Agnostics: is there anything more to your agnosticism?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A question for those who identify as agnostics.

When I hear people talk about why they consider themselves agnostics, I generally hear points raised like:

- the problem of hard solipsism (i.e. the "Brain in a Vat" problem)
- flaws in human perception and reasoning
- the limitations of inductive reasoning

... but all of these issues apply to human knowledge generally. They don't apply more to God than they do to any other claims.

So agnostics: is there anything more to your agnosticism?

Put another way: do you have a special level of uncertainty about god-claims that goes over and above the level of uncertainty you have about knowledge claims in general?

 

[PureX]

A question for those who identify as agnostics.

When I hear people talk about why they consider themselves agnostics, I generally hear points raised like:

- the problem of hard solipsism (i.e. the "Brain in a Vat" problem)
- flaws in human perception and reasoning
- the limitations of inductive reasoning

... but all of these issues apply to human knowledge generally. They don't apply more to God than they do to any other claims.

So agnostics: is there anything more to your agnosticism?

Put another way: do you have a special level of uncertainty about god-claims that goes over and above the level of uncertainty you have about knowledge claims in general?

Not all unknowing/uncertainty are equal. For example; I can know that gravity exists as a universal experience even if I can't yet know exactly how it happens. But I can't even know that 'God' exists. Nor in what way God exists. Or how this could be so. So the depth of my agnosticism regarding the idea of God is more profound than probably any other proposed ideal.

Also, there are a great many things that I am agnostic about that I also don't need or care to know about. But the 'God' idea is not one of them. Because within the God idea lays the mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is, including myself. And to know about these; the how, the why, and so on, would be of great importance.

 

[Samael_Khan]

A question for those who identify as agnostics.

When I hear people talk about why they consider themselves agnostics, I generally hear points raised like:

- the problem of hard solipsism (i.e. the "Brain in a Vat" problem)
- flaws in human perception and reasoning
- the limitations of inductive reasoning

... but all of these issues apply to human knowledge generally. They don't apply more to God than they do to any other claims.

So agnostics: is there anything more to your agnosticism?

Put another way: do you have a special level of uncertainty about god-claims that goes over and above the level of uncertainty you have about knowledge claims in general?

I lead more towards the agnostic theist side than agnostic atheist.

I am very uncertain that god/s did not make the world as it/they intended or the purpose behind making it. I think that peoples concepts of god/s are too limited especially when it comes to intent behind creating the universe.

I have no idea whether I answered your OP sufficiently or appropriately at all.

 

[joe1776]

A question for those who identify as agnostics.

When I hear people talk about why they consider themselves agnostics, I generally hear points raised like:

- the problem of hard solipsism (i.e. the "Brain in a Vat" problem)
- flaws in human perception and reasoning
- the limitations of inductive reasoning

... but all of these issues apply to human knowledge generally. They don't apply more to God than they do to any other claims.

So agnostics: is there anything more to your agnosticism?

Put another way: do you have a special level of uncertainty about god-claims that goes over and above the level of un

The agnostic label is as close as I can come to my position.

I once felt a presence within me, who knew everything about me, and loved me unconditionally. Since this presence didn't identify itself, I can't say that it was the Creator but logically I allow the possibility.

For you, my claim is anecdotal evidence that you will disregard. For me, it was extraordinary evidence that I can't dismiss.

As for the god versions created by religion, I'm an atheist.

 

[Suave]

A question for those who identify as agnostics.

When I hear people talk about why they consider themselves agnostics, I generally hear points raised like:

- the problem of hard solipsism (i.e. the "Brain in a Vat" problem)
- flaws in human perception and reasoning
- the limitations of inductive reasoning

... but all of these issues apply to human knowledge generally. They don't apply more to God than they do to any other claims.

So agnostics: is there anything more to your agnosticism?

Put another way: do you have a special level of uncertainty about god-claims that goes over and above the level of uncertainty you have about knowledge claims in general?

