The Agnostic's Dilemma

[Gothmog]

@FredLC

I think we agree on much, but still I like to argue.

If you are going to postulate a trust, you are either taking that as a first principle or you are going to prove it based on other things you describe as true (which must at some point come from a first principle, such as 'external reality exists' and 'my senses in some way reflect the properties of that reality', which are two of my favorites).

I agree that in many social contexts atheist is an easier thing to explain, as I said in this thread I self identify as an agnostic to a proselytizing stranger.

I'm saying that there is no reason at all to think there is any internal structure to an electron. There is no theory, or evidence to suggest that such a theory is necessary. How is this different from a creator?

I'm sure you've read some of those philosophers, I like Kant too (though I'm sure you know he did try and argue about the necessity of God at certain points of his life). A great agnostic thinker. I'm not asking you to bow to authority here, but maybe they could entice you to look into the issues.

First principles are necessary to any logical construct. I don't know what else to say about that. You must take something as true in order to prove other things, the idea is to make those postulates as simple and agreeable as possible.

Most philosophers take it as a given and move on, perhaps you could look into Godel, mathematician/philosophers deal with these issues nicely.

 

[warpus]

Ok, maybe string atheism needs less faith, but it needs faith nonetheless.

Regards .

Agreed. However, I would say that some strong atheists employ a trivial amount of faith. Why? For the same reason that I do not really consider it faith when I say: "The FSM does not exist". It is a positive claim, there is some faith there, yes, but I would say it is trivial.

 

[FredLC]

Gothmogh:

Ah, we were treating different things as "first principles" and, I agree, it's your definition that is the most correct (for it's the one philosophically adopted).

Yes, in your definition, "trusting my senses" is a first principle (or a postulate; aprioristical knowledge whatever one decides to call it); what isn't a first principle is... God, for the knowledge of him would be always derivate of either subjective or objective experience.

As that, unless you have created a system of postulates which honor subjective experience as source of objective knowledge, how do you validate God as even a thesis?

When it comes to electrons, well, my response was just to show I don't exclude the possibility out of stubbornness. I'm not well aware enough of the theories of electron internal structure to judge if they have merit or not. Maybe you are right and they are no different than the "God" thesis. In that case, after seeing through them I'd probably reach the same conclusion. But in case of God, I've heard and saw enough of the pertinent elements to have concluded already.

Regards .

 

[Mon Mauler]

FredLC, thank you for the response. You cleared up many issues I thought were a little murky in your previous post, and I understand your position a lot better now. Like Gothmog, I too believe we agree on much.

Actually, I know that atheism and agnosticism have some interchangeable area, and my actual view of agnosticism is far less confrontational than maybe my post seemed. However, I treated the fundamental idea behind each, to show why I think a conclusion on the matter is due.

Now that I understand your position, I have to agree that your view of agnosticism is most certainly less confrontational than I thought after reading your initial post. I could tell that you were treating the concept of agnosticism generally in your initial post, but I thought some of those generalizations were slightly skewed.

But there is no reason why it should alter our usual handling of things – which is to not give credit to what isn’t empirically there.

Even in the realm of science much of what is postulated has yet to be empirically proven. Consider Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. I forget the exact details, but Einstein completed the theory in 1915, published in 1916. Even with the theory published and looked upon favorably by physicists it took three years before there was any empirical evidence to back up many of the assertions made in the paper. Finally, following observations from an eclipse, the New York Times ran a headline about Einstein's Theory overthrowing Newton's.

This type of thing has continued to the present day, especially in the fields of quantum physics, where plenty of solid theories are yet unbacked by empirical evidence. This does not make the theories untrue.

Indeed, I have heard many physicists claim that about 96% of our universe is made up of either dark matter or dark energy. Yet no one knows what either is. There is no direct empirical evidence to prove the existence of either. For dark matter there is indirect evidence that leads researchers to assume the presence of such matter. Dark energy, though, which is said to comprise almost three-quarters of our universe, is completely hypothetical.

In light of the fact that there is no direct empirical evidence to substantiate 96% of the universe, it seems incongruous to me to require empirical evidence to prove existence of anything.

Your senses tell you nothing is there; there is nothing but the words of theists suggesting that there is... how is that not paying homage to their idea?

Again, I refer you to the example of dark energy and dark matter. In response to the second aspect of this post, I must assert that my conception of the creator was formed independently of theists. My contention, and the contention of many agnostics I know, is that there is no compelling theory to explain the occurence of the universe. Perhaps my knowledge of physics is too limited, but I cannot conceive of a natural explanation on my own, and I have heard no compelling theories from science thus far. Still, I recognize that new entities sometimes form in nature, but always they come from something. What I wish to explain, and the only argument for a god of any kind that I can see, is at that instant where nothing became something. How did that happen? I see no logical explanation other than that it was created, but that does not mean that I am unwilling to change my views if given more compelling reasoning or evidence. And that does not mean that I, or any other agnostic, inherently accepts the idea of god as promulgated by any of the religions or spiritual theorists.

Well, I never said I do made a conclusion on first principles, which I didn’t. My opinion on the inexistence is not a sentence on the matter, but na extrapolation of what is avaible as information about God (which is, exactly, nothing but untrustworthy testimony), in comparison with the plethora of information avaiable abaut everything which is empirically sensible.

Meanwhile, the evidence we have to substantiate 96% of the universe is also comprised solely of theory and testimony. In the end, if we live in a place bounded by what we can observe, then that is a sad world I describe - this universe without a soul.

Ultimately, though, I think we agree on many things, particularly the skepticism and the desire for more evidence. A lot of our disconnect comes merely from the fact that we reach different conclusions. I believe there probably was a creator, and you do not believe in a creator.

 

[FredLC]

Well, as my chat with Gothmog must have cleared, it's not only the lack of empirical evidence, but also the weakness of the models of God. Trust me on this, many people have made several models of how the universe work. The models of dark matter and energy stands based on the solid and congruent nature of the model, and the lack of better alternatives. Like Einstein's relativity (which, BTW, does have some empirical indirect evidence in its capacity to preview things, such as black holes, for example, that were proposed by Einstein before they were found), that has solid math behind it.

