Hello Everyone - Page 2

Professional Widow · 07-15-2007, 10:55 AM

Welcome To The Site!

Gettin' In Tune · 07-17-2007, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dfagala

The First Cause Argument is nothing new. It's nothing more than a restatement, some 750 years later, of Thomas Aquinas's, and even earlier, Aristotle's, "unmoved mover" attempt to prove the existence of a supreme being, i.e. that if there's motion in the universe, something or someone must have started it.

That makes some sense to me in a simple logical sense, but I don't have enough information about the formation of the universe to know if it can be explained in terms of the logic we mortal humans have access to. Clearly, it falls far short of an infallible proof of a divine being.

I agree that the First Cause Argument does fall short of an infallible proof. According to science, it can be confidently said that no cosmogonic model has been as repeatedly verified in its predictions and as corroborated by attempts at its falsification, or as concordant with empirical discoveries and as philosophically coherent, as the Standard Big Bang Model. This does not prove that it is correct, but it does show that it is the best explanation of the evidence which we have and therefore merits our provisional acceptance.

The discovery that the universe is not eternal in the past but had a beginning has profound metaphysical implications. For it implies that the universe is not necessary in its existence but rather has its ground in a transcendent, metaphysically necessary being.

Of course it falls short of an infallible proof. Since it falls short of an infallible proof, then I have reasonable doubts that God exists along with reasonable doubts God doesn't exist; those reasonable doubts make me Agnostic.

Quote:

In my experience, belief in any divine being boils down to a "leap of faith". People can become entrenched adherents to anything they want to believe, for whatever reason, be it cultural, societal or familial. But the "leap of faith" by definition requires a suspension of logical reasoning (that's why it's such a leap) and, personally, I've never been able to make it.

Deism requires a somewhat shorter leap than fundamental Christianity, but it still requires its adeherents to suspend logical reasoning.

Under my current subscription to the First Cause argument I believe that is is more likely 'metaphyscially being/entity/force exists due to the "preponderance of the evidence". I do not use a "leap of faith" to suspend logic to arrive at my conclusion. My belief in a metaphysical entity is pragmatic and reasonable.

I do not have a rigid belief in this metaphysical entity responsbile for the creation of the universe. I do not give any attributes to this 'entity'. I cannot say that this entity is intelligent nor moral nor interfers in our daily affairs. I am also skeptic of my own conclusion and could be proven wrong, which I why I value agnosticism.

Quote:

On the other hand, atheism seemingly requires no faith at all. But, try as I might, I've been as unsuccessful in constructing a proof that there is no god as I've been in constructing a proof that there is.

I disagree. Atheism, especially 'strong' atheism requires faith. Atheists sometimes like to put 'god' on the same plane as unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters. To me this comparision is absurd. It takes a "leap of faith" to boldly state that there is transcendental entity does not exist. Logic nor science can prove this.

Quote:

Which brings me to my current stance as an agnostic. Your characterization of folks like me as "fence sitters" would seem to imply that we simply haven't yet thought enough about the divinity dilemma to have formed an opinion. I can assure you that I've thought about it for many years and, failing to have discovered sufficient information to make my mind up regarding the existence or non-existence of a divine being, I have nowhere to else to land than atop the "fence".

I am still new to cultivating my thoughts on what 'god' is or what 'god' is not. I meant no offense to labeling agnostics as "fence sitters". I realize that many agnostics (my self included) arrive at the "fence" through careful and intelligent consideration.

Og · 07-17-2007, 04:25 PM

First cause argument is not necessary. Not because of an infinite regression but because the testable and experimentally demonstrated properties of einstein's theory of general relativity indicate that time is a property of matter and effectively does not apply at a singularity (the proposed source of the universe). Using time words like cause and before and source has no meaning where the beginning of the universe is concerned. This is based on our most advanced and demonstrable theory of cosmology.

There are other theories for sure, but none that make predictions like general relativity. The bottom line is that something non-intuitive is going on where time is concerned at singularities (such as black holes and the big bang).

First cause arguments are from an anthropocentric view of the world not from a true interest in understanding the cosmos. The notion that time is something that always is and that the universe must therefore have a cause is NOT the case.