Computer code in string theory should perhaps persuade many agnostics there is indeed an indicator of our simulated universe, of which might very well be controlled by a simulator ( a.k.a. - God )

Please note the discovery of error correcting codes within the equations of symmetry is a rigorously proven theorem.

Reference: https://www.quora.com/Is-theoretica...mmunity-and-has-it-been-corroborated-by-other

Is theoretical physicist James Gates’ intriguing discovery of error-correcting codes within the equations of supersymmetry accepted within the theoretical physicist community, and has it been corroborated by other physicists?

Tristan Hubsch
, PhD Physics, University of Maryland, College Park (1987)
Answered 3 years ago · Author has 1.4K answers and 1M answer views

A.: The discovery is a rigorously proven theorem.

To be precise, the (error-detecting and error-correcting binary doubly-even linear block) codes were discovered/identified within the classification of worldline off-shell supermultiplets without central charge [On Graph-Theoretic Identifications of Adinkras, Supersymmetry Representations and Superfields, by C.F. Doran, M.G. Faux, S.J. Gates, Jr., T. Hübsch, K.M. Iga and G.D. Landweber: Int. J. Mod. Phys. A22 (2007) 869-930, arXiv:math-ph/0512016]. It was then proven that these (minimal) supermultiplets in turn encode the continuum of all possible worldline supermultiplets [On General Off-Shell Representations of Worldline (1D) Supersymmetry, by C.F. Doran, T. Hübsch, K.M. Iga and G.D. Landweber: Symmetry 6 no. 1, (2014) 67–88, arXiv:1310.3258]. See also my answer to “James Gates claims that he found code in string theory. Does that imply that we live in a simulation?”

 

[Nakosis]

A question for those who identify as agnostics.

When I hear people talk about why they consider themselves agnostics, I generally hear points raised like:

- the problem of hard solipsism (i.e. the "Brain in a Vat" problem)
- flaws in human perception and reasoning
- the limitations of inductive reasoning

... but all of these issues apply to human knowledge generally. They don't apply more to God than they do to any other claims.

So agnostics: is there anything more to your agnosticism?

Put another way: do you have a special level of uncertainty about god-claims that goes over and above the level of uncertainty you have about knowledge claims in general?

I suppose.
To me certainty is a percentage, somewhere between 0% and 100%. Nothing ever gets to 0 nor 100%
So claims without physical evidence are much closer to 0% certainty on this scale.

 

[Suave]

I suppose.
To me certainty is a percentage, somewhere between 0% and 100%. Nothing ever gets to 0 nor 100%
So claims without physical evidence are much closer to 0% certainty on this scale.

I'm curious to know, where does the physical evidence I've presented of our simulated universe move you as a percentage of belief and non-belief in a Simulator ( a.k.a.- God )

 

[Left Coast]

A question for those who identify as agnostics.

When I hear people talk about why they consider themselves agnostics, I generally hear points raised like:

- the problem of hard solipsism (i.e. the "Brain in a Vat" problem)
- flaws in human perception and reasoning
- the limitations of inductive reasoning

... but all of these issues apply to human knowledge generally. They don't apply more to God than they do to any other claims.

So agnostics: is there anything more to your agnosticism?

Put another way: do you have a special level of uncertainty about god-claims that goes over and above the level of uncertainty you have about knowledge claims in general?

The main difference between a lot of God claims and just claims about other things in general is that they are totally unverifiable. Most theists view God as an immaterial being of some sort beyond spacetime. I have no clue how we'd ever obtain any knowledge of such a being, since our perceptions are limited to our physical senses here in this universe.

 

[Nakosis]

I'm curious to know, where does the physical evidence I've presented of our simulated universe move you as a percentage of belief and non-belief in a Simulator ( a.k.a.- God )

50/50

 

[Suave]

The main difference between a lot of God claims and just claims about other things in general is that they are totally unverifiable. Most theists view God as an immaterial being of some sort beyond spacetime. I have no clue how we'd ever obtain any knowledge of such a being, since our perceptions are limited to our physical senses here in this universe.

