Agnostic Front
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-01-2012, 12:04 AM
Agnostic Front
Sup, erbody.

So........ that happened.

I just wanted a chance to respond to a couple of things Chaz and Evil said in response to my response to Jackrabbit.

Please help to keep this a flame-resistant thread Cool

I Wrote:The Theistic master narrative says there is a God because he revealed himself.
The scientific master narrative says there is no God because there's no proof of one.
The Agnostic master narrative says it's impossible to know whether or not there is a God because it can't be proven one way or the other.

...

As for what I believe, there's a 17 page slobberknocker thread from months back. But the short form is this: Using Schrödinger's cat as my basis I believe that God both exists and does not exist simultaneously and that this condition will never change because humans will never observe God because we will never be able to prove the existence or non-existence of God because the supernatural is immeasurable using the laws of the natural universe because, by definition, it is above and beyond the natural. I believe it's impossible to answer the God question; however, I also believe that it's irrelevant. What we can observe and what we do know is that people do or do not believe in God and it is that belief that informs their thoughts and actions. If God does intervene in our lives, we'll never know so that's also irrelevant. I also believe in memetics and by extension, that all cultures are made up of memes; that they’re memeplexes. The only thing that matters is whether or not the cultural traits that are the result of phenotypic memetic expression are adaptive or maladaptive.

Hey, Chaz.

You were right about me. Tell your sister, you were riiiiiiiiiiiiiight....

The scientific master narrative says there is no evidence. There is a variation of that master narrative that extends the idea to there being no God, but you are right to say it isn't an idea held by all.

I have to admit that I don't know enough about quantum physics to pretend I know what the Copenhagen thing is about. Schrödinger's cat was presented to me in lay terms but what was made clear was that there is controversy; a diversity of interpretations. One interpretation is that the cat, in a literal sense, is simultaneously dead and alive, not as a metaphor, but in actuality. It is this interpretation that I subscribe to; the possibility that something can be two things simultaneously.

Quote:The argument that we can never prove the existence/non-existence of the supernatural because it is supernatural is true only by definition; that is, by defining the supernatural as something we can't detect. If we can't detect it, then it has no effect on the natural world. If it has no effect, then how can it be said to exist in any meaningful way?

For me, the operative word is meaning. Meaning, how we understand the universe we live in, hinges on the laws of the natural universe. Death has meaning because it will always happen. Life, 2+2, falling, sound waves, vacuum, orgasm, all of these things follow clear rules. Without those rules, they would have different meanings, if we could give them meaning at all. But the supernatural, by definition, is beyond (supra) to these rules. 2+2 could equal Nesquick if a supernatural being so chose.

Now, while you or I could SEE a supernatural act, we could never PROVE that it happened because to prove something we need empirical evidence. There is no such thing as supernatural empirical evidence. It's oxymoronic. So what is a witnessed supernatural act that cannot be proven? Revelation. It's a burning bush, a parting of the Red sea, a plague of frogs, a pillar of salt and a great flood.

As for the flying buttress, it was developed FOR the church. Science in service of the church. It's just interesting.

Hey, Evil Guy.

Quote: Funny how you mentoned Schrödinger's cat, I was thinking of that when i read your first msg on this thread. God can't exist because science can't prove he/she does, but still does exist because religon say he/she does because science can't dismiss that he/she doesn't exist, therefor god must exist but can't because there's no proof that he/she does . Its circular logic at its best, who says Quantum physics and Relgion can't be fun.

Schrödinger and quantum mechanics are cool m'kay.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2012, 12:36 AM
RE: Agnostic Front
well in this case, i think that the belief in god is just the same as a lack of belief.
Allow me to explain and correct me if im wrong in the following.

according to you, a god exists that cannot be measured in any epirical method.
And as i understand you are a deist, you believe in a deity but dont believe in following a particular religion.
If that deity cannot be detected by natural means, and has revealed no dogma or teachings and has not interacted with the natural world.
Therefore the belief in that deity is irrelevant to a person as that god does not interact with the natural world and has no effect.
Also an interesting conclusion i dont know if you agree with this or not,
but that particular diety isnt keeping tally of who believes and who doesnt or keeping tally of sins for afterlife punishment or reward since it hasn't asserted its presence nor its will.
Therefore the belief in a diety is irrelivent because its will is unknown and its presence is unknown and has no effect.
and your belief in a diety is unjustified because it cannot be detected in any natural way and cannot be falsified.
Just as a claim that we all live in a matrix type scenario, we cannot detect it nor falsify it and that is no reason to believe in it
because its belief has no measurable effect on our lives.

