Agnostics: is there anything more to your agnosticism?

[Left Coast]

No, sorry. If you believe in naturalism, say so.

I don't, if I by that you mean philosophical naturalism.

If you know that the universe is natural, then explain that.
You have made positive claims, so you have the burden of proof.

Let's get to something I actually claimed instead of something you projected onto me, then we can talk about it.

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.

Really? So you are equally (un)confident about the credibility of every claim that's ever been made? There's no distinguishing one from another to you, they're all equally credible?

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.

What universe do you suppose we're in?

How would you propose that we obtain information about something that is timeless and spaceless?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

Well, no! If you can prove what objective reality is in itself, you would be the first human in recorded history to do so.

 

[Kooky]

You have made positive claims, so you have the burden of proof.

What truth claim do you base this on? Making the person with the positive claim cough up evidence isn't really anything more than a convention, so why stick to it here?

Also, you are fully aware that they will not be able to conclusively prove this claim beyond the shred of doubt and the assault of total skepticism, so your objection here is little more than a rhetorical flourish. We don't know anything, therefore we cannot conclusively prove claims, therefore no positive claims can be asserted.

I know this because I don't know, therefore I know, therefore I don't know, therefore I can't know, therefore you can't know, therefore nobody knows, therefore everybody knows, therefore nobody knows, ad infinitum.

 

[Kooky]

Well, no! If you can prove what objective reality is in itself, you would be the first human in recorded history to do so.

And we can't, because there is no objective standard that we could measure it up against, because objective standards do not exist, which I know and don't know, because there is no objective standard, which I don't know, which I know, therefore nothing and everything ad infinitum.

In conclusion, LOL.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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?

Nope, not for me.

My agnosticism towards classical depiction of god(s) is about identical as my agnosticism towards leprechauns, undetectable unicorns, undetectable dragons, etc.

I'm reminded of a funny once made by Bill Nye The Science Guy:

"People come up to me and ask if I believe in ghosts... well... no.... HOWEVER... I would LOVE to see/meet one.... so bring it on! Show me what you got! But until someone does... the answer is no."

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
Really? So you are equally (un)confident about the credibility of every claim that's ever been made? There's no distinguishing one from another to you, they're all equally credible?
...

If you by credible mean some version of evidence, truth, proof, rationality or something to that effect, then no. Nobody has ever found that. I believe we are in this universe, because it psychologically works for me. Confidence is psychological.
That is it. Like it works for me to be an atheist.
I am in a sense a pragmatist. My beliefs seem to work for me and that includes that I believe that we are in this universe.

And you do know that all forms of evidence and all other variants are as such cognitive. There is no evidence in objective reality, that is a norm or if you like a cognitive schemata.
Yes, I believe a part of the everyday world is objective, but that is not all of the everyday world.
And in the end, in debates like this we are in effect comparing different cognitive schemata including credibility.

So to end this. If you demand/claim a credibility, I can't replicate, I ask how you do it.
Or in general the non-religious side also most always in threads involving world views use the burden of proof. I just do it on the non-religious themselves.
That is all. I am just skeptical of all world views that claim knowledge in some form and not just the religious one.
If you want it in fancy words:
Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What truth claim do you base this on? Making the person with the positive claim cough up evidence isn't really anything more than a convention, so why stick to it here?

Also, you are fully aware that they will not be able to conclusively prove this claim beyond the shred of doubt and the assault of total skepticism, so your objection here is little more than a rhetorical flourish. We don't know anything, therefore we cannot conclusively prove claims, therefore no positive claims can be asserted.

I know this because I don't know, therefore I know, therefore I don't know, therefore I can't know, therefore you can't know, therefore nobody knows, therefore everybody knows, therefore nobody knows, ad infinitum.

Well, if we start with the belief that objective reality is in general epistemologically fair, then we can start. But if you claim you know that, then you are to me a different kind of believer than me. That doesn't mean that for the everyday world we can't use a form of knowledge as shorthand and debate other things.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We get reports.
But
Theres no consistency

Consistency is as an abstract concept just like God. So with the word "no". Stop using abstract words. I only accept actually real objective physical things as really real. Can you spot the error in the sentence before this one?

 

[Left Coast]

If you by credible mean some version of evidence, truth, proof, rationality or something to that effect, then no. Nobody has ever found that. I believe we are in this universe, because it psychologically works for me. Confidence is psychological.
That is it. Like it works for me to be an atheist.
I am in a sense a pragmatist. My beliefs seem to work for me and that includes that I believe that we are in this universe.