I say again, if models of God had anything resembling that stability, I'd be far less skeptical.

Regards .

 

[Mon Mauler]

Well, as my chat with Gothmog must have cleared, it's not only the lack of empirical evidence, but also the weakness of the models of God.

I fail to see how many of the models of deities are weak. Maybe, to some people they are not as compelling; however, several basic models of deities survive from millenia before the scientific method was even conceptualized. Others were present for millenia before that. In terms of their longevity, they must be measured as some of the strongest models of nature to ever be formed.

Trust me on this, many people have made several models of how the universe work. The models of dark matter and energy stands based on the solid and congruent nature of the model, and the lack of better alternatives.

The prevailing model of the universe is that it is comprised of 4% baryons, which is ordinary matter composed of atoms, like us and planets and such. 22% is dark matter, which we haven't really observed, but through experiments can infer its existence because of how its gravitational field affects observed atoms. For the other 74% of the universe that remains we have no empirical evidence to show what it is or how it affects the universe. That is the part they call dark matter. In sum, we have never directly observed 96% of what comprises the universe.

To then claim that we can conclude exactly how that 96% came to be based on our observations of the 4% we can see is sure to error. And that is much less than to say that we will base our analysis only on what we can empirically show.

Like Einstein's relativity (which, BTW, does have some empirical indirect evidence in its capacity to preview things, such as black holes, for example, that were proposed by Einstein before they were found), that has solid math behind it..

And there are many things that we can empirically show. Indeed, much of Einstein's Theory has been empirically shown. It predicts other phenomena that we can observe. His theories have gone a long way to furthering our understanding of the universe, but just as Newton's theories were overthrown, so will Einstein's. Indeed, Einstein's theory breaks down on a number of levels, specifically at the quantum mechanical level.

I say again, if models of God had anything resembling that stability, I'd be far less skeptical.

But, as you see, they are quite unstable, and explain only a fraction of the universe. The models of God, though, are enduring in the least, albeit devoid of empirical proof.

In such a circumstance, when viewing the question of a creator objectively, it is impossible to say anything other than, "I don't know."

That is the essence of agnosticism.

 

[FredLC]

I fail to see how many of the models of deities are weak. Maybe, to some people they are not as compelling; however, several basic models of deities survive from millenia before the scientific method was even conceptualized. Others were present for millenia before that. In terms of their longevity, they must be measured as some of the strongest models of nature to ever be formed.

Many theories can be laid as to why these ideas survived so long. My guesses would be two: First, because they offer an easily understandable explanation of the universe. Note that being right or wrong plays no role here, and the nature of the "infinite power" will absorb any opposition except those philosophically sophisticated enough to challenge the internal consistency of an infinite power. As only in modern times it's true that a significant part of the population (at lest in advanced countries) have received sensible education, it's not surprising at all that the traditional teaching of deities have been waterproof for most of mankind through all those millenniums.

Their longevity IMHO also derives from the fact that religion was, and still is, a very efficient tool of group organization. I honestly find that the idea of organized religion was crucial to regulate the relations between people in sensible moments of humane history.

When tools such as government and philosophy were consistent enough to be independent of their origins (when ecclesiastical characters held all power and knowledge as representatives of God), the ideas of religion were to deeply rooted and traditional to be abandoned. I honestly think it will be at least another millennium for humanity, as a whole, to outgrow it, supposing it will ever happen.

Now, historical (and memetic) reasons aside, the longevity is not what I meant as I spoke of their weakness - I spoke of the internal congruence of the model. I am yet to know of a description of God which isn't a) dramatically vague, or b) outright contradictory. If you know of one, please, I'm very interested.

The prevailing model of the universe is that it is comprised of 4% baryons, which is ordinary matter composed of atoms, like us and planets and such. 22% is dark matter, which we haven't really observed, but through experiments can infer its existence because of how its gravitational field affects observed atoms. For the other 74% of the universe that remains we have no empirical evidence to show what it is or how it affects the universe. That is the part they call dark matter. In sum, we have never directly observed 96% of what comprises the universe.

And even as that, I confess that my knowledge of astrophysics have not kept up with current findings.

To then claim that we can conclude exactly how that 96% came to be based on our observations of the 4% we can see is sure to error. And that is much less than to say that we will base our analysis only on what we can empirically show.

Ah, we can't conclude exactly, that is true. But is anyone suggesting that? "74% is dark matter"... I mean, how darn exact is that? Man, this is rather vague. I certainly agree that the more exact an extrapolation, the higher the chance of it being wrong.

However, even if in it's vagueness, "Dark Matter" is a few steps above God, for it was not suggested out of imagination, but of a sketchy picture drawn with current knowledge. Like the Greek model for atom, it is, in it's crudeness, a display of reason begging for refinement that will change much of what is, today, expected.

But, still, a display of reason at work. Only if all ideas were like that...

And there are many things that we can empirically show. Indeed, much of Einstein's Theory has been empirically shown. It predicts other phenomena that we can observe. His theories have gone a long way to furthering our understanding of the universe, but just as Newton's theories were overthrown, so will Einstein's. Indeed, Einstein's theory breaks down on a number of levels, specifically at the quantum mechanical level.

Even if I'm not keeping up with modern physics as much as I am not keeping up with modern astrophysics, everybody who has read SCIAM knows at least that the theory of unification between Einstein's general relativity and Heisenberg's quantum mechanics is the great challenge of current scientists. [/pedantic display of knowledge of rudiments of science]

Now, seriously - Newton was not exactly proven wrong, that's a mistaken description. Now, Newton was proved to be a special case of a larger constitution of physics. His equations, which are much simpler, matches Einstein's or Heisemberg's very accurately, always assuming they are applied to objects which are macroscopic and in speeds much smaller than the light. There is a reason why we keep learning him at school.

Rather than dethroned, Einstein and Heisenberg will probably be surpassed, as Newton were, for theories with that much accuracy (which far surpass their fallibilities) are unlikely to be having just a long run of lucky guesses.