**Skepticologist** · 07-17-2007, 07:49 PM

I addressed this reply directly to you because the post of Og, an intervening poster, makes no sense to me whatsoever. Perhaps he or she will abondon the jargon and put his or her reply into simple English terms even we simpletons can understand.

However, on closer examination, I'm not sure your post makes any more sense to me than his or hers.

I find your premise that "the universe is not eternal in the past but had a beginning" with regard to the Big Bang theory, fascinating. After all, the Big Bang theory starts with something out there in the universe that imploded due to negative gravity, causing a huge explosion that accounts for our current expanding universe. I can't even begin to conceive of an end, or outer limit, to the universe; please don't ask me to attempt to conceive of its beginning. If you want to be sure about that, you'll need to consult a creationist.

I find your follow-on premise that "I believe that is (sic) is more likely 'metaphyscially being/entity/force exists due to the "preponderance of the evidence"' completely baffling. If you have hard, compelling evidence suggesting that a supreme being is responsible for the universe, I'd love to hear it. It's exactly the absence of such evidence that has led me to my current self-identification as an agnostic, which is what I thought you were holding yourself out to be. Based on your statement, I'd classify you more as an intelligent design adherent than an agnostic.

And your next statement: "I do not use a 'leap of faith' to suspend logic to arrive at my conclusion. My belief in a metaphysical entity is pragmatic and reasonable", appears at first blush completely ludicrous. You're denying basing your belief in a "metaphysical entity" on a leap of faith, but you offer no empirical evidence whatsoever to support it, which would seem a prerequisite for arriving at a "pragmatic and reasonable" belief". Absent empirical evidence, whatever belief you hold regarding a "metaphysical entity" is no more compelling than that esposed by any number of mindless Bible thumpers.

I think you're still dabbling in Deism, which admittedly is more palatable than Christian, or other, fundamentalist beliefs. The idea of a "metaphysical entity" who doesn't directly intervene in human affairs definetely makes more sense than the fundamentalist concept of one who has some sort of pre-ordained script for the life of every human being, but it still pre-supposes a "metaphysical entity" for which. or whom, there exists no empirical evidence.

I believe the difference between an atheist and an agnostic is that an atheist totally rules out the possibility that empirical evidence for a "metaphysical entity" will ever emerge, while an agnostic remains open to any possibilities. Consequently, I agree with your assertion that "Atheism, especially 'strong' atheism requires faith". As an agnostic, I have not yet been convinced of the existence, or the non-existence, of a "metaphysical entity". And until I am, I'll continue to stake out the intellectual position of one who simply doesn't know.

Gettin' In Tune · 07-17-2007, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Og

First cause argument is not necessary. Not because of an infinite regression but because the testable and experimentally demonstrated properties of einstein's theory of general relativity indicate that time is a property of matter and effectively does not apply at a singularity (the proposed source of the universe). Using time words like cause and before and source has no meaning where the beginning of the universe is concerned. This is based on our most advanced and demonstrable theory of cosmology.

I understand your argument. It is difficult to not conceive of time and cause and effect. I do have to look into this more.

Quote:

There are other theories for sure, but none that make predictions like general relativity. The bottom line is that something non-intuitive is going on where time is concerned at singularities (such as black holes and the big bang).

There are/were "strange" things happening at the instance of the Big Bang. I recently read that the Large Hadron Collider which lies below the border of France and Switzerland will propel billions of protons with immense strength and supposedly mimic the conditions of the universe a millionth of a millionth of a second after the Big Bang. The test is scheduled in Spring 2008.

Hopefully, this will provide some answers.

Quote:

First cause arguments are from an anthropocentric view of the world not from a true interest in understanding the cosmos. The notion that time is something that always is and that the universe must therefore have a cause is NOT the case.

Could you elaborate of the First cause being an anthropocentric view of the world? What would be a more appropriate view of the world and cosmos?

Og · 07-17-2007, 08:46 PM

Gettin' In Tune,

I replied to your question here:
http://www.agnosticforums.com/evolut...elativity.html

That's a thread I have been adding to on this topic because it seems like a common drive for people to think that causality need apply at the big bang and that "before the big bang" has some meaning.

It's based on fragmented understanding of science. They take the space dimensional argument of cosmology (easy since this is visual) and they relate to it in terms of a constant time (our local environment on earth looks like this).

I hope my response in the other thread helps clarify.

