem would be why you would choose the word God and not some other term like force or energy. This is like stubbornly (I mean no offense) subtly forcing the idea of a spiritual possibility. This is why I say agnostics using God are obsessed with their former theistic concept of God and can't just move on from it.

There are still some parts in your response I do not agree with and I have pointed them out below:

DeepSight:

The essentials of the idea of God are not entirely "wishful thinking." Some of the basic precepts can be grounded in philosophy and logic. A simple example is the quality of transcendence. This is the idea that whatever caused the universe to begin cannot itself be the universe - thus - the universe being material, the cause must be immaterial, the universe being of time and space, the cause must be beyond time and space, and so on. In short, that the cause transcends the universe.

There is no such thing as existence outside time and space. Every existence must be within time and space. To cause denotes motion and you can't have motion without time. If the universe has a cause at all the cause must be within space and the action itself would reflect time. It is intuitively impossible to have an action without space and time. A cause outside space and time does not and can not exist.

The Multiverse theory you referred to is notoriously from thin air. It is a mere fanciful postulation without any conceivable proof. It not only lacks proof but is in fact unprovable - at least not until the day you find a way out of this universe. It is strange how atheists often hear this fanciful term and lend it greater credence than the idea of a God.

I should let you know that I do not regard this theory as truth or scientific (in the way science works) My original point was that I would consider the talks of it over the talks of God. The reason being the multiverse hypothesis uses some scientific language while the idea of God is just a thought. Its credence over God is also such that top scientists (like Neil Tyson, Brian Greene and Stephen Hawkins himself) consider it. The only flaw being that it is not falsifiable or available for testing but it does draw inspiration from science. And that I would give more credence over a mere thought.

The excuse of/ allusion to virtual particles in a quantum vacuum is dead on arrival as there is no perfect vacuum observed anywhere. The said quantum vacuums contain low gaseous pressure and as such the excuse dies before taking off.

My introduction of this concept isn't an argument about whether a quatum vacuum is empty or not (of course, it isn't) I brought it up to show an example of untriggered movements that you alleged don't happen. Virtual particles pop in and out of a quantum vacuum but they do not have a cause. I would like to know if you have gone beyond current science knowledge and let the world know what causes virtual "particles" to come in and out of existence in a quantum vacuum (where no real particle can exist)

The fact that strange things happen in the quantum world was enough to frighten and humble Einstein. Is it not enough to frighten and humble you? What do you really know, oh human being?

Who said anything about not getting frightened by quantum mechanics I said the fact that strange things happen in the quantum world shows us that we do not know the absolute truth about the universe. And questions as to its origin should be answered with a short simple "I do not know" instead of "a God could have done it".

From my point of view, you still need basic humility in matters like this. You presume too much. We are too little to make the sort of presumptions you are jumping to. This is why Agnosticism in these matters remains the wisest, most honest and most enlightened position a man can take.

Again, this is you perceiving me wrongly.

Apply agnosticism in virtually all existential matters.

Cogito ergo sum - is as much as a man can know for certain.
Everything else is up for grabs.
The world you see could even be a simulation.
Very likely is.

I do not disagree with this at all, just like I pointed out when I started this response. I am open minded to any scientific (doesn't really have to be scientific, but at least draws inspiration from science, like the simulation example you put up there) possibility about the origin of the universe. This is what I'm agnostic about. But about God/gods as conscious beings? I think we are thinking too far and are starting to imagine things. It is no different when I tell you two great spiders who are bothers worked together to create different universes of which ours is one. Would I be rational to argue you can't entirely dismiss this possibility, that you can't disprove it? It is safe to talk about God/gods as that - talks. Not in a serious sense as to argue that one can not disprove the possibility.

DeepSight:


There are deep philosophical arguments for the existence of a transcendental instigation of the universe which I believe, (no offense intended sincerely) - require calmer and deeper reflection than you appear willing to tolerate.

