[quote]Sloth wrote:
Eh? Maybe I’m mistaken, and you’re not an agnostic, but an atheist? An agnostic can’t deny that there is a spaghetti monster, creator of all things. He could say, “highly improbable, but I can’t prove that there isn’t an omnipotent spaghetti monster. Therefore, I must entertain the, however unlikely, of a spaghetti monster god.” [/quote]
Agnostics admit that there could be a god, not that every whimsical fantasy could actually be that god.
…i’m sorry, i thought that was clear. I do not believe in gods, or any kind of antropomorped entity as a first cause. I deny the existence of those gods, but to confuse the issue, i do think it’s quite possible that there may have been some asshole E.T. that enjoyed playing with dumb primates for a while…
[quote]pat wrote:
There’s more to the universe then observable phenomenon.
All things in the universe, finite or infinite have origin, until you find that which has no origin, then the “God problem” will always exist.
Something does not come from nothing, never has, never will.[/quote]
Prove that the universe itself had a beginning. You can’t, because it is not only possible that the universe has always existed, but the First Law of Thermodynamics provides strong support for this possibility since matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Agnostics admit that there could be a god, not that every whimsical fantasy could actually be that god.[/quote]
Why? What makes agnostics absolutely sure that god can’t be a whimsical creature? I keep hearing they make no claims about the existence, much the less the nature, of a possible god(s).
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Why? What makes agnostics absolutely sure that god can’t be a whimsical creature? I keep hearing they make no claims about the existence, much the less the nature, of a possible god(s). [/quote]
Because we know, for example, that the Flying Spaghetti Monster was a fabrication in order to prove a point. I could create a god right now that I call “Muhahahahaha”, but I know with 100% certainty that this god doesn’t actually exist.
[quote]forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
There’s more to the universe then observable phenomenon.
All things in the universe, finite or infinite have origin, until you find that which has no origin, then the “God problem” will always exist.
Something does not come from nothing, never has, never will.
Prove that the universe itself had a beginning. You can’t, because it is not only possible that the universe has always existed, but the First Law of Thermodynamics provides strong support for this possibility since matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed.[/quote]
[Edit]
Yet, in black holes matter and energy gets destroyed and it is strongly theorized that “information” get destroyed. If it can be destroyed, it can be created. Apparently, tremendous mass and gravity can crush even basic laws.
And beyond the big bang theory you know I am going to defer to the cosmological argument type to drill down to the beginning of all creation.
Find me an example of one thing in the universe that was not begotten.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Why? What makes agnostics absolutely sure that god can’t be a whimsical creature? I keep hearing they make no claims about the existence, much the less the nature, of a possible god(s).
Because we know, for example, that the Flying Spaghetti Monster was a fabrication in order to prove a point. I could create a god right now that I call “Muhahahahaha”, but I know with 100% certainty that this god doesn’t actually exist.[/quote]
Prove that a Spaghetti Monster doesn’t exist!
Given that when you add matter to a black hole, it gets heavier, it’s hard to argue that the matter gets destroyed.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Prove that a Spaghetti Monster doesn’t exist![/quote]
It’s impossible to prove a negative. That doesn’t mean that for all practical purposes, when the possibility of a given hypothesis is ridiculously low, and when other more viable hypotheses exist, that you can’t rule out the highly improbable hypothesis with confidence.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Prove that a Spaghetti Monster doesn’t exist!
It’s impossible to prove a negative. That doesn’t mean that for all practical purposes, when the possibility of a given hypothesis is ridiculously low, and when other more viable hypotheses exist, that you can’t rule out the highly improbable hypothesis with confidence.[/quote]
But you must allow for the possibility, as an agnostic. Improbable isn’t impossilbe. An agnostic can’t make a definitive statement here.
Agnostics aren’t idiots. Something has to meet a minimal probability threshhold to be considered realistically viable.
How do you justify your atheism when it comes to the thousands of gods from other religions?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Why? What makes agnostics absolutely sure that god can’t be a whimsical creature? I keep hearing they make no claims about the existence, much the less the nature, of a possible god(s).
Because we know, for example, that the Flying Spaghetti Monster was a fabrication in order to prove a point. I could create a god right now that I call “Muhahahahaha”, but I know with 100% certainty that this god doesn’t actually exist.
Prove that a Spaghetti Monster doesn’t exist![/quote]
It does exist. It blew through my gut with rapt efficiency. It was evil.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Prove that a Spaghetti Monster doesn’t exist!
It’s impossible to prove a negative. That doesn’t mean that for all practical purposes, when the possibility of a given hypothesis is ridiculously low, and when other more viable hypotheses exist, that you can’t rule out the highly improbable hypothesis with confidence.[/quote]
No it’s not, it’s done in math all the time.
5-10=-5 <—See?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Agnostics aren’t idiots. Something has to meet a minimal probability threshhold to be considered realistically viable.
How do you justify your atheism when it comes to the thousands of gods from other religions?[/quote]
I don’t claim to be agnostic.
Edit: You’ve told you can’t prove that it doesn’t exist, just that it doesn’t exist.
[quote]pat wrote:
It does exist. It blew through my gut with rapt efficiency. It was evil.
[/quote]
I have faith that it exists. How is your faith in a fairy tale god any better than mine?
I never said you did. I asked how you KNOW that all of these other gods don’t exist?
[quote]forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
It does exist. It blew through my gut with rapt efficiency. It was evil.
I have faith that it exists. How is your faith in a fairy tale god any better than mine?[/quote]
Well, you have to at least acknowledge the possibility of our “fairy tale.” The reverse isn’t true for us, as we don’t claim to be agnostic.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Given that when you add matter to a black hole, it gets heavier, it’s hard to argue that the matter gets destroyed.[/quote]
The Theory of General Relativity states this is impossible as you would reach a condition of infinite gravitational force.
No much is known beyond the event horizon except that nothing survives it, not matter, energy or light for that matter.
[quote]forlife wrote:
I never said you did. I asked how you KNOW that all of these other gods don’t exist?[/quote]
Personal revelation, faith, reason. Think of a stool with three legs. But, again, I don’t claim to be an agnostic who makes definitively claims as to who god isn’t.
An infinite gravitational force is an energy; you’re only converting matter to energy rather than destroying it.
Let’s not get diverted, though. The point is that you can’t prove the universe is NOT an uncaused cause. It is entirely possible that it has always existed, and if you are honest you will admit the possibility.