Am i getting somewhere with this?

"Yeah, good idea. Make them buy your invisible apple. Insist that they do. Market it properly and don't stop until they pay for it." -Malleus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2012, 01:16 AM
RE: Agnostic Front
Hey, Jackrabbit.

Nope. I'm not a Deist.

I never said that God exists. I said that God simultaneously exists and does not exist. There’s a big difference.

Think of it this way. Between the moment that a woman discovers that she's pregnant and the moment they do an ultrasound or the child is born, it is simultaneously a boy and a girl. By saying that, one is in no way siding with a particular gender, just as I am not siding with God or no-God. In both cases, one is simply saying, "well it has to be one or the other, I just don't know which and I won't know until I see."

What I say about the supernatural is simply true by definition. IF the supernatural exists, which I have no knowledge of, THEN it must behave in these defined ways in order to BE what we call supernatural.

Quote:If that deity cannot be detected by natural means, and has revealed no dogma or teachings and has not interacted with the natural world.
Therefore the belief in that deity is irrelevant to a person as that god does not interact with the natural world and has no effect.

You lost me here.

That being said, my alarms go off when I read that bit about no effect. If there is a God, I have no idea if it interacts with the natural world. That would be a possibility though. And a God would most certainly have an effect, we would simply have no empirical evidence of that interaction; empirical being the operative word.

Quote:Therefore the belief in a diety is irrelivent because its will is unknown and its presence is unknown and has no effect.

Quite the contrary, what I said is that belief in a deity is the ONLY relevant thing.

The various religions DO say that God’s will, presence and effect are known. What they can't do is prove a lick of it.

I don't believe in a deity, but for those who do, it's not unjustified. They simply believe in something they have no proof of. We ALL do that. They just happen to base their entire worldview on it.

As for the Matrix, I can't rule out the "brain in a vat" notion. There's no proof for or against. There might not be a reason to believe that it's true, but there's also no reason to rule it out. So my answer is a resolute, how the fuck should I know?

But in matters of the supernatural, answering the yea/nay question is irrelevant. What matters is what people believe because THAT has a detectible and measurable effect on the universe.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2012, 06:57 AM
RE: Agnostic Front
(08-01-2012 12:04 AM)Ghost Wrote:  
Quote:The argument that we can never prove the existence/non-existence of the supernatural because it is supernatural is true only by definition; that is, by defining the supernatural as something we can't detect. If we can't detect it, then it has no effect on the natural world. If it has no effect, then how can it be said to exist in any meaningful way?
...
Now, while you or I could SEE a supernatural act, we could never PROVE that it happened because to prove something we need empirical evidence. There is no such thing as supernatural empirical evidence. It's oxymoronic. So what is a witnessed supernatural act that cannot be proven? Revelation. It's a burning bush, a parting of the Red sea, a plague of frogs, a pillar of salt and a great flood.

If the supernatural act/event has an effect on the natural world and we can show that there is no possible natural explanation, then we conclude it is of supernatural origin.

Of course, if we prove that, then that supernatural cause becomes part of the natural world, by definition. Essentially, any time we find a cause/effect relationship, then it is fair game for natural science.

By reductio ad absurdum argument, there can be no such thing as the supernatural affecting the natural. Once it does that, it's natural.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
08-01-2012, 07:45 AM
RE: Agnostic Front
Hey Matt,

I'm butting my way into your thread just to say one thing then I'll be on my way. Though I'll probably be lurking about.

The comment you made about if there were a god it would most certainly have an impact but that we would have no way of perceiving that impact, I disagree with. Unless you mean that the god in question would have to fit certain parameters to even be called a god, and in that instance it would have to have an impact, in which case I agree.... That reads as confusing gibberish but I swear it makes sense.
Anyhow I think that if there were a god then it would have limitless possibilities meaning that it could actually exist but not exist all at the same moment thereby having no actual impact on anything. If it so chose.