What I'm not willing to tolerate is why anyone would insist on a God (as what it is rightly defined as) as a possible explanation to the origin of the universe. Having a calmer and deeper reflection doesn't mean you have to consider everything proposed to be the origin of the universe especially when this particular one as a human history from wishful thinking. I'm willing to tolerate an explanation that has a solid basis (big bang, string theory, multiverses) not one you can just conjure up from thin air like God.

I found it odd and a little amusing that you asked why anyone would even contemplate a God in the first place.

Like I have said over and over, an idea of God comes from theism and this idea sprung from wishful thinking because...

Odd, because the question of origin is so natural to humans, so intrinsic to our being, that it pops into the minds of even very little children.

The question of origin doesn't have to have God attached to it. This way of origin thinking was stained by theism. Naturally, if you find something of nature somewhere all you have to ask is how did it get here. Having questions like "who created" draws inspiration from theism. This is why science wins over beliefs everytime when it comes to explaining why things are in this world. A question of "who created" is a lazy way of approaching a problem because it saves you ways you have to go through in getting knowledge of the processes that result to what you currently see as mystical.

To a child who hasn't been influenced by theism or who doesn't have the idea of theism at all, approaching questions of the origin of the universe as "how" rather than "who created" would make more sense to him because his unadulterated mind would see the former as the normal endeavour to solve a mystery and the later a lazy wishful thinking way to get around a mystery.

Small problem - current science tends to disclose a beginning. Un-triggerred movement is not known to us. People try to evade this by recourse to quantum physics - which hardly anyone understands yet - but not even quantum physics constitutes a sufficient answer to the problem posed here.

When scientists recourse to quantum physics to try and explain un-triggered movements, most of the time they are not necessarily saying that was how the world started but instead showing it is likely possible it started that way since things that wouldn't make sense in classic physics (our world as we see it) do make sense in quantum physics. Un-triggered movements seem to occur in quantum physics. If our universe was at a point where it was infinitesimal small (quantum) it is possible it acted the way these quantum particles act (un-triggered movements)

The fact that strange things happen in the quantum world shows how limited our brain is in the knowledge of our universe and how any answer to the questions of the origin of the universe can not be reliable including answers like God that tend to make sense to us in the classic world.

Mind you, the question of the existence of God neednt depend on the ideas of the theist. God neednt be conscious in the sense evoked by most theist thought.

Could you then stop using the word God? If your source of the universe doesn't imply consciousness then it can't be God. The definition of God implies consciousness.

Furthermore, you are in no position to assert that the Universe is vastly without consciousness. There are more stars in the universe than there are grains of sand on Earth, and we, standing within one grain of sand, have not yet been able to explore the next grain of sand. There is thus a great need for us to be humble. We know practically nothing as yet.

The vastness that we have observed has come without consciousness. The only consciousness we know is us. I'm not saying it isn't possible to find consciousness in other places. My point is even if consciousness exists somewhere else it would still be insignificant to the whole of the universe. And this vastness we have observed only make up about 25% of the universe. The rest is dark matter. So it will always be that the universe is just too huge that consciousness has any significance.

There you go - This is pure and simple agnosticism.

If we are going strictly by definition of agnosticism (without knowledge), you could imply this to me as you could other areas of life/thinking that doesn't have to do with subjects about God/gods. When it comes to the existence of God/gods, I'm not agnostic. I'm an atheist.

DeepSight:
@ Pr0ton -

"Gnosis" - refers to knowledge. "Gnostic" refers to persons with knowledge - usually of a special, deep, esoteric or mystical kind.
"Agnostic" simply refers to a person who declares an absence of knowledge.

In short, the gnostic says that he knows, the agnostic simply says that he doesnt know.
And that, my friend, is the wisest, most honest, and most enlightened position to take, not just on the question of the existence of god or Gods, but on the question of all existence.

Atheists aren't claiming they know everything. No one knows how everything came to be. But as to questions about God/gods atheists claim to know they don't exist, at least in the sense of rationality, else we can all come up with something out of thin air and claim no one can say for sure it doesn't exist.

