That's Agnosticism, not Atheism.
It's "agnostic atheism".
(A)gnosticism and (a)theism are different answers to different questions. One pertains to knowledge, to other to belief, concerning theistic claims specifically
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
That's Agnosticism, not Atheism.
Right, you feel that God does not exist but the truth is you don't have any evidence that support this.
First you claim that there's no evidence then you say it's delusion. Which is it?
And what happens when that innate moral sense gets mangled beyond all recognition?
Which makes evident the fundamental necessity all individuals have to be instructed in what is objectively good and precisely what is not.
Otherwise it's all really just narcissism.
No, we just reject your claim, that is all.
If your beliefs are truly factual then you should be able to prove them. Go for it. I'll wait.
BTW, you might want to inform @Bob the Unbeliever about not assuming answers.
Correct. There's also logic and theoretical physics. Why do you think Hawking didn't accept his own theory about Multiverses?
Do you think Earth is the only planet in the Universe with life on it? Why? Why not?
Awesome. So, unlike @Bob the Unbeliever, do you believe it's both logical and sensible to discuss the existence of something outside the Natural Universe? Yes or no, please.
This is the crux of the conversation.
Just because you said that, I propose we call it "Audie's Law".
;-)
If you truly believe so, you should ignore me and move on to someone you respect.
In context of a the physics behind the multi-verse, yes.
Let's explain.
Are you aware that the multiverse, by itself, is not actually a hypothesis?
The multiverse is rather a prediction of several other theories / hypothesis.
Certain interpretations of quantum mechanics predict a multiverse.
String theory predicts a multiverse, to an extent.
Inflation theory predicts a multiverse.
So, in the words of Lawrence Krauss: yes, essentially the multiverse is metaphysics, because you can't test it. We can't reach "outside" the universe to see what is going on there. But unlike religious beliefs of "god realms outside the universe", the multiverse idea is actually well motivated... as it is predicted (ie: a natural consequence, predicted by the math) by the models used to explain the observable universe or aspects thereof.
It's well motivated, not because actively came up with it to "explain away" unknowns. It's well motivate, because it naturally flows / is predicted by other models that DO deal with reality directly.
But I don't think you're prepared to be honest about it.
I don't think you'll be able to acknowledge the difference in motivational foundation for the multiverse on the one hand and a "god realm" on the other.
His avatar is that of Yoda, not of a beltCome on, obi, you are unaware that it was as I said, senseless and inappropriate? Surely you are joking.
His avatar is that of Yoda, not of a belt
Oh. I thought all those big ear star barf things were obis.
Would I be correct to say that, to borrow a phrase
from one of our dedicated fundies,
mathematics "leans toward" the multiverse?
No worries....I don't know what you are talking about. ....
So.... no comments on the actual points being made in that post (or the others)?No worries.
Agreed. I think it's anti-science to avoid discussing the research. Obviously there's no hard evidence yet, but further research into Quantum physics might yield results just like the decades of searching for Higgs boson did.In context of a the physics behind the multi-verse, yes.
Let's explain.
Are you aware that the multiverse, by itself, is not actually a hypothesis?
The multiverse is rather a prediction of several other theories / hypothesis.
Certain interpretations of quantum mechanics predict a multiverse.
String theory predicts a multiverse, to an extent.
Inflation theory predicts a multiverse.
So, in the words of Lawrence Krauss: yes, essentially the multiverse is metaphysics, because you can't test it. We can't reach "outside" the universe to see what is going on there. But unlike religious beliefs of "god realms outside the universe", the multiverse idea is actually well motivated... as it is predicted (ie: a natural consequence, predicted by the math) by the models used to explain the observable universe or aspects thereof.
It's well motivated, not because actively came up with it to "explain away" unknowns. It's well motivate, because it naturally flows / is predicted by other models that DO deal with reality directly.
But I don't think you're prepared to be honest about it.
I don't think you'll be able to acknowledge the difference in motivational foundation for the multiverse on the one hand and a "god realm" on the other.
Agreed. I think it's anti-science to avoid discussing the research. Obviously there's no hard evidence yet, but further research into Quantum physics might yield results just like the decades of searching for Higgs boson did.