But, as you see, they are quite unstable, and explain only a fraction of the universe. The models of God, though, are enduring in the least, albeit devoid of empirical proof.

In such a circumstance, when viewing the question of a creator objectively, it is impossible to say anything other than, "I don't know."

That is the essence of agnosticism.

Ah, the weaknesses shown in physics theories exist only because of the intellectual honesty of their proponents. In this, suffices to say that if someone chose Newton as the new messiah, and used excerpts of his work as proof that he is inerrant, detractors would have have to carry advanced lab material and use particle accelerators in the debates to prove he is wrong. What is more than one can say of the Bible, the Vedas, or the Koran.

Honestly, to be in doubt, I require a doubt of greater virtue.

Regards .

 

[Perfection]

Like Einstein's relativity (which, BTW, does have some empirical indirect evidence in its capacity to preview things, such as black holes, for example, that were proposed by Einstein before they were found), that has solid math behind it.

As an aside, Relativity (both general and special) has a ton of direct empirical evidence.

Physics, astronomy, and space flight all prove it as much as any physical theory can be.

 

[innonimatu]

Hey, what makes a "God"?

Even assuming there was such a thing as a "creator of the universe", and one that could be perceived by humans, would such a thing be a god? Or creature only, some conscious entity merely more powerful than humans and other conscious entities? Or not even that? Or absolutely beyond human understanding? Would the entity described in "Solaris" make a good candidate for being worshiped by some as a god?

Gods are always conceived in human terms. Gods are ideas made by humans. I have no god, and in my universe no god can exist, ever, unless I allow it - create it -, by acknowledging some entity as a "god". It may even be possible that some powerful being might come around demanding to be worshipped, but how would that be more worthy of worship and "goddess" than, say, the roman emperors were? Could mere power elevate a creature to "godhood"?

What do you call to someone who refuses to embrace the concept of "god"? It's not just that I don't believe in, say, a creator of the universe. It's that even if there was one, I would see no reason to worship it, or indeed play the servant to it in any way.

And this is the theist's paradox (at least of those who worship gods): that they could find their gods easily enough in the person of a slave owner, for what they worship is, at the most basic level, just an anthropomorphic creature with power over people. Theists worship their own image, what they would like to be.

More sophisticated theological views (shared by very few people) try to escape thus by refusing the anthropomorphic idea of god. But they are then reduced to dealing with a god that either is not (and cannot be) understandable to humans (and is therefore irrelevant), or is just a manifestation of some non-conscious force or forces (ultimately the whole universe, with the laws of physics, etc) - to call this a god is deceiving, it’s just substituting the term god for other terms like universe or time, and mix in a few other concepts – not really religion as most theistic people understand it.

 

[mdwh]

Later in your post you make reference to the degrees of atheism - strong, weak, etc. This ignores the fact that many similar variations exist within the precepts of agnosticism, and not all agnostics believe in the existence of a creator. For example, agnostic atheism, one of the many branches of agnosticism, specifically doubts the existence of a creator. Agnostic atheists assert that they do not know if there is a creator, but believe that there is not. In fact, your position of weak atheism sounds remarkably similar to agnostic atheism: You admit that you do not know if there is or is not a creator, but you do not believe in his existence. Would you like to convert?

Firstly, I'm not sure if this was intentional, but you switched from "believe that there is not" to "do not believe in" ... did you mean this?

Secondly, if they do both mean the same thing, then this isn't an issue about "converting", it's just about two labels used for the same thing. It's not clear that one is better than the other.

Technically, you could be an agnostic strong atheist or an agnostic weak atheist, so agnostic atheist is ambiguous. And if weak atheism implies agnosticism, then saying agnostic is redundant - hence, I prefer to use "weak atheist" (or just "atheist", until people start trying to claim that I need evidence for my supposed "belief").

Agnosticism merely states that it is not possible, at least at the present time, to know if the creator does or does not exist. Ultimately, the point that Sidhe was trying to make is that this is the most empirically sound determination.

But that's now a different definition of agnostic to the one where someone personally doesn't know if there's a god or not.

To me it seems much more inconsistent to base your life on belief of the empricial (which you claim to do), and then make judgments about first principles when no conclusive emprical evidence has yet been obtained.

This isn't an either/or case here - you're comparing two separate issues:

*I don't think that saying we can't know if God exists or not is inconsistent.
*But I don't see why requiring empirical evidence for beliefs is inconsistent. I think it's more inconsistent to believe things without any evidence. Note, agnostics fall into both categories, so this isn't an agnostic vs atheist issue, it's an agnostic theist vs agnostic atheist issue.

Later you say:

Meanwhile, the evidence we have to substantiate 96% of the universe is also comprised solely of theory and testimony. In the end, if we live in a place bounded by what we can observe, then that is a sad world I describe - this universe without a soul.

I'm not sure what you are saying - "theory" and "testimony" *are* things which are supported by evidence. Therefore if we limit ourselves to "only" that which we have evidence for, we still have that evidence for that 96% of the universe.

I don't see what's sad about that. I think it's sad to make things up rather than admitting "we don't know, let's try and find out" when faced with things we don't have evidence for.

 

[mdwh]

I fail to see how many of the models of deities are weak. Maybe, to some people they are not as compelling; however, several basic models of deities survive from millenia before the scientific method was even conceptualized. Others were present for millenia before that. In terms of their longevity, they must be measured as some of the strongest models of nature to ever be formed.

This is not "strong/weak" in the sense of how long some people believe in them for - some people still believe in fairies and a flat earth, but that hardly means the case for such things is strong.

It is weak in that it is not scientific. The model is not testable nor falsifiable. Religious claims always fall into categories where they are proven wrong, or they retreat to a point when they can no longer be tested. The models make no predictions.

The prevailing model of the universe is that it is comprised of 4% baryons, which is ordinary matter composed of atoms, like us and planets and such. 22% is dark matter, which we haven't really observed, but through experiments can infer its existence because of how its gravitational field affects observed atoms.

Yes, we have evidence for it.

This is the second time you've talked about "observation" to mean something distinct from evidence. I think you're making a strawman argument here - no one is suggesting that we limit ourselves to only things we can directly observe with our own eyes. The requirement is evidence, which exists for dark matter, but not for god.

For the other 74% of the universe that remains we have no empirical evidence to show what it is or how it affects the universe.

Yes, we do. You just admited we do. It is based on observations - just because it's the observations of galaxies rather that observing dark matter itself does not mean it is no longer "empirical".

That is the part they call dark matter. In sum, we have never directly observed 96% of what comprises the universe.

You are now throwing in the word "directly", again, no one is asking that we see god in the flesh. Evidence - direct or indirect, would do.

To then claim that we can conclude exactly how that 96% came to be based on our observations of the 4% we can see is sure to error.

Yes, it's possible that a theory may turn out to be wrong. That's a *good thing*. The problem with the "model" of god is that there is no way to disprove it. It's a completely useless model that tells us nothing about how the universe works or came to be.

And there are many things that we can empirically show. Indeed, much of Einstein's Theory has been empirically shown. It predicts other phenomena that we can observe. His theories have gone a long way to furthering our understanding of the universe, but just as Newton's theories were overthrown, so will Einstein's. Indeed, Einstein's theory breaks down on a number of levels, specifically at the quantum mechanical level.

But, as you see, they are quite unstable, and explain only a fraction of the universe. The models of God, though, are enduring in the least, albeit devoid of empirical proof.

Yes, and this is exactly why it's a bad model!

 

[Mon Mauler]

Many theories can be laid as to why these ideas survived so long. My guesses would be two: First, because they offer an easily understandable explanation of the universe.

...

Their longevity IMHO also derives from the fact that religion was, and still is, a very efficient tool of group organization. I honestly find that the idea of organized religion was crucial to regulate the relations between people in sensible moments of humane history.

You will get no argument from me on these points. There's no question that religion is a very effective method of social organization, for both good and bad. They also offer an easily understandable model of the Universe, and this is the reason I think it should be given consideration.

Now, historical (and memetic) reasons aside, the longevity is not what I meant as I spoke of their weakness - I spoke of the internal congruence of the model.

I'm well aware of what you meant. I only twisted your words as such to show that there are different measures of a model. If something is said loud enough and long enough, that does not necessarily make it true, but I believe it's a pretty good reason to check it out.

I am yet to know of a description of God which isn't a) dramatically vague, or b) outright contradictory. If you know of one, please, I'm very interested.

And, I agree, that when you measure these models with the scientific method, they cannot be proven. Your other point that they fail to show internal congruence and are often outright contradictory is also undisputably true. I also am not aware of models that do not display these features you speak of.

Ah, we can't conclude exactly, that is true. But is anyone suggesting that? "74% is dark matter"... I mean, how darn exact is that? Man, this is rather vague. I certainly agree that the more exact an extrapolation, the higher the chance of it being wrong.

I actually misspoke there. In my previous post I said that the universe is 4% baryonic, 22% dark matter and 74% dark matter. Obviously, that doesn't really make sense. The 74% they refer to as dark energy. Sorry for the typo.

However, even if in it's vagueness, "Dark Matter" is a few steps above God, for it was not suggested out of imagination, but of a sketchy picture drawn with current knowledge. Like the Greek model for atom, it is, in it's crudeness, a display of reason begging for refinement that will change much of what is, today, expected.

I would agree that dark matter, which can be inferred to exist, is a few steps above God, but Dark Energy, I think, is a different story. It is a vague assumption borne out of a lack of evidence. This is similar to models of the creator.

Now, seriously - Newton was not exactly proven wrong, that's a mistaken description. Now, Newton was proved to be a special case of a larger constitution of physics. His equations, which are much simpler, matches Einstein's or Heisemberg's very accurately, always assuming they are applied to objects which are macroscopic and in speeds much smaller than the light. There is a reason why we keep learning him at school.

No question. Sometimes my writing shows a flair for the dramatic, and I probably overused the language there.

Rather than dethroned, Einstein and Heisenberg will probably be surpassed, as Newton were, for theories with that much accuracy (which far surpass their fallibilities) are unlikely to be having just a long run of lucky guesses.

Surpassed is a more moderate description, and probably more accurate.

Ah, the weaknesses shown in physics theories exist only because of the intellectual honesty of their proponents. In this, suffices to say that if someone chose Newton as the new messiah, and used excerpts of his work as proof that he is inerrant, detractors would have have to carry advanced lab material and use particle accelerators in the debates to prove he is wrong. What is more than one can say of the Bible, the Vedas, or the Koran.

Weaknesses they are, nonetheless. I am not arguing that models of god should be preferred above scientific explanations of the universe. All I am saying, is that, science and religion alike fail to offer compelling explanations at the moment the universe was formed. I believe that because of this I can't make a conclusion on the matter. At the moment, it is impossible to know. This is agnosticism.

Still, I believe in a creator for reasons already stated. This is also agnosticism. And it is a logically consistent position.

Honestly, to be in doubt, I require a doubt of greater virtue.

Our only disagreement seems to be the conclusion we can make on the admittedly flimsy evidence about the creation of the universe.

Like I said before - I think we agree on much.

 

[Mon Mauler]

Firstly, I'm not sure if this was intentional, but you switched from "believe that there is not" to "do not believe in" ... did you mean this?

I was actually speaking about two different situations. With the first phrase, I was speaking about the beliefs of agnostics. With the second phrase, I was generalizing FredLC's beliefs. I was merely trying to show how similar the two were.

Secondly, if they do both mean the same thing, then this isn't an issue about "converting", it's just about two labels used for the same thing. It's not clear that one is better than the other.

Much of my argument with FredLC revolved around that exact position, that his beliefs and those of agnostics are similar. As he has explained very articulately, they are indeed similar, but they are not the same. My reference to converting was a stab at sarcasm, and a comment on the similarity of the positions.

Technically, you could be an agnostic strong atheist or an agnostic weak atheist, so agnostic atheist is ambiguous. And if weak atheism implies agnosticism, then saying agnostic is redundant - hence, I prefer to use "weak atheist" (or just "atheist", until people start trying to claim that I need evidence for my supposed "belief").

Again, this was much of the discussion I had with FredLC. I think that discussion shows that agnostic atheism of any sort is definitively different from weak atheism. Agnostics believe that it is impossible to know, at the moment, if there is a god. This tempers their atheism, should they be an agnostic atheist. FredLC, a self-professed weak atheist, does not believe this. He believes that it is possible to know if there is a god, and he believes that there is not a god. The two positions are not the same.

But that's now a different definition of agnostic to the one where someone personally doesn't know if there's a god or not.

Actually, I think the definitions are the same. The one simply explains an agnostic, while the other describes agnosticism. It's a question of scale. Perhaps I should have said, "Basic agnosticism is the belief that it is impossible to know, at the moment, if the creator does or does not exist."

This isn't an either/or case here - you're comparing two separate issues:

*I don't think that saying we can't know if God exists or not is inconsistent.

This is largely my point. Agnosticism is not a logically inconsistent position.

*But I don't see why requiring empirical evidence for beliefs is inconsistent. I think it's more inconsistent to believe things without any evidence. Note, agnostics fall into both categories, so this isn't an agnostic vs atheist issue, it's an agnostic theist vs agnostic atheist issue.

It is not inconsistent to require empirical evidence for beliefs. I did not argue that it was. I was trying to say that it is inconsistent offer conclusions

Later you say:
I'm not sure what you are saying - "theory" and "testimony" *are* things which are supported by evidence. Therefore if we limit ourselves to "only" that which we have evidence for, we still have that evidence for that 96% of the universe.

True, but my point is that our evidence for that 96% of the universe is approximately as strong as our evidence for god. Now, as I explain in another post, I believe that the argument for the existence of dark matter is a step above the argument for god because we can infer its existence through experimentation. The other 74%, though, which we refer to as dark energy, is only assumed because of a lack of evidence.

I agree that theory and testimony are supported by the evidence, but they are not evidence in and of themselves. They are both based on perceiving the evidence, sometimes rightly, sometimes incorrectly. Much of my argument is based on the fact that all we have to substantiate 74% of the universe is theory and testimony. I say that this is roughly equivalent to the argument for a creator, which is also solely based on theory and testimony.

 

[Mon Mauler]

This is not "strong/weak" in the sense of how long some people believe in them for - some people still believe in fairies and a flat earth, but that hardly means the case for such things is strong.

It is weak in that it is not scientific. The model is not testable nor falsifiable. Religious claims always fall into categories where they are proven wrong, or they retreat to a point when they can no longer be tested. The models make no predictions.

As I explain, I understand the intended meaning of strong/weak. My position is that there are other valid measures of a model. Plus, if your measure of a model's strength rests solely on whether or not it is scientific, why not just say that it is not scientific, and not similarly pass judgment on the strength of the model based on how you perceive it?

Furthermore, many models of the creator(s) are testable and falsifiable, and most of them make predictions. Of course, where these models are testable and falsifiable, and where they make predictions, they are often shown to be in error. This does not make the basic premise that the creator(s) exists untrue. Indeed, many of the prevailing scientific theories of the universe make predictions that have been shown to be in error. Still, F=ma.

Yes, we have evidence for it.

This is the second time you've talked about "observation" to mean something distinct from evidence. I think you're making a strawman argument here - no one is suggesting that we limit ourselves to only things we can directly observe with our own eyes. The requirement is evidence, which exists for dark matter, but not for god.

Actually, if you look back in the posts, FredLC was making the argument that the lack of emprical evidence made the conclusion there is a god incosistent. To quote him from post 50:

As we very well admit, even though perfect knowledge is impossible, we accept that it's practical to respond to the clues of our senses, and postulate them as basically correct. that is why no skeptic doubts the existence of elephants, supermodels and vanilla ice cream - our senses attest their existence (as for supermodels, hopefully tact).

As for God, no sensorial experience is available (only subjective experience). As so, I discredit it, the same way I would discredit someone saying that there is a box around my keyboard right now and that I'd be unable to type - that simply contradicts the response i'm getting from reality around me.

I'm sorry, but when someone says that there is something out there, that cannot, even in thesis, be sensed in any objective manner whatsoever, but it's there and i should take his word for it, I don't feel it's absurd, at all, to discredit it. As I said before, this here is where I diverge from agnostics - why they render any credibility to that claim, and accept the rules imposed by the theist (this here cannot be felt in any way) is an inconsistency with how they otherwise live their lives, and i see no manner to defend it.

This certainly is not a strawman argument! Also, it is true, there is evidence for dark matter, as I say, but not for dark energy. Dark energy comprises 74% of the universe. Also, please look up the word "evidence."

Yes, we do. You just admited we do. It is based on observations - just because it's the observations of galaxies rather that observing dark matter itself does not mean it is no longer "empirical".

I'm not sure where galaxies fit in. Planets, stars and such are made of atoms, which are baryonic. At this level of description the earth is no different from a star in Orion's belt. This is 4% of the universe. Also, please look up the word "empirical." Something is emprical when it is provable or verifiable by experience or experiment. Dark energy, thus far, has not been proven or verified by experience or experiment.

You are now throwing in the word "directly", again, no one is asking that we see god in the flesh. Evidence - direct or indirect, would do.

True, I used the word directly so that I could get to 96% by including the 22% of the universe that is dark matter, which has indirect evidence to hint at its existence. Would it be better to compare the argument for the creator(s) to the argument for dark energy, which comprises 74% of the universe, and for which we have no direct or indirect evidence?

Yes, it's possible that a theory may turn out to be wrong. That's a *good thing*. The problem with the "model" of god is that there is no way to disprove it. It's a completely useless model that tells us nothing about how the universe works or came to be.

Of course, I disagree with this conclusion, for I am agnostic. As such, I believe it is impossible, at this time, to know whether or not the creator(s) exists. You allude to this by saying that there is now way to disprove models of god. At the moment I agree with you. However, that does not mean that I believe we could not prove or disprove the existence of the creator(s) sometime in the future.