Personally, the idea of God as a conscious supreme being who created the universe (religion aside) doesn't make sense to me when you look farther from our world and see how different and infinitesimal our reality (a sense of conscious causality) is to the universe. If a universe that is vastly without consciousness exists and runs on its own, why do we demand consciousness be related to it? It shows our idea of God is more like a mere imagination sprung from a reality our brain is used to so that we tend to think in that direction.

If you ask me about the origin of everything, I will simply tell you I don't know. There is no need to involve a god. If you then ask me about the god of the theist, I will tell you it doesn't exist. If you ask me about a god but not belonging to theism, I'll tell you you're now imagining.

Crystyano:



I have tried to send an email to you...

Reply..

I have replied.

triplechoice:



Anyone who responds to a false claim as if it were true and still continue to respond to it, is not different from the person who made the false claim in the first instance

We don't continue to respond to it. We have established that the claim is not true. Anything else we do after that would be explaining the sense in what we have established to anyone who is yet to understand our stance.

Let's assume a "God" actually exist in a form or something we yet to see but only suspect it is there, how proper is it to entirely reject this "God" based on the false claims or description of it by theist that may not even know anything about it?

Do not try to win this one from theists. Theists are the originator of the idea of God. Without theists we wouldn't know what God is. Other ideas about God are branches of theism. But theism remains the root. They have presented this God in the form of religion. They are convinced they know everything about it as you have wrongly pointed out up there. They have provided ways to go through to interact with this God. They have recordings of what he has supposedly done and what we expect him to do. They have a list of its features/attributes/traits/ which they claim God itself revealed to them. We can go through and test everything they have provided and conclude if indeed it is true or if they are deluded.

In other words ,if that "God" actually exist how did you determine that the description of it by theist is the correct one ?

Because they brought up the idea in the first place and now we are dealing with that idea. See it this way, a newly born child would naturally be an atheist until the concept of theism is introduced to him.

What if God is not what we think it is or what the theist says it is, how would you know as an atheist?

Now you're branching away from theism but you're still from its stem/root - the concept of God as a supreme being that is the creator of all things. If you disagree with this, then define what your God is. If your definition does not include or imply "conscious" or "creator" then you can't correctly call it God (check the definition of God)

These are questions the agnostic is seeking answers for before dismissing or rejecting it anything.completely.

I think I have cleared things up to a fair extent for you to decide on what you're really questioning.

Are you questioning why everything is and where everything came from? (Good questioning. Even scientists are looking to find answers. And honestly, we may never know)

OR

Are you questioning if a God, as what a God is rightly defined as, actually exists? (Good questioning too. Since God is from religion and based on what we know about religion, such a "thing" does not exist. IF you're talking about a "God" that doesn't belong to religion {doesn't involve faith} then I'll have to ask you on what scientific basis do you think such a thing could exist...else it is just an assumption like every other assumption every other person can conjure up as regards to the origin of the universe. And I wouldn't know why I would want to take something like that seriously)

Wrong. Theist did not create anything from thin air they sense something at the very beginning but are not certain about it and without being sure of what it is have decided to create imaginary stories around it that doesn't exactly describe what they sensed. It might be something that science would one day find a correct explanation for. We can't rule out this possibility.

How do you know their description is not exactly what they sensed if you don't know what the right description is? Except you know what the right thing is you can't say something is wrong. Again, theists are convinced what they know is the right thing. And what they know doesn't agree and can never agree with science.

Agnostics are not even close to accepting the God claim (description) by theists but considering the possibilty that such a thing like a "God" might exist or be there already but whose exact description is not known by any. We might already be interacting with this "God " and don't even know it since its description doesn't fit those of the two abrahamic religions which forms the foundation of most atheists worldview.

I have mentioned something like this up there, about your second questioning. Like I said, and as you have evidently showed here, it's all just assumption.

A001:

Yes, which means I don't believe in any god, and those entities must have also come from a (unknown) Source like all things in existence. I don't do beliefs, but knowledge.

God, if it exists, is unknown or unknowable.

