1. 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Agnostics: is there anything more to your agnosticism?

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by 9-10ths_Penguin, Dec 22, 2021.

  1. 9-10ths_Penguin

    9-10ths_Penguin 1/10 Subway Stalinist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    65,622
    Ratings:
    +24,054
    Religion:
    None (atheist)
    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?
     
  2. PureX

    PureX Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    22,294
    Ratings:
    +11,913
    Religion:
    Philosophical Taoist/Christian
    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.
     
  3. Israel Khan

    Israel Khan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2017
    Messages:
    4,105
    Ratings:
    +2,957
    Religion:
    Spiritual Exploration
    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.
     
  4. joe1776

    joe1776 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2017
    Messages:
    5,083
    Ratings:
    +2,027
    Religion:
    None

    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  5. Suave

    Suave Simulated character
    It's My Birthday!

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2020
    Messages:
    2,838
    Ratings:
    +1,942
    Religion:
    Christian Matrixism
    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?”

     
  6. Nakosis

    Nakosis Time Efficient Lollygagger
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2011
    Messages:
    21,653
    Ratings:
    +11,504
    Religion:
    Scientism
    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.
     
  7. Suave

    Suave Simulated character
    It's My Birthday!

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2020
    Messages:
    2,838
    Ratings:
    +1,942
    Religion:
    Christian Matrixism
    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 )
     
  8. Left Coast

    Left Coast Still Gay
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2019
    Messages:
    8,546
    Ratings:
    +14,136
    Religion:
    It's Complicated
    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.
     
  9. Nakosis

    Nakosis Time Efficient Lollygagger
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2011
    Messages:
    21,653
    Ratings:
    +11,504
    Religion:
    Scientism
    50/50 :)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Suave

    Suave Simulated character
    It's My Birthday!

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2020
    Messages:
    2,838
    Ratings:
    +1,942
    Religion:
    Christian Matrixism
    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))
     
  11. Suave

    Suave Simulated character
    It's My Birthday!

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2020
    Messages:
    2,838
    Ratings:
    +1,942
    Religion:
    Christian Matrixism
    • Informative Informative x 1
  12. Brickjectivity

    Brickjectivity Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2012
    Messages:
    36,086
    Ratings:
    +16,318
    Religion:
    liber-scripta grim Christian
    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.

    Sabine H. explains the concept of over-fitting of models in this short video about how to tell science from pseudo-science
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  13. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Shadow Wolf's Aspie sibling

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    13,393
    Ratings:
    +3,796
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    So you have solved this?
    Philosophy of science - Wikipedia
     
  14. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Shadow Wolf's Aspie sibling

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    13,393
    Ratings:
    +3,796
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    Well, I am strong global skeptic, so to me my agnosticism is secondary to being a skeptic.
     
  15. Suave

    Suave Simulated character
    It's My Birthday!

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2020
    Messages:
    2,838
    Ratings:
    +1,942
    Religion:
    Christian Matrixism
    String theory is testable, albeit not testable yet.

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

    Putting string theory to the test

     
    #15 Suave, Dec 22, 2021
    Last edited: Dec 22, 2021
  16. Left Coast

    Left Coast Still Gay
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2019
    Messages:
    8,546
    Ratings:
    +14,136
    Religion:
    It's Complicated
    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?
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  17. Left Coast

    Left Coast Still Gay
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2019
    Messages:
    8,546
    Ratings:
    +14,136
    Religion:
    It's Complicated
    I'll be honest, you lost me approximately here. :shrug:
     
  18. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Shadow Wolf's Aspie sibling

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    13,393
    Ratings:
    +3,796
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    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.
     
  19. Kooky

    Kooky Freedom from Sanity

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2020
    Messages:
    6,899
    Ratings:
    +4,055
    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.
     
  20. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    23,136
    Ratings:
    +12,056
    Religion:
    None
    We get reports.
    But
    Theres no consistency
     
    • Like Like x 1
Loading...