And you do know that all forms of evidence and all other variants are as such cognitive. There is no evidence in objective reality, that is a norm or if you like a cognitive schemata.
Yes, I believe a part of the everyday world is objective, but that is not all of the everyday world.
And in the end, in debates like this we are in effect comparing different cognitive schemata including credibility.

So to end this. If you demand/claim a credibility, I can't replicate, I ask how you do it.
Or in general the non-religious side also most always in threads involving world views use the burden of proof. I just do it on the non-religious themselves.
That is all. I am just skeptical of all world views that claim knowledge in some form and not just the religious one.
If you want it in fancy words:
Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Since you're a "pragmatist," let me put it to you this way:

If you find it equally credible that I claim I have a dollar in my wallet as if I claim my sweat magically cures cancer...I really don't know know what to say to you. To me it is rather obvious that the former is more reasonably credible, as I can produce verifiable evidence that I in fact have a dollar in my wallet. But I can't do that for my cancer-curing sweat. If you see no qualitative difference between those two claims, I really cannot help you.

Similarly, when someone tells me they know of some being that exists beyond space and time...I don't know how anyone can credibly find out any information about such a thing. How would a timeless and spaceless being even present itself to creatures whose only access to information is through our senses? It doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps you can explain it in some way that doesn't fall back to "But no one can ever prove anything and all claims are equally believable!"

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

[QUOTE="Left Coast, post: 7480889, member: 66371...]"But no one can ever prove anything and all claims are equally believable!"[/QUOTE]

No, that is an old one. I learn that one many years ago. All beliefs are equal as beliefs as for the category of beliefs, but people assign credibility to them differently. That is the relativism part.
So for some beliefs you and I assign a different credibility and understanding and as long as they both apparently works for the everyday world, then that is it.
And, yes, there is the objective part of the everyday world, but that is not all of the everyday world.

It is connected to the Thomas Theorem: If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences.

You define knowledge as real and that has consequences. I define knowledge as a variant of all belief systems and that has consequences.

 

[Left Coast]

No, that is an old one. I learn that one many years ago. All beliefs are equal as beliefs as for the category of beliefs,

Does that include the belief that not all beliefs are equal?

but people assign credibility to them differently. That is the relativism part.

Is that objectively true?

And, yes, there is the objective part of the everyday world, but that is not all of the everyday world.

Is that objectively true?

You define knowledge as real and that has consequences. I define knowledge as a variant of all belief systems and that has consequences.

You don't seem remotely interested in the actual things I say or questions I ask you.

When you actually have an answer to the question I asked here about God: Agnostics: is there anything more to your agnosticism?

let me know. Until then, you can save your relativism/absurdism sermons for someone else.

 

[Heyo]

A question for those who identify as agnostics.

I don't identify as an agnostic (colloquial meaning) but as an Agnostic (philosophical meaning). So this may be not for me?

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.

That were never reasons for my Agnosticism. I see ample evidence that theists don't know what a god is and ample evidence that they don't want to know.

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 have a special level of certainty about god-claims, i.e. I'm sure you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Brickjectivity]

String theory is testable, albeit not testable yet.

If they exist in super symmetry then I think the error correcting codes are likely a property of mathematics but not necessarily a property of physics.

It is hoping to be a hypothesis. Until it can be tested repeatedly and used to further knowledge, it doesn't count as physical theory. It is a pretty idea, but there is no hurry to develop it or fund it. There is plenty of time ahead for people to play with it and apply computers to studying it.

 

[Clara Tea]

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?

Straw man - Wikipedia

Imitation person with imitation statement? You quote no one. They call this a "strawman argument." (source above). I've never heard any agnostic state these things.

Brain in a vat - Wikipedia

"Brain in vat" means that you can't tell the difference between reality (sensing the world with sight, hearing, etc.), or artificial sensations fed to your brain (as if your brain was in a jar and artificially sent stimuli). (source above).

Inductive vs. deductive reasoning

Inductive reasoning develops a theory. Deductive reasoning tests a theory. (source above).

https://www.masterclass.com/articles/what-is-inductive-reasoning

Inductive reasoning is "drawing conclusions from observations" (source above).

It's easy to win a strawman argument. Let me demonstrate:

I will say that an imitation person said these imitation statements:

Leaf falls, therefore God exists.

Raindrop falls, therefore God exists.

Wind blows, therefore God exists.

Though no one has actually said any of these things, these strawman arguments are easy to refute. I can win every strawman debate that I enter, because I am not arguing with anyone. I created the statements, and I can create arguments against them.

