Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The burdens of providing proof is rightly placed upon the theist and athiest communities never the agnostics.
Don't the agnostic community have to prove that god is unknowable? Otherwise to be consistent they should be agnostic towards being agnostic. And agnostic towards being agnostic towards being agnostic. And so on.
Don't the agnostic community have to prove that god is unknowable? Otherwise to be consistent they should be agnostic towards being agnostic. And agnostic towards being agnostic towards being agnostic. And so on.
Nope we...errh they have left room in their mindsets/world-views precisely for that possibillity.
Side Notes:
If there is A Creator God heaven only knows how interested this God is in the universes' affairs. I'am a universe but I have never met any of my cells personally. For example I care about my platelets as a whole but just 1 platelet is insignificant. I sure hope God cares more about His universe than I do mine.
Last edited by gabfest; 10-06-2011 at 08:04 AM..
Reason: side notes
Don't the agnostic community have to prove that god is unknowable? Otherwise to be consistent they should be agnostic towards being agnostic. And agnostic towards being agnostic towards being agnostic. And so on.
No more than the atheists would have to prove that god didn't exist, I'd say. If they assumed something like 'God is unknowable' then one might reasonably ask how they know that . But, if they simply say that they they don't know whether there is a god or not, they are essentially saying that the evidence for is not persuasive. Which is all atheists say.
If Theists want to argue that a god talks to us or designed bacterial flagelli or put a few hurricanes and tsunami our way just to 'let us know he's there' as one theist put it, then the burden of proof is on them if they want to persuade either agnostics or atheists - which I still say is pretty much the same thing - of the validity of those views.
Unless we are talking of agnostic theists of course. And Theists and agnostic theists are pretty much the same thing, too.
How can there be such a thing as a deity? Just because we don't have an answer for everything or know how everything works or came to exist, does not mean a deity created it...I have no doubt : there is no "spirit in the sky" who created stuff and tossed it together...
After re-reading my post, I think the tone of my last couple of sentences did not reflect the tone I meant.
You suggested the multiverse can't just be because there's no reason for it to just be. That doesn't seem to follow for me, perhaps you could elaborate. To me, "just being" doesn't need a reason. If it is, it is. Not having a reason "to be" doesn't negate it "being". Why must something have a reason to exist before it can exist? I don't think it does.
You also said there is no sound theory for why it would just be. What if there is no reason why? Then it would not be a valid criticism that we don't know the reason why if there never was a "why" to begin with. What if it just "is" with no reason for it?
You also said there's no sound theory for how the multiverse would just be. What if there is no "how"? What if it just is? What if there was no sequence of events that brought the multiverse into existence, but the status quo just is that it exists?
Look, we don't know for certain that a multiverse exists. That would be a fair criticism. But, if it does exist, I don't think it needs a reason to exist. I don't think there must be a why or how for its existence. There is clearly a how for the formation of our universe. But, there need not be a why for our universe, nor for the multiverse. I see no reason why the multiverse can't just be.
I think that answer is unsatisfying to me because it could used to support just about any conclusion about the origins of the universe.
A religious person could use that same line of reasoning to support the existence of a poof-God, for example.
I, as well, do not believe in a "God." But I am not a materialist. I tend to think that our own senses are quite limited. (I often refer to the thought experiment that, if we were totally blind, we would posit a science based upon the supposition that sound is the fastest means of communication. Hence, anything faster is, by definition, "paranormal.")
Our physical senses are quite limited. I am willing to accept that there is something beyond our senses that may very well be "non-material." After all, we currently don't have a clue what 96% of the universe is actually made of. Dark Energy and Dark Matter seem to be beyond our understanding right now.
But this doesn't mean Dark Matter doesn't "exist." It has an influence upon the universe. It's effects can be measured, but it cannot be seen nor measured directly. Somehow, it's there. But whatever the hell it is, we can't currently figure it out.
That seems to correlate to "paranormal" events. To dismiss them may be the greatest expression of materialist hubris.
I think you make a good point.
I tend to think of dark matter as another manifestation of the material reality.
But others could see it as proof of an immaterial reality.
How can there be such a thing as a deity? Just because we don't have an answer for everything or know how everything works or came to exist, does not mean a deity created it...I have no doubt : there is no "spirit in the sky" who created stuff and tossed it together...
No one is arguing that there MUST be a diety.
We are only arguing if there MUST NOT be a diety.
Given the way I know the universe to work, I think there SHOULD NOT be a diety, but I also know there SHOULD NOT be time or space, either.
This sort of argument is often used to justify speculation. It is actually a pretty good analogy if used to explain that there is a lot out here that we don't know as we once didn't believe powered flight was possible or that we could ever discover what colour dinosaurs were, or whether 'Anasatasia' really was related to the Romanoffs. But it is a false analogy if it is used to try to validate supposition. The analogy fails as a lot of what was believed to be possible, such as alchemy, phrenology and phlogiston turned out to be usustainable theory. The analogy also fails because a blind race could well discover light particles even if they couldn't see them and even use them in practical ways, just as we use x- rays.
Using fallacious analogies like this to make some favoured viewpoint, (such as speculation beats science) look plausible is just poor reasoning. Sorry, I'm not wishing to put anyone down or get aggressive, but false reasoning has to be shown to be false. Sorry again.
The cut off point has to be what is merely possible or not yet disproved and what has some decent evidential support for. It is probably hard for me to understand why the idea of 'something' (read something with intent) started everything off appeals to people so much that 'I don't know' somehow turns into 'I believe this, though'. Is is some instinctive or ingrained thought? I don't know that, either, but my favoured theory is that it is too much 'God - talk'.
In your mind, must dark matter be considered a manifestation of the material world or could it legitimately be pointed to as evidence of an immaterial world?
If the former, why is the concept of materialism even important? It seems to me "material" might then just become synonymous with the word "everything", regardless of it's properties.
Physicalism is also called "materialism", but the term "physicalism" is preferable because it has evolved with the physical sciences to incorporate far more sophisticated notions of physicality than matter, for example wave/particle relationships and non-material forces produced by particles.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. But, if they simply say that they they don't know whether there is a god or not, they are essentially saying that the evidence for is not persuasive. Which is all atheists say.
