djf

This question is for any agnostics on this forum. As far as I can tell, most agnostics believe, in addition to not knowing whether god exists that its impossible to prove that one exists. What then is the difference in believing its impossible to prove that one exists and believing one doesn't exist? If one can't prove a god exists then how can anyone keeping with the definition of existance leave room for the possibility of one's existance? Do you believe that something can exist that doesn't have a proof? Isn't this going against the definition of something existing?

Also this question may not apply to those agnostics who believe its possible to prove a god exists.

Malcolm_MacDohmnall

I for one have a hard time believing in something existing or not existing when it is not accurately defined. I feel it impossible to outright reject the concept of any God until I have heard all definitions. Some are possibly testable predictions. Tell me what is the God you speak of and I will then accurately(to the best of my ability) assess whether I "believe" your definition is to be true or false beyond reasonable doubt.

You could ask me if I believe in dark matter. There appears to be an effect yet we have no identifiable cause. We assume it does exist to complete our picture of the Universe. Much like the initial reasons for religious beliefs. Explaining that which we cannot explain as we assume a cause to the effect.

Further investigation may reveal the "GREAT ATTRACTOR".

I believe this to be the duality of existence. The big attractor is us(existence) being pulling outward in an expanding Universe into Nothing and emerging as yet another Big Band. We are creating a Universal wavefront. "All" that exists resonates as a whole construct creating a singular wavefront containing everything that exists. Big bang. Big Bang. Big Bang. This also explains what black holes are. They are pockets of nothing. Ripped out of non-existence as we dissipate. It's the wave formation nature of the Universe as we become a vibration that manifests existence. We are part of the harmonic resonation of this wavefront. Like holography every piece still represents the whole. This explains the non-locality of Quantum entanglement.

The question I would ask at that point(with my limited knowledge of quantum mechanics) is if consciousness was a Quantum mechanical function. Is "All" a complete "field of consciousness"?

I'll stay Agnostic as I don't know whether this is a true or false scenario? What possibility do I assign to this event?

No more or less than any current "GRAND UNIFICATION" theory.

So I tell myself:

I don't know everything.

[ August 14, 2002: Message edited by: Malcolm_MacDohmnall ]</p>

Ryanfire

I stay an agnostic due to the overwhelming evidence that the human made gods of the past and present, do not exist. However, I believe there may be a creator, it just won't ever show itself. Why would it?

Anything can exist that does not have a proof. That does not mean there can be no proof of it either. Present a logical and coherent definition of god, and I will examine its possibility to exist.

In my *opinion*, all theists are agnostics. They all define their own god in some manner, or listen to somebody elses version of god.

For an incomprehensible god, people sure do a good job of describing it with human traits. I find that the most amusing among theists.

Perchance

I stay an agnostic because atheism and theism both have a certainty that I can't commit to. Not all the possibilities for a god (especially the Deist god) have been discovered and conclusively embraced or rejected. I can say that I find it unlikely that a god exists, that I have never seen the evidence for one, that I find myself more convinced by atheist arguments, and that I tread a lot closer to atheism than theism, but at the same time I may be following what I want to believe is true rather than what is. I tend to jump to conclusions, and so within the past few years I've dragged and attacked every certainty I can find in my own brain to make sure that it really can stand up to scrutiny. Were I somehow to arrive at a conclusion one way or the other, I would distrust it intensely. Even were I to encounter an argument that could convince me and answer all my objections, I probably wouldn't believe it because of that distrust in myself.

My answer to "Does God exist?" is: "I don't know," in the simplest form, and "I don't know, but I've never seen any evidence for it, and I live my life as if it doesn't matter anyway" in the longer.

-Perchance.

beausoleil

I'm an agnostic, perhaps, because I'm deeply unconvinced by any accounts I've seen put forward by organised religions. On the other hand, I have experiences I would describe as mystical. On the third hand, I have no idea whether these have a 'natural' (e.g. brain chemistry) explanation or are manifestations of something outside the natural. I decided some time ago that I don't care since they are generally beneficial to my state of mind.

Perhaps indifferent would be better than agnostic.

Radcliffe Emerson

I agree with Ryanfire's reply.

The AntiChris

Ryanfire & Radcliffe Emerson

Why?

Do you believe there may be a Santa? If not, why not?

Chris

Keith Russell

Space, time, and gravity are generated by mass, a property of matter and energy. (Matter is actually a form of energy.)

And, energy cannot be created or destroyed.

There is thus no need to posit a 'Creator/God'.

I see no reason even to think that there may be a God, to even consider that God may be possible.

Keith.

tronvillain

Keith Russell:
Well, observation has certainly lent quite a bit of support to the hypothesis "energy can neither be created nor destroyed", but it could potentially be wrong. It is not as if it is a logical truth or anything - there is nothing logically contradictory about energy being created or destroyed.

bd-from-kg

djf:

You ask:

This is a more general case of the question “What is the difference in believing it’s impossible to prove that X exists and believing X doesn't exist?” The answer is simple: there’s a huge difference.

As Hume showed long ago, it’s impossible to prove that any material object exists, or indeed that the physical world exists. Yet I believe in the existence of a great number of physical objects – for example, my hands.

But let’s assume for now that the physical world exists. Even with this assumption, it is impossible to prove that a great number of things exist: Gravity, quarks, etc. Yet I believe that many such things exist.

Moreover, we can broaden the question a bit to ask: “What is the difference in believing it’s impossible to prove that X ever existed and believing that X never existed?” The answer again is that there’s a huge difference. I believe that all sorts of things have existed: the Roman Empire, dinosaurs, etc., yet I can’t prove that any of them did. Moreover, I think it certain that a great many things have existed for which there is no evidence whatsoever that they ever did. For example, a piece of paper (long since destroyed) that some obscure accountant used in Prague in 1213.

I have no idea why you think these things are incompatible. Let’s try this. If they are incompatible, there must be a logical argument of this form:

P1: I can’t prove that a god exists.
P2: ___
P3: ___
.
.
C1: ___
C2: ___
.
.
Cn: There is no possibility that God exists.

Could you give us some hints as to what this argument looks like? Perhaps you could at least supply one or two of the missing premises?