I don't see or refer to them as gods. I thought I made that clear in my posts.

Now we are clear that the unknown or unknowable God you as an agnostic talk about is not the same as the God the theist talk about. And you, just like an atheist, do not believe in the theist God/gods.

Yes, which means I don't believe in any god, and those entities must have also come from a (unknown) Source like all things in existence. I don't do beliefs, but knowledge.

Please why then do you think atheists are dogmatic when they disregard the theist God?

And I'm going to assume (correct me if I'm wrong) where you disagree with atheists is when you think they disregard the "unknown" or "unknowable" God, which you have defined earlier as the source of all things.

If all I have pointed out above are correct, then congratulations on realising you're an atheist. Just like you, atheists disregard the theist God/gods. Just like you, atheists agree the source of all things is unknown and most likely will be unknowable. I think this is where you guys get the confusion.

A001:

Yes, that's true.

Yes, it's true that not all gods have human references. But all the gods worshipped in religions have human-like traits, including Yahweh and Allah.

They're all defied humans judging from the their traits in the religious texts. Can you give me examples of a monotheistic religion?

If you want to say Christianity, don't forget the religion was established on the concept of trinity in Catholicism.

Also, Muslims like to paint Allah as a monotheistic god but by the time you study the history of the other religions predating Islam and see how different gods formed a trinity and are worshipped together as a God-head (one God), then it becomes clear the same practice is in Islam.

In many parts of Qur'an, We is used to refer to God. That is a God-head you're looking at or a group of gods existing or worshipped as a single God.

But most Muslims and Christians didn't take the time to study the history of older religions predating Christianity and Islam to see that almost all the concepts in the two Abrahamic religions were stolen from paganism.

I clearly said the entities religious people call gods are advanced beings. I don't use the word god personally to refer to them.

If these advanced beings are existing in other parts of the Universe, I don't see them as gods or God.

No, in any Abrahamic religion, the entity worshipped as God is called the creator of the universe. That's how the concept is in the religions, not my own making.

I never told you that if the Universe has a maker, it has to be a god or God. That's your own conclusion.

You don't know the god worshipped in any Abrahamic religion is taken as the creator of the universe or the source/maker of all things?

You obviously haven't taken the time to study the Bible and Qur'an then.

You clearly don't understand what I said below, especially the highlighted because this comment of yours isn't related to my statement:

"The word god or God is man-made, but that doesn't mean all those entities worshipped in religions never existed on this planet at some time in the past and that doesn't also mean the Universe doesn't have an Origin or Source, which you might call God or refer to in another way."

I never said anything about the Source or Origin being God or a conscious being. Take your time to read posts before reacting to them.

If you understand the post you quoted, you won't be asking me this.

On this subject of gods' existence or non-existence, I regard all the entities called gods in religions as the early beings or the first settlers on this planet who created early humans in their image, taught them languages, and civilized them.

That's my own stance.

And there are many pieces of evidence in various parts of the world and in religious texts and their histories in of this position.

I can infer from your post that your take on religious gods is that they are some early advanced humans who once lived on this planet. If you believe this to be true why then are you an agnostic and not a theist? Because that statement shows you acknowledge them to have existed at some point in time on this planet. I have quoted the statement below:

On this subject of gods' existence or non-existence, I regard all the entities called gods in religions as the early beings or the first settlers on this planet who created early humans in their image, taught them languages, and civilized them.

That's my own stance.

And there are many pieces of evidence in various parts of the world and in religious texts and their histories in of this position.

Or is your definition of God/god different from what a theist would call God/god?

Can you give me examples of a monotheistic religion?

I could have pointed out Christianity as a monotheistic religion but since there can be a never ending disagreement on that line I would be offering you a religion with a clearer view on monotheism - Judaism.

A001:

The atheistic position looks naive to me as many atheists just think religious people merely manufactured names of the gods and goddesses they worship as God.

But only naive people would think that way because all these gods and goddesses are early beings that had existed on this planet.