And I certainly disagree with your position that models of the creator(s) are useless and tell us nothing about how the universe works or came to be. Christianity, which rests on the model of God, absolutely, definitively, says that God created the heavens and the earth. FredLC also eloquently points out that religions, which are based on models of god, are very useful in providing a simple explanation of the universe and also for social organization. Useless? Certainly not. Tell us something about the universe? I argue that the concept of the creator(s) is a logically reasonable explanation for the formation of the universe, which prevailing scientific theories fail to even conjecture on. Also, please do not confuse this position with an acceptance of any religious doctrine or a belief in the attributes of any of their deities.

 

[mdwh]

As I explain, I understand the intended meaning of strong/weak. My position is that there are other valid measures of a model. Plus, if your measure of a model's strength rests solely on whether or not it is scientific, why not just say that it is not scientific, and not similarly pass judgment on the strength of the model based on how you perceive it?

So in what way is the model of "God" strong? Saying that people have believe in it for a long time could be evidence that the model is strong - but there are many other reasons why I think people have believed in God for so long. Can you tell us what it is about the model itself which is strong?

Furthermore, many models of the creator(s) are testable and falsifiable, and most of them make predictions. Of course, where these models are testable and falsifiable, and where they make predictions, they are often shown to be in error.

Yes, this was my point - the only time they've made predictions, they've been falsified...

This does not make the basic premise that the creator(s) exists untrue.

...at which point, the "God" model retreats back to not being able to make falsifiable predictions.

Indeed, many of the prevailing scientific theories of the universe make predictions that have been shown to be in error. Still, F=ma.

Yes, at which point we refined our knowledge and replaced them with new falsifiable theories. We don't instead retreat back to clinging onto some unfalsifiable version of it.

Actually, if you look back in the posts, FredLC was making the argument that the lack of emprical evidence made the conclusion there is a god incosistent. To quote him from post 50:

Well, I agree with you in that "that is why no skeptic doubts the existence of elephants, supermodels and vanilla ice cream - our senses attest their existence" seems to be going a bit too far and could imply only counting direct observations. We shouldn't confuse direct observatios with empirical evidence. E.g., we have empirical evidence that atoms exist, but I clearly cannot see one with my eyes.

Also, it is true, there is evidence for dark matter, as I say, but not for dark energy. Dark energy comprises 74% of the universe. Also, please look up the word "evidence."

I'm not sure what you mean about that I should look the word up?

AFAIK there is some evidence for dark energy - but the bigger point here is that it's acknowedged that dark energy is somewhat hypothetical.

Clearly there is nothing wrong - whether in science or not - to *speculate* about things. Indeed, plenty of agnostics/atheists speculate about whether God exists. The issue here is believing that God definitely exists - yet at the same time saying it doesn't matter if we have no evidence, because it's a matter of "faith".

I'm not sure where galaxies fit in. Planets, stars and such are made of atoms, which are baryonic. At this level of description the earth is no different from a star in Orion's belt. This is 4% of the universe. Also, please look up the word "empirical." Something is emprical when it is provable or verifiable by experience or experiment. Dark energy, thus far, has not been proven or verified by experience or experiment.

Sorry I misread you and thought you were still talking about dark matter (one evidence of dark matter is the rotation of galaxies - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve ).

You said "For the other 74% of the universe that remains we have no empirical evidence to show what it is or how it affects the universe." - I'm not sure what you mean here? it's a lack in our understanding, yes, but since no one is making unfalsifiable assertions about what fills up the 74%, I don't see what the problem is. As far as I see, the standard scientific process is being followed, of coming up with hypotheses, and trying to test such hypotheses.

Would it be better to compare the argument for the creator(s) to the argument for dark energy, which comprises 74% of the universe, and for which we have no direct or indirect evidence?

As I say above - the problem is that theists are not merely people who speculate that there might be a God, but, unlike scientists, they (mostly) believe it to be true beyond any doubt. Also there is some evidence for dark energy (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy ).

Comparing dark energy to God isn't really accurate, as there is no evidence whatsoever that there must have been a sentient intelligent being who created anything. A more accurate comparison would be to "the thing which caused the everything to come into existence" - saying that this thing must be sentient, intelligent and so on is mere speculation.

Of course, I disagree with this conclusion, for I am agnostic. As such, I believe it is impossible, at this time, to know whether or not the creator(s) exists. You allude to this by saying that there is now way to disprove models of god. At the moment I agree with you. However, that does not mean that I believe we could not prove or disprove the existence of the creator(s) sometime in the future.

How would we disprove the existence of God? - bearing in mind that whenever scientists might discover and prove the origin of the universe in complete detail, theists would say that God was the one who made this happen...

I'm not saying for certain we could never prove or disprove it, but all the while we can't even conceive of how to disprove it, I view it as an unfalsifiable hypothesis, so there is no way to investigate it, and I am certainly not going to believe it to be true.

And I certainly disagree with your position that models of the creator(s) are useless and tell us nothing about how the universe works or came to be. Christianity, which rests on the model of God, absolutely, definitively, says that God created the heavens and the earth. FredLC also eloquently points out that religions, which are based on models of god, are very useful in providing a simple explanation of the universe and also for social organization. Useless? Certainly not. Tell us something about the universe? I argue that the concept of the creator(s) is a logically reasonable explanation for the formation of the universe, which prevailing scientific theories fail to even conjecture on. Also, please do not confuse this position with an acceptance of any religious doctrine or a belief in the attributes of any of their deities.

You're confusing "gives us information which is supported by evidence" and "explanations which are completely made up". I am

If someone asks how do computers work, and I say "It's run by magic pixies", whilst it is an "explanation" in some sense, it is not an _actual_ explanation. It seems absurd to say that my magic pixie explanation is more "logically reasonable" that an explanation which is based on evidence, but doesn't manage to answer everything.

