Agnostics are the only ones who aren't fools
- Thread starter Norsefire
- Start date
It depends on how you look at the universe. If you look at it as an occurence, then it leans toward natural causation. If you look at it as an object, a computer, something like that, I'd say it leans more toward intelligent design.
Besides, if an intelligent entity were creating a universe, these natural processes may have been "coded in". This is possible. Not literally like a computer, I mean, if you're going to create a computer or machine, you probably could and should create software to help it maintain and operate. Nature could be like software.
But what reason would you have to view it as an object? If anything, our perspective of the universe points to natural occurrence, and therefore natural causation. I see it as a big leap to assume that this natural universe would require intelligent creation.
Well, since we're philosophizing, I can bring M-Theory into the equation, yes? That particular theory points to the fabric of the universe being quite random, which is not in accordance with computers or software.
What reason would you have to view it as occurence? Or at least, to view the beginning as just an occurence. The beginning goes either way: equal weight.
Quantum physics shows that everything can be predictable.
But we're making a mistake in discussing this: we're discussing the "here and now". It doesn't matter how the universe behaves now. What matters is, how did it get to behave like this? The forces, the atoms, the whatever, have two real questions that must be answered:
1) How did they originate
2) Why do they operate as they do/what ensures they operate as they do
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Don't hold your breath..
Right now, this is a purely philosophical question, so my position stands: The natural occurrences within the universe imply natural causation. There is no reason to believe the trigger is less natural than than the result.
I thought quantum physics showed that nothing was predictable. Wasn't that Einstein's whole problem with it? "God does not play dice"?
But that view isn't broad enough. As I said it depends on how you view it. Nature can be explained as being the creation by some intelligent entity in order to maintain the functions of the universe.
There is no less reason to believe it was natural than intelligent. My point is, both theories should hold equal ground until more definitive proof can be found.
As far as I know, it showed that on a quantum level nothing is predictable. But, on a larger scale things become far more predictable. If you know the temperature, wind speed, velocities from when you throw, different velocities or inconsistencies throughout, material of where you throw, air pressure, the angle from which you threw, position, etc etc etc etc..........you CAN predict, accurately, every time you throw a dice how it will land.
Also, quantum physics give a probability to nearly everthing. For instance, I read that there is a chance (very low, like 1 in trillions maybe or more I'm not sure), that there is a chance according to quantum physics that when you cross the street, you will disintegrate, materialize on mars, and then disintegrate again and materialize on the other side of the street over a period of millions of years.
We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this.
Right, but that does not change the unpredictable nature of the fabric of the universe. Which means that the large scale things that are predictable are only there by chance. If it were slightly different, then everything else is radically different by extension. I'm not sure I can articulate this properly...I guess the point I'm making is that you can't look at the innards of a computer and say "Wow...this is unpredictable". But you can look at the "innards" of the universe and say "Wow...this is unpredictable".
I saw that, too. Now, again, since the field is still scientific philosophy, there is no real way of knowing that materializing on Mars suddenly is possible. We don't know that things work that way.
If you are an atheist you are denying a concept of God, just as you are denying PMM because you have a concept by which you define A "no" is not a "I don't know". Its crystal clear to me. If someone says to me "I don't know" I do not consider it a refusal.
When you say "I don't know" (agnostic) do you actually mean "no" (atheist)?
See? You need a context to decide. So in this context, do you deny that God is unknowable? Or not? Or do you just not have an opinion on an unknowable God?
Amazing, SAM, I think we actually agree on something. "You need a context to decide."
Once again, i am not "denying the concept" of a God, I am denying that I can form an opinion on anything that is unknowable by definition. Hence, agnostic, or "ignostic" if you prefer, in this context.
However, I am not clear which context you are referring to in your question. If we're talking about your earlier postulate that God equals "the sum of all the energy in the universe", then yes God is knowable in this case. In fact, God equals zero! (see note) I acknowledge the concept of zero, but I hardly see how defining God as zero is useful.
Now I'm not quite sure how to categorize someone who conceives of a God that equals zero. Theist? Atheist? Nihilist, perhaps? Or some new "ist"? I wil leave it to you to assign a label to this, for it is very confusing to me...
Note:
As famed cosmologist Stephen Hawking said in his 1988 best seller, A Brief History of Time, "In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that the negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero."
It's this simple;
"Do you believe in God?"
A, Yes
B, No
C, Don't know
People who answer A, Yes are theists. People who answer B, or C, an not theists. The way we express that semantically, is 'atheist' which means 'not a theist. Agnostics would answer C, 'Don't know' and that means they are not included in the set of people called theists. That makes them 'atheists', ie, the people not included in the 'theist' set.
Can I explain it any simpler for you?
Yes, SAM, tell us how to explain this in simpler terms... Please?
Actualy Im kind of agnostic (but I dont know for sure im skeptical of that too) and im huge fool, so there.
peace.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
So with you it's yes until no ?
No, I can distinguish between absence of evidence and evidence of absence, for the latter there is no ambiguity [no, I do not believe you]; for the former, there are assumptions that can be made. If there is only yes and no, it means you know everything there is to know.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Is there a difference in how you act towards something that is a 'cannot know' and between something that is a 'no' ?
For the record, I consider there to be evidence of absence, albeit circumstantial.
Of course, if I do not believe in something at all, I do not consider that there are any alternate theories or hypotheses underlying it.
e.g. I do not believe in perpetual motion machines vs I do not know if enough knowledge or tools as yet to decide if pmm are possible.
Which approach will look at any future possibilities?