For instance, if you study the history of our native religions in this part of the world, then you'll realize the fact all these gods and goddesses were deified humans.

So, only someone that's ignorant or naive about how the world works will say that gods and goddesses like Orunmila, Amadioha, Ala, Osun, Sango, etc. are objects of fiction that didn't exist or won't know that it's these early beings or past beings that rule the today's world.

The same thing applies to every other religion. All these gods and goddesses are simply past beings or the ancestors of their people (worshippers).

The word god or God is man-made, but that doesn't mean all those entities worshipped in religions never existed on this planet at some time in the past and that doesn't also mean the Universe doesn't have an Origin or Source, which you might call God or refer to in another way.

The entities called gods and goddesses are just advanced beings, and since we're yet to explore 1% of the Universe and have never set foot on any other planet in our solar system or beyond it, it's possible there are races of advanced beings out there in the Universe, which could be monitoring us.

Otem claims all these gods and goddesses are advanced beings who had lived and created all sorts of life on this planet billions of years ago and are now in other parts of the Universe and regularly monitor this planet with some technologies (built to look like stars in the sky but are really surveillance gadgets) and UFOs.

Given the vastness of this universe, there's a high chance that entities will be living in various parts of the Universe that our telescopes may not be sophisticated enough to detect yet.

For these reasons, I maintain that there's a possibility advanced beings that religious people call gods and goddesses do exist in other parts of the Universe.

The areas of Physics studying the origin and evolution of the Universe, UAPs, extraterrestrial life are Astrophysics, Cosmology, and ET/planetary science. And with time, advances made in those areas will reveal the truth.

It's more reasonable to me to approach the subject with agnosticism and open-mindedness rather than pitching my tent with either of the two extremes.

1. That a human was called god doesn't validate that its attributes as a god existed. The human existed as a human and not as a god with super powers. Therefore god in the god sense didn't and doesn't exist.

2. Not all gods have human references. The monotheistic religions at least state explicitly that their god is not a man.

3. You're making assumptions that possible advanced extraterrestrial lives are gods. I would take this as wishful thinking. That some other form of life is more advanced than us doesn't make them gods no more that we are gods to insects. They are just that. Advanced beings.

4. You're moving from the concept of god defined by religion to a concept of god defined as the creator of the universe. I can agree with you that there might be a source of the universe but to label this source god before we even find it (if we could ever find it) is, again, wishful thinking. The so called source might not even be conscious. It could just a scientific phenomenon. We should be open minded as to what this source might be and not label it beforehand god, else you wouldn't be open minded.

5. You can't use the word god for two different things. I.E i) a religious god that religious people worship. ii) a non religious concept that can be regarded as the source of the universe. If you ask me if the god of (i) exists, I will tell you no, it doesn't exist. If you ask me the same of (ii) I'll have to ask you why you think the source of the universe is or has to be a conscious being and if this is your definition of being open minded as to the origin of the universe.

6. You have to clear the air first by stating (a) whether or not the religious god exists or (b) if god to you as a mere explanation for the source of the universe is what you call god and not god in the religious sense or (c) if both are supposed to be the same. If you can clear this then we will be having a clear bone of contention.

Kobojunkie:
I never said anything about eternal damnation meaning "ceasing forever" - that doesn't make sense. What the heck does "ceasing forever" even mean? You came up with that bullsheet all by yourself.

Go back through through posts to see.

Stop trying to shove your delusions at me. If you have something in Particular to state, go ahead and state it instead of trying to wiggle it in like some worm.

What does eternal damanation mean?

Kobojunkie:
What part of the post do you not understand?

I said you were confused about whether eternal damnation meant ceasing forever (as you claim) or getting tortured in fire forever (as some verses in the Bible claim) and you went on to explain what eternal as a word itself means

jesusjnr2020:
But you who is busy chasing shadows, faults and what doesn't concern you, said that because i itted that there were contradictions in the Bible, it proves I was a scam... but I used the instance of the sayings of the devil in the Bible to expose how ignorant and ridiculous your claim was.