Not that any of that actually matters. Whether there's a god or not I mean.

"I think of myself as an intelligent, sensitive human being with the soul of a clown which always forces me to blow it at the most important moments." -Jim Morrison
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2012, 11:33 AM
RE: Agnostic Front
how do you define god?

"Yeah, good idea. Make them buy your invisible apple. Insist that they do. Market it properly and don't stop until they pay for it." -Malleus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2012, 01:35 PM
RE: Agnostic Front




People forget that they're hiding. What are you hiding from? A lack of knowledge of god? Is not simultaneity, knowledge?

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
08-01-2012, 01:48 PM
RE: Agnostic Front
Hey, Chaz.

By your rationale, the supernatural is impossible. You're defining it out of existence. I can't make that linguistic leap with you.

Quote:If the supernatural act/event has an effect on the natural world and we can show that there is no possible natural explanation, then we conclude it is of supernatural origin.

Great. So the Burning Bush is officially of supernatural origin. As is the parting of the Red Sea, the Resurrection and Immaculate Conception. So what have people been arguing about this whole time?

See what I mean? There's no proof of any of those things. So when the purely scientifically minded hear of it, they have no reason to believe it. This is my point. You and I could be turned into newts and have a Disney adventure, but how do we prove that to others? We couldn't. And even if half the people in the world were convinced, utterly convinced, that something was supernatural because there was no logical explanation, the other half would simply say, "Well who cares? Everything has a natural cause so it couldn't have been supernatural." They’d just dismiss it as a possibility.

Quote:Of course, if we prove that, then that supernatural cause becomes part of the natural world, by definition. Essentially, any time we find a cause/effect relationship, then it is fair game for natural science.

I disagree. The fundamental quality of the fundamental forces is consistency. A joule is a joule, a Newton is a Newton, addition is addition and these things never, ever vary. That's the reason we can use them to measure phenomenon and to predict things. I know that if I heat a volume of H20 to 100 degrees Celsius, it will boil. Every time. Zero exceptions. That's the natural world.

God can make an infant lift a building. When we measure the force an infant can generate and the mass of the building, there is no possible way that the infant could generate even a fraction of the force needed to lift the building. That means that this occurrence was beyond the control of the rules of the natural universe. Moreover, the rules don't need to be changed permanently. Supernatural occurrences can be unique. That means that the child lifting the building phenomenon is neither explainable nor repeatable. Any way you slice it, it can at no point be considered a natural occurrence. To be natural, by definition, that means it needs to adhere to the rules of the natural universe. He-Man baby is by definition, supernatural; super (above/beyond) the natural.

Hey, Lucradis.

Quote:The comment you made about if there were a god it would most certainly have an impact but that we would have no way of perceiving that impact, I disagree with.

Not what I meant. You and I might see it, perceive it, but there would be no empirical evidence of it. No empirical evidence means no science.

Quote:Unless you mean that the god in question would have to fit certain parameters to even be called a god, and in that instance it would have to have an impact, in which case I agree....

Yeah. By definition, I cannot call myself God because, among other things, I didn't create the universe and I have no superpowers. Like if someone is clutching their chest screaming, "I'm having a heart attack," certain criteria have to be met for it to actually be a heart attack and not just gas. I'm just gas.... well that wasn't very flattering.

Quote:Not that any of that actually matters. Whether there's a god or not I mean.

Well, it matters. It's just not scientifically relevant.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2012, 02:11 PM
RE: Agnostic Front
Ghost Wrote:I know that if I heat a volume of H20 to 100 degrees Celsius, it will boil. Every time. Zero exceptions. That's the natural world.


Perhaps not the best example lol. Water boils at a different temperature at different pressure or altitude (really due to pressure as well iirc).

Better without God, and happier too.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2012, 02:57 PM (This post was last modified: 08-01-2012 03:04 PM by Ghost.)
RE: Agnostic Front
I knew, I KNEW that if I didn't include every caveat under the Sun that someone would miss the point.

Anything that affects the boiling point of water is itself CONSTANT.

I'll be more elementary then. 2+2=4. Always.

ON EDIT: That probably came across as a bit harsh. If so, my apologies.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: