Eukaryote
Deity
I wish to explain to our community of skeptics, why I call myself agnostic rather than atheist. On Richard Dawkins scale of 1-7, with 1 being total conviction that a god exists and 7 being a total conviction that it doesn’t, I consider myself a four. However I use a very specific definition of the word “god.”
I define the word “god” as a “conscious or sentient first cause.” If you are not familiar with the concept of first cause, allow me to explain. First cause is the notion that there must have been an event/entity that caused the multiverse/cosmos to exist, and thus caused there to be “something rather than nothing.” This first cause would not be caused by anything else, and would thus violate the rules of casualty.
Let’s give an example. You’ve probably heard a theist ask “if there is no God than what created the cosmos?” In response you may have replied “if there is a God than what created him?” Perhaps a lunatic randomly joined the conversation and argued that God was created by a roll of magic toilet paper, at which point you could ask him who created the magic toilet paper. This discussion could go on and on forever. A disinterested observer would learn from the conversation that there must have been a first event or entity that caused everything else that happened thereafter. This first cause, whatever it is, is impossible. In fact the first cause is not only impossible but completely absurd. The notion of any event/entity existing for literally no reason makes no sense. And yet the universe exists, therefore we must conclude that a first cause did happen.
All events/entities in the cosmos can be divided into two broad categories, the conscious and the non-conscious. Due to the fact that all first causes are absolutely impossible, we can regard conscious and not conscious as equally likely and equally unlikely. Therefore, with the knowledge that a first cause did happen, I assign the probability that the first cause was/is conscious rather than non-conscious to be 50%. Therefore, by my definition of god, I estimate that there is a 50% chance that there is/was a god.
Note that if this god exists/existed, it is not necessarily immortal, omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent. However given the fact that that this god would be impossible anyway, it wouldn’t be particularly unbelievable if it were any of these things.
Edit: Many people say that under official language definitions, one can call themselves an agnostic-theist or an agnostic-atheist but not agnostic-period. If I must follow this rule, I will call myself an agnostic atheist. However I usually prefer not to follow this rule as I feel that simply calling myself agnostic is less misleading.
Also, I think that any cosmos that has existed for eternity to fit my working definition of a "first cause." Therefore I consider my working definition of first cause to be exhaustive of all possible alternatives.
I define the word “god” as a “conscious or sentient first cause.” If you are not familiar with the concept of first cause, allow me to explain. First cause is the notion that there must have been an event/entity that caused the multiverse/cosmos to exist, and thus caused there to be “something rather than nothing.” This first cause would not be caused by anything else, and would thus violate the rules of casualty.
Let’s give an example. You’ve probably heard a theist ask “if there is no God than what created the cosmos?” In response you may have replied “if there is a God than what created him?” Perhaps a lunatic randomly joined the conversation and argued that God was created by a roll of magic toilet paper, at which point you could ask him who created the magic toilet paper. This discussion could go on and on forever. A disinterested observer would learn from the conversation that there must have been a first event or entity that caused everything else that happened thereafter. This first cause, whatever it is, is impossible. In fact the first cause is not only impossible but completely absurd. The notion of any event/entity existing for literally no reason makes no sense. And yet the universe exists, therefore we must conclude that a first cause did happen.
All events/entities in the cosmos can be divided into two broad categories, the conscious and the non-conscious. Due to the fact that all first causes are absolutely impossible, we can regard conscious and not conscious as equally likely and equally unlikely. Therefore, with the knowledge that a first cause did happen, I assign the probability that the first cause was/is conscious rather than non-conscious to be 50%. Therefore, by my definition of god, I estimate that there is a 50% chance that there is/was a god.
Note that if this god exists/existed, it is not necessarily immortal, omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent. However given the fact that that this god would be impossible anyway, it wouldn’t be particularly unbelievable if it were any of these things.
Edit: Many people say that under official language definitions, one can call themselves an agnostic-theist or an agnostic-atheist but not agnostic-period. If I must follow this rule, I will call myself an agnostic atheist. However I usually prefer not to follow this rule as I feel that simply calling myself agnostic is less misleading.
Also, I think that any cosmos that has existed for eternity to fit my working definition of a "first cause." Therefore I consider my working definition of first cause to be exhaustive of all possible alternatives.