Next time you come put your nose in matters too high for your scope.

Could you just clear the air by mentioning what you were referring to when you said you disregard words in the Bible that contradict the words of Jesus? This way you can show those words are the words of the devil and prove me wrong.

A001:

How does saying God might or might not exist mean holding onto God as being the only alternative?

Agnosticism is just a position between the two extremes — atheism and theism.

It's very arrogant of a human that's extremely ignorant about his own planet to assert God doesn't exist as a matter of fact, when he's yet to explore 1% of the Universe, 10% of the world's oceans, and is completely ignorant of most of the things existing or happening even in his immediate environs.

Holding such a position makes you the same as a religionist.

But an agnostic considers that God or gods might exist, is open-minded, and looks to science to solve the riddle with time.

Atheists are dogmatic IMO, just like religious people, though it's still much better to be an atheist than a religionist.

But agnostics are open-minded and prefer to approach these things with a curious, inquisitive approach like a baby.

For an agnostic, it's scientific discoveries and data that determine the truth, not the parochial wishes of an atheist or the ill-informed, superstitious notions of a religionist.

Like I said earlier here, atheists' assertions are responses to theists' assertions. Atheists are not dogmatic in rejecting theists' assertions. Atheists are doing what any scientist would do if an hypothesis can not be substantiated with evidence. The idea of God was introduced by religion. Since the idea can not be confirmed by evidence and even religion itself has been found to be unreliable the claim of God's existence can be rejected. It is that simple.

Ask an atheist if the God the theists sell exists. He will tell you such God doesn't exist as he has examined the idea and doesn't find the logic and evidence for it. If anyone answers "I don't know" to that, he either hasn't examined the idea or he is confused. This has nothing to do with the limited extent the human knowledge of the universe is. You're examining an already established claim from theists. You can directly study this claim. It's like any other ideology. You can tell if it has a connection to reality or if it is just a wishful thinking. I don't need to have a 100% knowledge of the universe to know that getting bitten by a spider won't turn me into a man that can fly around using spiderweb as portrayed in the Marvel Spider-man movie or that chanting some words on a ring that I would later put on my finger won't make another person epileptic by hitting them with it as told by some people who believe in it.

Like your position about God's existence, it's like saying "I'm not sure" when someone asks you if the two aforementioned cases can actually happen for real.

Kobojunkie:
Do you even understand what the word eternal in those mean at all?

If I punished a child for 20 minutes...- 20 minutes punishment. be sure that that punishment is not eternal as it is only slated to last 20 minutes. What that means is the child in question consciously endures that punishment for 20 minutes.

Now imagine, if you can, what an eternal punishment/damnation would imply and tell me how you can confuse it with that which is not of eternity?

I can't seem to get your point here

1Sharon:


A bit naive. If you can't prove something, it's not true? Really? I'm sure there are things that have happened to you that can't prove. We just have to take your word for it
But extraordinary claims require proof.

This is what I'm saying. You are disproving something was never proven to begin with.

How on earth are theists meant to prove something that is invisible ? And how are atheists going to disprove something that was never proved in the first place?
Nobody can ever know.

And people don't come back from the dead. Once dead, that's it. The dead person will never ever know there is a god or not.

You can disprove the theist God based on what their religion say about the God.

You can disprove God with logic. An instance. A theist says there is God who is all loving/good and all knowing and all powerful. You can disprove that using logic because an entity can not be all good and all knowing at the same time else our reality won't be what it is. What do I mean? Accidents occur. Would an all knowing God know beforehand that an accident is about to occur? Yes. Would an all loving/good God who is also all powerful let the accident occur? No. Why then do accidents exist? Because such God does not exist.

You can disprove God with science. Most theists claim God created the earth in a day. Evidence from science however shows years of sedimentary layering signatures in the earth structure which couldn't have come by in a day. There are other many scientific instances you can disprove theists' claims about their God.

You can disprove God with history. There is a said exodus of the people of Israel from Egypt with God's intervention. A deep study in history shows, with archaeological evidence, there wasn't any exodus from Egypt.