Dfagala, I'm sorry I came across sounding full of jargon. I've attempted to be as clear as possible. Hopefully my answer in the above linked thread will clarify some of the jargon that confused you.

Gettin' In Tune · 07-17-2007, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dfagala

I find your follow-on premise that "I believe that is (sic) is more likely 'metaphyscially being/entity/force exists due to the "preponderance of the evidence"' completely baffling. If you have hard, compelling evidence suggesting that a supreme being is responsible for the universe, I'd love to hear it. It's exactly the absence of such evidence that has led me to my current self-identification as an agnostic, which is what I thought you were holding yourself out to be. Based on your statement, I'd classify you more as an intelligent design adherent than an agnostic.

I’ll try to state this as simply as I can, but first I want to clarify a few things. First, I should have substituted “transcendental entity” in for a “metaphysical entity”. Second and more importantly, I am not sure if I am comfortable with the label of being an intelligent design adherent. Even if I subscribe to this “transcendental entity/force”, I do not think that it is intelligent. Based on my reason and experience I am more comfortable in stating that this “transcendental entity/force” in non-intelligent. Therefore, I cannot take the leap to intelligent design.

I do not have hard evidence to support my deism. The Big Bang model deserves our provisional acceptance. Perhaps, I am limiting myself to “my” current understanding of the beginning of the universe and am making faulty assumptions based on my current understanding of the creation of the universe. Or perhaps, my knowledge of the creation of the universe is limited and/or I am subscribing to the ‘god of the gaps argument’. The creation of the uiverse does merit a few simple questions.

Where did the matter come from? Where did the energy come from to initiate the “bang”? Something created this matter and initiated the bang.

Physical, natural, and thermodynamic laws were violated during the creation and spark of the Big Bang. Whatever “force/entity” that violated these laws is the ‘god’ I subscribe to based on ‘preponderance of the evidence'. Another issue I have that supports my ‘preponderance of the evidence’ is “why is there something rather than nothing”?

I am agonistic because I have doubt and skepticism and every deistic conclusion I arriveat I can substitute the 'god of the gaps' agrument into my analysis. You are right, I do border or cross into deism. I sway from "weak"atheist-agnostic-deist-panendeist and am still cultivating my belief/philosophical structure.

Quote:

And your next statement: "I do not use a 'leap of faith' to suspend logic to arrive at my conclusion. My belief in a metaphysical entity is pragmatic and reasonable", appears at first blush completely ludicrous. You're denying basing your belief in a "metaphysical entity" on a leap of faith, but you offer no empirical evidence whatsoever to support it, which would seem a prerequisite for arriving at a "pragmatic and reasonable" belief". Absent empirical evidence, whatever belief you hold regarding a "metaphysical entity" is no more compelling than that esposed by any number of mindless Bible thumpers.

Based on my assumption stated above, I use deduction to arrive at my conclions. Based on my assumptions on the creation of the universe, it seems more logical to deduce that a transcendental entity/force exist. Perhaps, it is just a scientific law that has not yet been discovered.

Again, why is there something rather than nothing? Where did matter come from? What initiated the spark of the Big Bang? I am deducing and that is not faith. I am skeptical of my assumptions and deductions. I could be wrong. I admit I can be wrong. It lacks hard empirical evidence. It is NOT a leap of faith, but a rational belief based on reasonable assumptions, science, nature, and deduction.

I DO not give anthropomorphic qualities to this 'transcendental entity". That WOULD require a leap of faith.

Quote:

As an agnostic, I have not yet been convinced of the existence, or the non-existence, of a "metaphysical entity". And until I am, I'll continue to stake out the intellectual position of one who simply doesn't know.

That is fine. I see that you stand strong in your conviction of agnosticism and I appreciate that. I have enjoyed our discussion and hope you are not turned off by my so called “leap of faith” or dabbling in deism. I value free thought and intelligence much more.

An agnostic reaches conclusions on 'god' by not using synthetic a priori arguments. Deists rely on a synthetic a priori knowledge to reach conclusions about 'god'. I have my own issues with a priori knowledge.

For both deism and agnosticism, man is unable to know ‘god’. In deism ‘god’ will not be known, while in agnosticism ‘god’ cannot be known.

