Conversation with an agnostic
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-09-2013, 06:35 PM
 
Conversation with an agnostic
Yesterday, my friend is having a conversation with an agnostic regarding deism in a forum. Btw here is the conversation :

Other user : Deism is not provable or falsifiable. Religious gods tend to be interfering with human affairs, which makes it quite debatable and contradicting time to time, that causes the existence of religious gods more unlikely. Deism on the other hand does not have this because it does not interfere with human affairs, thus having less holes that can capacitate us to disprove it.

Agnostic : Exactly, no proof or evidence, for or against; same for atheism.

My friend : By the way why there are no proof or evidences for atheism?

Agnostic : There is no evidence showing how the universe came to be. Nothing before time zero, Stephen Hawking's futile efforts to the contrary notwithstanding. Which is curious since, if creation was naturally spontaneous, you'd expect to find something. You'd think a perfectly complete blank would be by design. But, since there is nothing from "before", we can't assume anything at all.

My friend : Then you're not believing all the experiments, scientific studies that have been conducted and you're also doubting the theism and, deism/pantheism/panentheism, etc. So what do you believe?

You're an absolute agnostic, it seems at least in my opinion.


Agnostic : I am an agnostic, as I think everyone should be about what they believe philosophically.

What experients are you talking about? There is no evidence, at all, from before the Big Bang, or "outside" (if you will) of the universe. Thus my reference to Hawking who proposed finding such evidence, but he had to back down. He and other scientists have reluctantly had to admit that God is as possible as no God.

I think pandeism and panendeism are reasonable, but we can't even say if there is a God or not, making them interesting but moot issues in my opinion. Neither do they help us speculate about what God's motivations (if It exists) might be as basic deism does.


What the agnostic is asserting is that he find deism (including pandeism and panendeism) is more reasonable than atheism because he said scientists can only speculating and predicting and thus he doubted many scientific studies and experiments that have been conducted. The so-called agnostic also sometimes called himself a deist, but even then he is still skeptical about deism.

What make deism is more reasonable than atheism btw? Many deists define their non-interference God is omnipotent, thus deism isn't very different from theism. The only difference I see is their concepts and description of God, such as the deist God is a non-interference one while the theism God is opposite of it.
Quote this message in a reply
18-09-2013, 10:08 PM
RE: Conversation with an agnostic
(18-09-2013 06:35 PM)Mike Wrote:  Yesterday, my friend is having a conversation with an agnostic regarding deism in a forum. Btw here is the conversation :

Other user : Deism is not provable or falsifiable. Religious gods tend to be interfering with human affairs, which makes it quite debatable and contradicting time to time, that causes the existence of religious gods more unlikely. Deism on the other hand does not have this because it does not interfere with human affairs, thus having less holes that can capacitate us to disprove it.

Agnostic : Exactly, no proof or evidence, for or against; same for atheism.

My friend : By the way why there are no proof or evidences for atheism?

Agnostic : There is no evidence showing how the universe came to be. Nothing before time zero, Stephen Hawking's futile efforts to the contrary notwithstanding. Which is curious since, if creation was naturally spontaneous, you'd expect to find something. You'd think a perfectly complete blank would be by design. But, since there is nothing from "before", we can't assume anything at all.

My friend : Then you're not believing all the experiments, scientific studies that have been conducted and you're also doubting the theism and, deism/pantheism/panentheism, etc. So what do you believe?

You're an absolute agnostic, it seems at least in my opinion.


Agnostic : I am an agnostic, as I think everyone should be about what they believe philosophically.

What experients are you talking about? There is no evidence, at all, from before the Big Bang, or "outside" (if you will) of the universe. Thus my reference to Hawking who proposed finding such evidence, but he had to back down. He and other scientists have reluctantly had to admit that God is as possible as no God.

I think pandeism and panendeism are reasonable, but we can't even say if there is a God or not, making them interesting but moot issues in my opinion. Neither do they help us speculate about what God's motivations (if It exists) might be as basic deism does.


What the agnostic is asserting is that he find deism (including pandeism and panendeism) is more reasonable than atheism because he said scientists can only speculating and predicting and thus he doubted many scientific studies and experiments that have been conducted. The so-called agnostic also sometimes called himself a deist, but even then he is still skeptical about deism.

What make deism is more reasonable than atheism btw? Many deists define their non-interference God is omnipotent, thus deism isn't very different from theism. The only difference I see is their concepts and description of God, such as the deist God is a non-interference one while the theism God is opposite of it.


correct me if I am wrong, but deism DOES require the belief that some sort of impersonal god figure is out there... that just observing the universe is sufficient to believe that *A* god exists, even if its not any god we've heard of...

If that is right.... then Deism is NOT more rational or a better argument than Atheism. Atheism is the natural position. To disbelieve until reasonable evidence is provided... I think deism is better than any religion out there, but still irrational. He makes the mistake that Hawking or any other scientists might be wrong therefore atheism might be wrong... but atheism doesn't propose HOW the universe existed... We just examine the best evidence we have at the time and try and figure it out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Styrofoam02's post
19-09-2013, 04:50 AM
RE: Conversation with an agnostic
One thing you need to keep in mind about the creation of the universe, is that we don't have any physics that actually models it. Our physics breaks down at the planck temperature and anyone speculating how the universe began is really just talking out of their crack(by crack I mean ass crevice). It will be that way at least until GR and Quantum mechanics are replaced by something better.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2013, 09:42 AM
RE: Conversation with an agnostic
(18-09-2013 06:35 PM)Mike Wrote:  What the agnostic is asserting is that he find deism (including pandeism and panendeism) is more reasonable than atheism because he said scientists can only speculating and predicting and thus he doubted many scientific studies and experiments that have been conducted.
So he chooses to insert a complete guess instead, apparently thinking that's actually more logical. Amazing...

"Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea." --Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2013, 10:00 AM
RE: Conversation with an agnostic
Mike, your friend is not saying Diem is more reasonable than Atheism. Is this your charge? Your buddy is saying they are both equally possible. That too is incorrect in my opinion. If by 'God' we mean some ultimate creator, or by 'Gods' we mean ultimate creators of the universe then it is not a equal probability that there is god/s. It is true, we don't know what was here before the big bang other than an extremely dense point in space which contained all of the universe. We don't know if the universe has always existed. We don't know why there was energy before particles were created. However, despite all of our ignorance it is not an equal chance. Throwing a god or gods into the mix just unnecessarily complicates the matter. It removes the question one step further. If there were a god or gods about then we then just have to explain where they come from, how they got here and so on. So, no, there is not an equal chance. The simplest solution is most likely the correct one by a long shot.

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