There is the claim that their God commanded a worldwide flooding from the story of Noah. This is both scientifically and historically impossible. If such didn't happen then their God is just a myth.

And so on...

A001:

I don't understand you. Which assumptions do agnostics live by?

Do you see assumption as possibility or vice versa because that's the impression you gave with this comment?

Where are the assumptions in my post you quoted?

The agnostic doesn't say a god exists or doesn't exist. He/she simply asserts there's no evidence for God's existence or non-existence due to the limitations of our understanding of the Universe using science as a tool and owing to the limitations of our senses.

The agnostic is open-minded and seeks evidence for or against either of the two positions, not just one possibility because if he s either of the two sides, then that's not agnosticism.

Based on our current level of scientific knowledge of the Universe, we may never be able to know as a matter of fact that God exists or doesn't exist at least while on Earth.

You making a possibility an assumption is what differentiates you from an atheist, because you, like an atheist, hold this true of humans not being able to prove some things yet or the talk of staying open minded. We both accept the possibility of a spiritual explanation. But you don't just accept and stop there. You literally let go of other possible explanations and hold on to God being the only chance/alternative. That is clearly seen in the definition of who an agnostic is. That is what I meant by making a possibility an assumption because if it were just a possibility you would be an atheist and not an agnostic. This is why I say you're confused.

Kobojunkie:
Confused about what exactly?

Whether eternal damnation has to do with eternal punishment with fire or ceasing to exist.

jesusjnr2020:
Lol!

You think we're the ones ridiculing ourselves, while it's actually your obsession to find fault where there was none, that's being ridicled here.

I'm sure you're ignorant that the words of the devil whom you obviously serve was also in the Bible, right?

So I shouldn't disregard it right because it's in the Bible, right?

Well keep chasing shadows instead of the Light of the Truth if you like, so that you'd continue to live in gross ignorance and darkness.

Your choice!

In case you have forgotten how this started let me remind you. You were trying to prove babies don't go to hell. A fellow here tried to show you that since everyone is born sinners babies might just go to hell bringing evidence from the Bible (the words of Paul). After some back and forth on disagreeing on what connection children have with the kingdom of God you finally said you disregard anything (Paul's words) that contradicts the words of Jesus in the Bible to vindicate yourself of the original disagreement (babies going to hell)

That was what I was referring to when I talked about you cherry picking verses in the Bible to suit your belief.

Kobojunkie:
Again, I am not here interested in a defining of eternal damnation as I said to you earlier. What Jesus Christ said is True and I believe Him.

Lmao. Confused believers.

1Sharon:


LOL. You do know that atheists and theists are opposites on a spectrum? Because they both make arrogant claims. Agnostics are humble.

Atheists are CERTAIN God doesn't exist, theists are CERTAIN he exists. Agnostics got it right.

God's existence can never be proven because who comes back from the dead?

How do you disprove something that can never be proven to begin with? God is said to be invisible, how do you want to prove or disprove that?

Why even think of God at all? What brought up the idea in the first place? Anyone claiming it should be the one to prove it. If you can't prove it then it doesn't hold true.

Atheists are certain that God doesn't exist based on finding that what theists started (a certain claim that God exists) is not true. Atheists are just responding to a claim. We are not creating a claim from thin air.

Agnostics on the other hand are considering this claim theists created from thin air and saying no one can disprove it. If it is like that, I can create anything from thin air and claim you can't disprove it and so it might exist. But that isn't the way reality is. Agnostics, like theists, are just obsessed with the concept of God.

A001:

That's the atheistic position which I don't subscribe to.

We know very little about the Universe to say it as a matter of fact that God exists or doesn't exist.

Given the facts that the Earth is just one of the trillions (or even unlimited number) of planets (worlds) in existence, that the Earth is about 4.6 billion years old when the Age of Scientific Enlightenment is less than 600 years (a millennium), and that most of the things existing in our environs are filtered by our senses (i.e. we don't see and may not be able to see what actually exists in reality), it's possible God exists.