The agnostic will claim there is not enough evidence to prove/disprove god. While the deist will strengthen their presupposition that god exists by use of reason and deduction and the fact that the creation of the universe transcends (or violates) natural laws.

**Skepticologist** · 08-02-2007, 07:24 PM

If my transition from fundamentalist Christian to agnostic has taught me nothing more, it has taught me to steer clear of adopting explanations for things we don't understand simply on the basis of an absence of explanations.

You ask where the basic material for the Big Bang came from. It's an interesting but ultimately futile question. If you were a true agnostic, you'd simply respond that you don't know, instead of attributing its origin to some nebulous and unknown, and unknowable, entity.

The reason I believe in the Big Bang is that, given the scientific evidence available at present, it makes more logical sense to me than any of the other theories, and way more sense than any of the religious explanations.

Still, I will not say that I know the Big Bang actually happened as described. As a confirmed agnostic, I'll offer only the old tired answer that I simply don't know. Because, as compelling as the evidence is. it still falls short of an empirical proof.

But it's one hell of a lot more acceptable than simplistic assertions that the earth is no more than 6,000 years old, because there exists a formidable body of evidence that proves such a view is factually and logically insupportable.

I may not know precisely what the Big Bang was, or where the raw materials for its existence came from, but I know precisely that the fundamentalist Christian explanation is completely ludicrous.

Gettin' In Tune · 08-02-2007, 08:54 PM

Hi Dfagala,

Thanks for your reply. I give you accolades from being a fundamentalist Christian to your transformation as an Agnostic. You have come long way.

To let you know, that I have not arrived at a “label” yet, and may not until I die. I am close to the fence, but not simply always sitting on it. It depends, sometimes I jump off and lean right and sometimes I jump off and lean left. Perhaps, I am not a “true agnostics”. It depends on your perspective. I view both deism and agnosticism as processes and not absolutes.

When I say I am a deist, it is with a little “d” and not big “D”. To me “d” = source of origin or any other intelligent “god model” in explaining the universe. “D”= Divine source of origin. So far, every conclusion I arrive at with “god” there is more proof that “god” is not divine than divine. Even if “god’ was divine, its divinity is currently a moot point since it has no bearing at all on humanity. Concerning divinity I am more atheist than you.

It is not a futile question of why we have something rather than nothing. Where is the source of origin? Does this origin has a beginning or exists outside or exist within? Is this source divine? Again, I am not concerned with this source’s divinity, but I am concerned with nature and origin of this source. I think this source exists than rather not exist. Does this make me more of a deist? Yes, in the little “d” sense, but not in the capital “D”.

To me agnosticism falls short in explaining why there is something rather than nothing. A simple “I do not know” is not sufficient. Whatever if is responsible for the creation of the cosmos is the “god” I subscribe to. Based on the preponderance of evidence there is an entity or force or some other explanation.

I might not fit into your label as a true agnostic, and that is ok. Atheists label me as a theist and theist label me as an unbeliever. I am getting quite comfortable with labels. I am a freethinker and a non-theist.

Again, thanks for you response and I am glad you are back on the boards.

**Skepticologist** · 08-03-2007, 06:18 PM

Hey Gettin' in Tune,

I think labels regarding world views are largely meritless. It's a little like trying to force fit everyone in the world into one of the 12 Zodiac signs. It also occurs to me that accepting any particular label for one's beliefs runs the risk of limiting your thinking so as to fall within the boundaries of the accepted label.

It's just that the "I don't know" which I identify with agnosticism fits so perfectly for me at this point in my life. For me, the bottom line is that I never expect to have sufficient information to "know" with any assurance that any of the accepted purportedly complete sets of beliefs is correct. So while a simple "I do not know" may be "not sufficient" for you, it's working very well for me for at least the present.

It's not that I don't know anything. It's that whatever I purport to know, to the point I'd consider it a core belief, is the result of some serious vetting and consequently makes sense to me. I think that's pretty much the dividing line between the religious and the secular. The former makes the "leap of faith" to espouse beliefs that make no sense to them, and the latter isn't called on to make a "leap of faith" because they accept nothing that doesn't make sense to them.

I would propose that you continue refusing to be labeled, but that you adopt the premise that whatever beliefs you choose as guidance for your life, you demand that, after your own personal vetting, they make sense to you.