Atheists and agnostics don't believe in God because God can't be proven to exist. Also, if they believed everything that cannot be proven, they'd have to believe in Santa, the tooth fairy, and cartoon character, Fred Flintstone.

Some people have tangible reasons to believe in their God(s). For example, on a tropical Pacific island, there are people who believe in a volcano God because they can see tangible power (lava, smoke, steam, shaking).

 

[Clara Tea]

Does that include the belief that not all beliefs are equal?



Is that objectively true?



Is that objectively true?



You don't seem remotely interested in the actual things I say or questions I ask you.

When you actually have an answer to the question I asked here about God: Agnostics: is there anything more to your agnosticism?

let me know. Until then, you can save your relativism/absurdism sermons for someone else.

Ignoring "actual things that you say" means that he created a "strawman argument." A strawman argument means that no one said it and no one tried to argument that it is true. It is easy to win a strawman argument because anyone can create an imitation statement and argue against it.

For example:

Leaf falls, therefore God exists.

Rain falls, therefore God exists.

Rock exists, therefore God exists.

No one said these things, but I can say that this is what theists believe, and I can easily refute these statements (that I made up).

 

[Clara Tea]

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?”

STRING THEORY NOT QUITE RIGHT (SHOULD BE RANDOM AND COMPLEX):

String theory correctly states that matter is made of strings of energy. An operator is like a matrix except that it contains operators (like gradients, integrals, etc.) where matrices contain numbers (even complex numbers). Schroedinger's Equation (in quantum mechanics) contains a Hamiltonian (that is, energy) operator.

We also know that the Hamiltonian operator is random. Nonetheless, locations of the electron can be discerned from calculations of random variables. Limits on their location and energy can be calculated (from the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle).

Since we are dealing with random variables, the location varies randomly. Though the energy "might be" constant (or might not be), the path of the photon must change in order for the location of the particle to be random.

M-theory - Wikipedia

"several versions of string theory: type I, type IIA, type IIB, and two flavors of heterotic string theory (SO(32) and E8×E8). The different theories allow different types of strings, and the particles that arise at low energies exhibit different symmetries. For example, the type I theory includes both open strings (which are segments with endpoints) and closed strings (which form closed loops), while types IIA and IIB include only closed strings." (source Wikipedia, above).

At one of my universities where I studied science for years (University of Southern California), Professor Edward Witten noted that all of the string theories (open strings, closed loop strings) seemed to be right, and he didn't want to exclude any, so he created extra dimensions to accommodate all of the string theories. If, at some future time, it is proven that one of the string theories is wrong, that portion of the M-theory matrix will vanish.

But, closed loops cannot be possible because the Hamiltonian operator is random (so the loops must follow a random path). Of course mass plus energy is likely constant, but photons can still follow a different path with the same energy.

Neutrinos were shown to oscillate their mass (therefore, in order for mass + energy to be constant, their energy must also oscillate). This likely means that the stored (internal) energy of a neutrino plus the energy due to forward motion must be constant.

So, I argue that all string theories are incorrect because the motions of the strings must be random (keeping the mass + energy constant).

Using M-Theory, Maxwell's Equations (electromagnetics) were derived. So, they are on the right track, but just not totally correct.

Furthermore, the Hamiltonian Operator contains complex numbers (real and imaginary), which string theory doesn't include. So, string theory must be modified to fit reality.

CODE IN STRING THEORY:

Using computers, one can look at every three letters, or every four letters (etc.) and find words. Any book has such code in it, and almost none has an intentional code. Thus, you can find such code in the bible, or the dictionary, or a random book of letters. Such codes must be there because statistics says that words can be formed out of random letters.

So, finding code in a book is normal, but not intentionally written. God didn't write the code. The code is just statistically coincidental.

 

[Clara Tea]

I don't, if I by that you mean philosophical naturalism.



Let's get to something I actually claimed instead of something you projected onto me, then we can talk about it.



Really? So you are equally (un)confident about the credibility of every claim that's ever been made? There's no distinguishing one from another to you, they're all equally credible?



What universe do you suppose we're in?

How would you propose that we obtain information about something that is timeless and spaceless?

In arguing religion, I sometimes wonder if we are all in the same universe.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Since you're a "pragmatist," let me put it to you this way:

If you find it equally credible that I claim I have a dollar in my wallet as if I claim my sweat magically cures cancer...I really don't know know what to say to you. To me it is rather obvious that the former is more reasonably credible, as I can produce verifiable evidence that I in fact have a dollar in my wallet. But I can't do that for my cancer-curing sweat. If you see no qualitative difference between those two claims, I really cannot help you.