The same for God. Anyone can make up an explanation, but those of who are interested in how the universe actually works would prefer something based on evidence, rather than making up what we don't know.

 

[Gogf]

The God hypothesis cannot be shown to be inaccurate because it makes no falsifiable predictions. Contrary to what some people seem to think, this is NOT a positive attribute for a hypothesis.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

It occurred to me the other day that the scientific model depends on patterns - obviously, to be falsifiable, something has to be observed multiple times; one has to expect the same results. Single objects or phenomena do not serve as the basis for hypotheses or theories.

Which implies to me at least that it is not reasonable to expect to be able to form a hypothesis based on the actions of a rational being with access to more information than us - whether such being exists or not.

 

[Mon Mauler]

So in what way is the model of "God" strong? Saying that people have believe in it for a long time could be evidence that the model is strong - but there are many other reasons why I think people have believed in God for so long. Can you tell us what it is about the model itself which is strong?

Excellent question. I believe the model of the creator(s) is strong because it offers an easily understandable explanation of the univers, as FredLC points out. To explain more fully:

Prevailing science does not even conjecture on what it is that created the universe. What is true under many of the prevailing scientific theories, though, is that the universe began as an infinitely dense point before it expanded as a result of the big bang. I agree with most of what is stated in these theories.

Nevertheless, they still offer no compelling argument for what it is that created that infinitely dense point. For all I know, this universe is the result of a previous universe that shrunk to a critical density before expanding again. Still, at some point, something had to be created from nothing. This is in direct contradiction to most scientific laws, specifically those of thermodynamics. Since I see no natural explanation for how the universe could have been formed, I think it is a logical conclusion to say that it was created.

This implies a creator(s). However, you seem to try to place attributes on my version of the creator(s) by indicating that I believe they are sentient or intelligent. I make no such claims! My creator(s) need not be sentient or intelligent. Again, I beg you not to tie my beliefs with those of the major religions, which purport gods in the likeness of man.

Innonimatu poses an interesting question about what makes a god. Of course, I would argue that simply because humans can not understand a god, that does not necessarily make the god irrelevant. Indeed, whatever it is that created the universe could hardly be characterized as irrelevant! Surely, though, some of what he characterizes in his post could be referred to as physical phenomena. I reject these claims because, as I have said at length, there are no compelling scientific explanations for the beginning of the universe.

Something had to be created from nothing. At some point in time, the energy in our realm had to be equivalent to 0. This is only logical. Then, the universe was created, and the 0 energy of our realm immediately ballooned to include all of the energy in the universe. No compelling scientific explanation exists to explain how this could have occurred. That is why I believe in the creator(s).

Yes, at which point we refined our knowledge and replaced them with new falsifiable theories. We don't instead retreat back to clinging onto some unfalsifiable version of it.

Not true. As we've discussed at length, Newton's laws of motion are only applicable to macroscopic properties, but they are still taught and understood as truth. Indeed, Newton's laws actually don't work for macroscopic properties either, but they provide answers as good as those provided under the prevailing theories. They are still taught for convenience and clarity, not for precision. Thus, you see that we do retreat back to clinging onto falsified theories. And dark energy is surely unfalsifiable, which I will discuss later.

Well, I agree with you in that "that is why no skeptic doubts the existence of elephants, supermodels and vanilla ice cream - our senses attest their existence" seems to be going a bit too far and could imply only counting direct observations. We shouldn't confuse direct observatios with empirical evidence. E.g., we have empirical evidence that atoms exist, but I clearly cannot see one with my eyes.

I am glad you see that my position was not one of a Strawman. Beyond that, though, I'm still not sure you understand direct observation and empirical evidence. You might not be able to see an atom, but, surely, you could directly observe the behavior of an atom as Rutherford and Dalton did with the Gold Foil Experiment in the 1920s, which provided further empirical evidence to explain the structure of the atom. This indirect evidence for the existence of the atom is better than what we have for 96% of the universe!

I'm not sure what you mean about that I should look the word up?

Evidence, AFAIK, is defined as something that furnishes or tends to furnish proof. First, you tried to equate theories and testimony with evidence, but theories and testimony do not furnish or tend to furnish proof. Theories make predictions based on logical steps. Testimony is only considered evidence in a court of law. After that, you said that observations are separate from evidence, but observations surely furnish or tend to furnish proof. That is why I asked you to look up the word "evidence".

AFAIK there is some evidence for dark energy - but the bigger point here is that it's acknowedged that dark energy is somewhat hypothetical.

Clearly there is nothing wrong - whether in science or not - to *speculate* about things. Indeed, plenty of agnostics/atheists speculate about whether God exists. The issue here is believing that God definitely exists - yet at the same time saying it doesn't matter if we have no evidence, because it's a matter of "faith".

Alas, I have never argued that it's a matter of faith. And I certainly don't say that God definitely exists. I say that it is impossible to know if the creator(s) exist. That is my first point. Beyond that, I do believe that the creator(s) exist based on the argument I made earlier in this post. It is not an issue of faith. It is a question of determining what the most likely scenario was. In this case, considering that it is currently impossible to know one way or the other, I believe it is most likely the universe was created.

Sorry I misread you and thought you were still talking about dark matter (one evidence of dark matter is the rotation of galaxies - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve ).

Actually, you probably didn't misread me. It was probably my fault. As I said in an earlier post to FredLC, I mistakenly referred to dark energy as dark matter once in my original post. This probably accounts for the confusion. My bad.

You said "For the other 74% of the universe that remains we have no empirical evidence to show what it is or how it affects the universe." - I'm not sure what you mean here? it's a lack in our understanding, yes, but since no one is making unfalsifiable assertions about what fills up the 74%, I don't see what the problem is. As far as I see, the standard scientific process is being followed, of coming up with hypotheses, and trying to test such hypotheses.

Claims of the existence of dark energy are most assuredly unfalsifiable under your definition as I will explain shortly. Otherwise, I have to ask if the development of the models of the creator(s) has not followed the same general process of coming up with a hypothesis and testing it until proven wrong. How many times has the Vatican changed the very precepts of Christianity to reconcile it with current scientific understanding or social norms?