Our simulated universe, of which very well might be controlled by a simulator ( a.k.a. God ) may be a testable and verifiable hypothesis.

Some physicists have proposed a method for testing if we are in a numerical simulated cubic space-time lattice Matrix or simulated universe with an underlying grid.
[1210.1847] Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation

Based on the assumption that there'd be finite computational resources, a simulated universe would be performed by dividing up the space-time continuum into individually separate and distinctive points. Analogous to mini-simulations that lattice-gauge theorists conduct to construct nuclei based on Quantum Chromodynamics, observable effects of a grid-like space-time have been studied from these computer simulations which use a 3-D grid to model how elementary particles move and collide with each other. Anomalies found in these simulations suggest that if we are in a simulation universe with an underlying grid, then there'd be various amounts of high energy cosmic rays coming at us from each direction; but if space is continuous, then there'd be high energy cosmic rays coming at us equally from every direction.
In a simulated universe, we'd expect to observe cosmic rays travelling predominately along the axes of the lattice of our simulated universe/Matrix in contrast to being observed emanating equally in all directions of unconstrained space; this implies the existence of a simulator ( a.k.a. -God)

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology
Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation
Silas R. Beane, Zohreh Davoudi, Martin J. Savage
(Submitted on 4 Oct 2012 (v1), last revised 9 Nov 2012 (this version, v2))

 

[Suave]

50/50

That'd be about right where Nick Bostrom and I've estimated the odds of us living in a simulation. ...

Do We Live in a Simulation? Chances Are about 50–50

 

[Brickjectivity]

Computer code in string theory should perhaps persuade many agnostics there is indeed an indicator of our simulated universe, of which might very well be controlled by a simulator ( a.k.a. - God )

Please note the discovery of error correcting codes within the equations of symmetry is a rigorously proven theorem.

Reference: https://www.quora.com/Is-theoretica...mmunity-and-has-it-been-corroborated-by-other

Is theoretical physicist James Gates’ intriguing discovery of error-correcting codes within the equations of supersymmetry accepted within the theoretical physicist community, and has it been corroborated by other physicists?

Tristan Hubsch
, PhD Physics, University of Maryland, College Park (1987)
Answered 3 years ago · Author has 1.4K answers and 1M answer views

A.: The discovery is a rigorously proven theorem.

To be precise, the (error-detecting and error-correcting binary doubly-even linear block) codes were discovered/identified within the classification of worldline off-shell supermultiplets without central charge [On Graph-Theoretic Identifications of Adinkras, Supersymmetry Representations and Superfields, by C.F. Doran, M.G. Faux, S.J. Gates, Jr., T. Hübsch, K.M. Iga and G.D. Landweber: Int. J. Mod. Phys. A22 (2007) 869-930, arXiv:math-ph/0512016]. It was then proven that these (minimal) supermultiplets in turn encode the continuum of all possible worldline supermultiplets [On General Off-Shell Representations of Worldline (1D) Supersymmetry, by C.F. Doran, T. Hübsch, K.M. Iga and G.D. Landweber: Symmetry 6 no. 1, (2014) 67–88, arXiv:1310.3258]. See also my answer to “James Gates claims that he found code in string theory. Does that imply that we live in a simulation?”

In the video the man 'Discovering' error correcting codes admits that all of his ideas depend upon the (untested) theory of Super Symmetry. I watched a vid by Sabine H. which says that super-symmetry is a beautiful idea, but it is based upon the assumption that Physics will always be beautiful. It is something Physicists would like to be true but is not actually scientifically proposed. There is not a bit of evidence giving rise to this as a hypothesis. Its just that many Physicists feel that the current theory is too ugly.

Here are some videos about it. Basically I think it is by no means evident or 'Scientific' to, at this time, claim victory about Super Symmetry or about simulation theories of the universe. Convince Sabine H. and I'll take a closer look at the information.