Similarly, when someone tells me they know of some being that exists beyond space and time...I don't know how anyone can credibly find out any information about such a thing. How would a timeless and spaceless being even present itself to creatures whose only access to information is through our senses? It doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps you can explain it in some way that doesn't fall back to "But no one can ever prove anything and all claims are equally believable!"

Okay, what it is you take for granted in your thinking?
You know this drill. It is happening all the time, when 2 or more posters enter a debate and one of them in effect uses "How do you know that?"
You are using it on me in sense, but I am also using it on you.
So what is the methodology of knowledge that you are using versus mine?
Well, you have gone to university and you can use critical thinking.
So here is mine. There is no universal methodology of a "we", "know" and "the world", if you check for limitations in human behavior including cognition. Just as you would accept that there are limitations to the human ability to move around, i.e. mobility, so if you check knowledge as a human behaviour, it has limits.

In other words, I have learned to use critical thinking on critical thinking and found even that has limits. It works in some sense, but not universally.
So here is what you have do. You use in historical terms a classical Greek idea from philosophy. If we don't use Gods or an authoritarian system, then what could we use? Well, we could use reason, logic and evidence(modern version of truth/proof).
But even that has limits, if you check.

So here it is in academic terms. The current end result of checking critical thinking using critical thinking.
Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

So here it is for what is going. Gods are a cognitive claim, but so is your worldview in effect.
Strip away all the particulars then you are saying this: It makes sense to me to claim a "we know the world".
And my answer is: No, because I can do it differently.
Then you answer: But if we take for granted certain assumptions, then your answer doesn't make sense.
Me: Yes, and if I use other assumptions, then it makes sense, thus cognitive relativism. That applies to gods as well as reason, logic and evidence.

And here is your trick laid bare and naked. You use a part of the everyday world, which is objective and then you take for granted that it works on all of the everyday world. It doesn't, because I only have to find 2 cases of subjectivity, that both works, but differently and then I have falsified that all of the everyday world can be done universally with reason, logic AND evidence.

So here is what you have failed to show: That I can't in effect think/feel differently about what the world is as such and how I reason and believe about it.
Some people believe that they can use religion as such for the world as such. I don't.
Some people believe that can use reason, logic and evidence for the world as such. I don't.
I use different cognitive schemata for different contexts.

So for the context of the world as such for science, philosophy and religion I use pyrrhonian skepticism, when we are debating what makes sense. To you Gods don't make sense as it does to others. I accept that, but I view it as a belief system just like other different belief systems.
If we then go practical and forget what objective reality really is, then I use science for some contexts, but not others. The same for philosophy and religion.

So yes, in practice your example makes sense in a certain context, but it doesn't apply in others. In general some people find something that works in practice for some contexts and then they assume it works for more contexts than it does. I just check for any given claim if I in practice can do it differently. Doing it differently is the falsification of it being universal.

So for the world as universal, if I can do it differently, then what you claim, is not universal for the world. That applies to science, philosophy and religion. And not just religion. Hence limited cognitive, moral and cultural relativism.
"
Cognitive relativism consists of two claims:

(1) The truth-value of any statement is always relative to some particular standpoint;

(2) No standpoint is metaphysically privileged over all others."

The joke is that biological evolution for the reproduction of the fittest gene is what causes limited cognitive, moral and cultural relativism in humans. And that includes you and I.

So here is the same as the link above just for what science can't do:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

You can use science and evidence, where it applies in practice. But you can't use science for how to make sense of the world as such, because I just make that idea falsifiable and the falsification is that I can do it differently than you. That is it.
And yes, pyrrhonian skepticism is absurd, but the trick is to recognize when you test the limits of cognition you get an absurd result. That is the falsification. But if you only want to accept overall that you can make positive sense of the world, then you will reject a negative result. And that is psychology and how you deal the with accommodation as per Piaget.

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.

That is a cognitive schemata and I use a different one.

 

[Clara Tea]

Consistency is as an abstract concept just like God. So with the word "no". Stop using abstract words. I only accept actually real objective physical things as really real. Can you spot the error in the sentence before this one?

Love is not real or physical (especially with social distancing, lol). Many things are real that do not have physical form. Some have physical form (like electricity), but our senses can't perceive them.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Love is not real or physical (especially with social distancing, lol). Many things are real that do not have physical form. Some have physical form (like electricity), but our senses can't perceive them.

Yeah. I do real differently.

Love is not real or physical, but love is real, as many things are real, that do not have physical form.
That to me is a contradiction. But I accept if you treat it differently.