Our sciences, for all its glory and breakthroughs, are still elementary in many ways and nascent in many key areas of life.

Thus, it's not reasonable to conclude a god or God doesn't exist. When one understands the limits of our senses and organs — especially the brain, eye, and ear — one understands life is much deeper and complex than science paints it.

Reality is different from existence as something can be existing but isn't real to us as limited beings.

For these reasons, the agnostic position is the most reasonable IMO as it makes one open-minded about things.

Let me it get it clear that atheists are open-minded too. What differentiates atheists from agnostics is that the former do not live on assumptions (at least in a sense) Yes, it is possible to eventually find that there is a "creator" to all the magnificence of the universe and everything that exists. The creator can be anything and can even be a "thing" that can be studied scientifically. It is also possible it can be of spiritual essence too. It can be anything we can think of or nothing in the realms of our comprehension and imagination.

My problem with agnosticism is why you choose to be insistent on one possibility out of the many - God. To me you're not being wholly scientific or even open minded. You're drifting towards the religious position like part of you want it to be true because it's something you can't completely move on from. And since you're bringing the spiritual possibility into this quest I would treat you like I would a spiritual person. And it is simply as follows:

A spiritual explanation comes from religion. Religion can't substantiate the claim. Religion through studies from history and science has been found to be delusional rather than factual. Therefore a spiritual explanation can't be true.

There is no evidence for God. But there is evidence that those who claim there is God through religion are wrong. This to me, as an atheist, is enough to say there is no God. Or at least till there can be evidence to prove there is one.

1Sharon:


You're an atheist right or are you trolling?

Long time sha

Yes, I am. I go with things that conform with logic, rationality and evidence. I have looked into agnosticism and I find it lacking.

Long time

1Sharon:


Proton saying this?

Affirmative.

Kobojunkie:
Has been defined? Are you serious at all? I suggest you go back and read Matthew 25 vs 31 - 46 so you maybe see that no definition of what eternal damnation is is necessary .

The point is the damnation will be eternal(forever) and so it is what it is.

Verse 41 of the age you referred me to says:

Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire

Again, eternal damnation is defined here as eternal fire. If it is not fire please explain why Jesus mentions punishment by fire?

A001:

That's why there are agnostics like me. When scientists present concrete evidence for God's existence, agnosticism will die a natural death.

Given the fact that we know very little about the Universe, one can't conclude that God exists or doesn't exist. Hence, I find the agnostic position convenient.

Someone tells you there is God and can't provide the evidence to back it up and you also can't find any evidence that there is and even logic and science and research show that such proposed God do not exist, then the more rational conclusion should be such God does not exist.

To wait and find evidence yourself for something someone else claim to you is madness and confusion.

A001:

Okay. Do you have any scientific evidence for God's existence?

A yes or no would do.

No.

Kobojunkie:
Hell is a place of eternal damnation just as Jesus Christ Himself said in Matthew 25 vs 40 - 46.

I believe in Jesus Christ so I believe His Word is Truth.

The eternal damnation that you mentioned has been defined in some places in the Bible by Jesus Christ himself as an eternal punishment/torment with fire.

Mark 9:43
And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire.

Matthew 8:12
While the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

These verses define eternal damnation as burning forever in hell. I know you don't agree eternal damnation to be defined this way. So what would you say about the Bible verses that explain it this way?

A001:

You're obviously the confused one.

Can you quote an agnostic you know that told that contradictory nonsense (the highlighted) that only exists in your head?

Calm yourself. I didn't say any agnostic said that. It is my own view of how agnostics think.

By definition an agnostic person neither believes nor disbelieves the existence of God. They claim not to be an atheist (one who disbelieves in God) yet expresses doubt over God's existence. Please help me find the rationale in that. Because to a religious person, you're an unbeliever for even expressing doubt in God's existence. And to an unbeliever that you don't want to identify with, well, what would be more rational than thinking you're confused?