Spoiler: Long 1 hour video about beauty misleading physics

Spoiler: Sabine H. opposes building a larger collider right now 11 min

Spoiler: Particle Discoveries Conveniently Forgotten by Media

Sabine H. explains the concept of over-fitting of models in this short video about how to tell science from pseudo-science

Spoiler: Telling Science from Pseudoscience -- overfitting

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The main difference between a lot of God claims and just claims about other things in general is that they are totally unverifiable. Most theists view God as an immaterial being of some sort beyond spacetime. I have no clue how we'd ever obtain any knowledge of such a being, since our perceptions are limited to our physical senses here in this universe.

So you have solved this?
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

A question for those who identify as agnostics.

When I hear people talk about why they consider themselves agnostics, I generally hear points raised like:

- the problem of hard solipsism (i.e. the "Brain in a Vat" problem)
- flaws in human perception and reasoning
- the limitations of inductive reasoning

... but all of these issues apply to human knowledge generally. They don't apply more to God than they do to any other claims.

So agnostics: is there anything more to your agnosticism?

Put another way: do you have a special level of uncertainty about god-claims that goes over and above the level of uncertainty you have about knowledge claims in general?

Well, I am strong global skeptic, so to me my agnosticism is secondary to being a skeptic.

 

[Suave]

In the video the man 'Discovering' error correcting codes admits that all of his ideas depend upon the (untested) theory of Super Symmetry. I watched a vid by Sabine H. which says that super-symmetry is a beautiful idea, but it is based upon the assumption that Physics will always be beautiful. It is something Physicists would like to be true but is not actually scientifically proposed. There is not a bit of evidence giving rise to this as a hypothesis. Its just that many Physicists feel that the current theory is too ugly.

Here are some videos about it. Basically I think it is by no means evident or 'Scientific' to, at this time, claim victory about Super Symmetry or about simulation theories of the universe. Convince Sabine H. and I'll take a closer look at the information.

Spoiler: Long 1 hour video about beauty misleading physics

Spoiler: Sabine H. opposes building a larger collider right now 11 min

Spoiler: Particle Discoveries Conveniently Forgotten by Media

Sabine H. explains the concept of over-fitting of models in this short video about how to tell science from pseudo-science

Spoiler: Telling Science from Pseudoscience -- overfitting

String theory is testable, albeit not testable yet.

How Can We Find Evidence, Test, or Prove String Theory?

Putting string theory to the test

 

[Left Coast]

So you have solved this?
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

I realize this is your favorite equestrian corpse to pummel, but at least try to respond to what I actually say instead of just instinctively regurgitating the same retort over and over again. Okay?

 

[Left Coast]

Our simulated universe, of which very well might be controlled by a simulator ( a.k.a. God ) may be a testable and verifiable hypothesis.

Some physicists have proposed a method for testing if we are in a numerical simulated cubic space-time lattice Matrix...

I'll be honest, you lost me approximately here.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I realize this is your favorite equestrian corpse to pummel, but at least try to respond to what I actually say instead of just instinctively regurgitating the same retort over and over again. Okay?

No, sorry. If you believe in naturalism, say so. If you know that the universe is natural, then explain that.
You have made positive claims, so you have the burden of proof.

I don't accept a double standard in a thread that involve skepticism to the point of different variations of acceptance of "I don't know".
In some other threads, yes. But not one like this.

So for "I have no clue how we'd ever obtain any knowledge of such a being, since our perceptions are limited to our physical senses here in this universe.", how do you know that we are in this universe?
For the everyday world I accept it as this universe, and will do so. But again, not in a thread like this.

 

[Kooky]

... but all of these issues apply to human knowledge generally. They don't apply more to God than they do to any other claims.

Yes, that's correct.

To answer your question - not particularly, no. The only thing that makes claims about divine nature stand out is that they are that much harder to prove than claims about the perceptible, empirical world.

 

[Audie]

The main difference between a lot of God claims and just claims about other things in general is that they are totally unverifiable. Most theists view God as an immaterial being of some sort beyond spacetime. I have no clue how we'd ever obtain any knowledge of such a being, since our perceptions are limited to our physical senses here in this universe.

We get reports.
But
Theres no consistency