As I say above - the problem is that theists are not merely people who speculate that there might be a God, but, unlike scientists, they (mostly) believe it to be true beyond any doubt. Also there is some evidence for dark energy (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy ).

I don't usually like to refer to wiki because I've found it terribly incomplete or misleading on a number of situations. For our purposes, though, that article isn't too bad. A quote from the article:

The existence of dark energy, in whatever form, is needed to reconcile the measured geometry of space with the total amount of matter in the universe.

Furthermore, claims of the existence of dark energy are definitely unfalsifiable assertions. A brief skimming of even the wiki article you reference shows that attributes have not been assigned to dark energy, and that no predictions on the behavior of dark energy are made. You call the models of the creator(s) unfalsifiable for these very reasons.

Also, the last thing I do is claim that the existence of the creator(s) is true beyond a reasonable doubt.

Comparing dark energy to God isn't really accurate, as there is no evidence whatsoever that there must have been a sentient intelligent being who created anything. A more accurate comparison would be to "the thing which caused the everything to come into existence" - saying that this thing must be sentient, intelligent and so on is mere speculation.

First, it is important to realize that there is no evidence that a god did not create the universe. Second, I beg you, again, not to tie my belief in the creator(s) with those that would give him sentient or intelligent attributes. You get closer to understanding my position by referring to it as, "the thing which caused the everything to come into existence." Of course, my belief in the nature of the creator(s) differs from this, as your description leaves room for natural phenomena, whereas I believe the phenomena that created the universe had to be supernatural.

How would we disprove the existence of God? - bearing in mind that whenever scientists might discover and prove the origin of the universe in complete detail, theists would say that God was the one who made this happen...

Many of the attributes given to God have been disproven. Indeed, the existence of many gods has been disproven, logically and empirically. Many once thought that rain was caused by gods, but now we understand, generally, how rain occurs. Thus far, virtually all of that which has traditionally been attributed to gods has been better explained by natural phenomena, except one - the creation of the universe. When the natural formation of the universe can be proven, then that would effectively disprove general models of the creator(s) (except, perhaps, in regards to the afterlife). Of course, it often takes a while, sometimes a long while, for new understanding to propagate amongst the masses.

I'm not saying for certain we could never prove or disprove it, but all the while we can't even conceive of how to disprove it, I view it as an unfalsifiable hypothesis, so there is no way to investigate it, and I am certainly not going to believe it to be true.

Much of this statement is the basic agnostic viewpoint. At the present time, it is impossible to know whether or not the creator(s) exist. As to you believing in the existence of the creator(s), I must question what it is that you believe formed the universe. Thus far, in this thread, I have been relegated to defending my perfectly logical belief without anyone, other than, perhaps, innonimatu, offering a different explanation for the formation of the universe. What natural phenomena explains this more logically than the existence of the creator(s)?

You're confusing "gives us information which is supported by evidence" and "explanations which are completely made up". I am

C'mon! You are the one that called models of god "useless" and said that they, "tell us nothing about how the universe works or came to be." I'm not confusing anything! I was responding to your words. If you truly meant to say that those models do not give us information which is supported by evidence, then why did you not say it? If you meant to say that these models are explanations that are completely made up, then why did you not say that?

Beyond that, I must insist, first, that models of god are supported by the evidence, as I have been trying to show. All of the evidence we have about our universe and its formation point to one thing, that it was created - that at some point in time there was a void, and that into that void an infinitely dense point representing the universe was added. This contradicts many basic laws of physics. This may not be positive evidence for the creator(s), but it is roughly equivalent to the logical argument by which we substantiate 74% of the universe (dark energy).

If someone asks how do computers work, and I say "It's run by magic pixies", whilst it is an "explanation" in some sense, it is not an _actual_ explanation. It seems absurd to say that my magic pixie explanation is more "logically reasonable" that an explanation which is based on evidence, but doesn't manage to answer everything.

But the prevailing models of the universe fail to even conjecture at what it is that formed the universe. There is no evidence to explain this occurrence! When it comes to the very formation of the universe science offers no explanation, no evidence and no answers. The theories you allude to explain on a very small fraction (4%) of the universe.

The same for God. Anyone can make up an explanation, but those of who are interested in how the universe actually works would prefer something based on evidence, rather than making up what we don't know.

Yeah, evidence would be great. I agree with you there. But you seem to consider me first a theist. This is wrong. I am an agnostic theist. Note that agnostic is first, and that tempers my theism. I say it is impossible, at the moment, to know if the creator(s) does or does not exist. After that, I say, that, nevertheless, I still believe in the creator(s).

Indeed, any conclusion, positive or negative, regarding the existence of the creator(s) could be characterized as "making up what we don't know."

Please tell me how it is that you know there was no creator(s). Also, please stay in line with your requirements, and do not make up anything you do not know.

I take it you are agnostic?

 

[WillJ]

@WillJ:
Just because you're disposed to believe that your mother is in front of you when you see her there, doesn't truly imply that you believe that your vision is trustworthy. You may, after all, be a small child who has the concept "mommy" but not the concepts "vision" and "trustworthy".

Unless sloppy wording got in the way, I didn't say that my disposition to believe my mother is standing in front of me when I see her means that I believe my vision is trustworthy; rather, my belief that my vision is trustworthy has led me to believe that my mother is standing in front of me when I see her there.

Now, maybe to solve the matter, in a pure philosophical debate, I would possibly define myself as an agnostic. But I separate, in my head at least, what is my position as a philosopher wannabe, and what is my position as a practical, functional, citizen of the world. When running my world errants, i don't concern myself with doubts of invisible walls, just because people yell "watch out, invisible wall ahead" to me. It's under the same pragmatism that I am confident to state that I am an atheist to most, if not all, important senses of the word.

And there's the crux of the matter, for most of this debate. One man's pedantry is another man's scholarship.

 

[pboily]

Although it does not refer to my stance on the issue, I'd like to add [wiki]Apatheism[/wiki] (a term brought to my attention by Eran in a previous thread) to the debate.