Support NeoGAF

[Link648099]

Gotta do a quick post here, but I must say, its been fun. This will probably be my last one anyways as the thread seems to be dying/loosing interest, but if you want to continue elsewhere, PM me.

As I've argued before; with such deeply ingrained issues, even if you make the most coherent and sound arguments, a person will only be polarized and will not admit defeat for their position... at least, not right away. But if the argument is sound, then they'll be force to question their beliefs... and may in time use the arguments to reassess their belief system.
Moreover, it's good to have a person with an adamant position; you express your ideas and arguments in their totality; if they can make a serious breach, you have to reassess your own beliefs, which is something worthwhile to find out about.

I actually agree with you here, although it might be good for me to say that while my theistic beliefs are "ingrained" into me now, they have not always been. A quick history, I use to be an atheist, and while I was raised in a moral household, it was not religious. My father, who I have no clue what he thought on this subject even today, taught me to question all things, and to test everything I can. When I approached the topic of theism, I did just that. Once theism proved itself, I then turned to religion, and out of that investigation came Christianity, where I am today.

In addition, I am not afriad to admit defeat, in as much as I have been defeated. I have admitted it many times in the past, and many times I have been forced to re-evalutate my thoughts and theories based on new evidence, etc. So far, in this thread, I do not think I have been defeated, as it is usually thought of. Disagreed with, yes, but no reasons have been given to me, rational ones, that force me to re-analyze my theistic position on the origin of the universe. Now, with the advent of science, could this happen tomorrow? Sure it can, but until then, I stick by the theory that explains it all the best.

Actually I do. If you read my post, you might've extracted what I allured to... but if not, let me state again explicitly.

On the issue of creation of the universe; to an atheist, while the universe might not necessarily come about on its own, it does come about with no 'divine' or sentient aid. That is to say, imagine nothing... then imagine that nothing that has a chance to bring about the occurence of something. Then give that nothing+chance of something infinite chances... eventually something resembling the universe will come about. There may be infinite other universes that fail, fail to be anything, fail to produce life, fail to produce life such as ourselves...

That nothing/void+chance of something possesses the 2 attributes needed to be a universal creator; that is to exist outside of time/space (which comes about with the advent of universe), to have always existed.... and to be able to create something from nothing. If you wish, you can arbitarily assign the God title to this void+chance, to acknowledge the idea that it is a creator of sorts. But that's just been facetious.

Given this nothing+something, it's disingenious to argue that there is a certain design that brought us about; we see from the start of the universe and believe it shapes us... but if you think of us as something of chance... but that the we will occur given the number of chances, then we necessarily exist... just as a function of infinite universes of infinite variety.

Said very well, although I find issue with your (really the atheist's) initial premise. I would define the word, and concept, of "Nothing" as the total absence of anything. That means within nothing is.....more nothing. No matter, no energy, just nothing. Now, if you have a whole lot of nothing, and let that nothing sit for a whole lot of "time" (once again, that word really cant be used here, but you get the idea) your still going to get a whole lot of nothing. Because really, out of nothing comes nothing. If there is nothing there, then it is impossible for anything to be there as well.

In the total absence of anything, you are left with nothing, and out of this nothing, comes nothing. Nothing cannot produce something.

Therefore, I find fault with the atheist's first premise, which the rest of the argument is based upon.

Despite your words, agnosticsm is simply the idea where a person is unsure of what to believe in terms of a divine entity. To a true agnostic, all possibilities have an equal likelihood, because nothing can be confirmed;

I disagree. As an agnostic, how do you know that nothing can be confirmed? (I assume you are speaking of the idea of a deity existing, as am I)

simply because most if not all variations of theism are self-confirming in a logical sense. If they all say they're right and true, then in a direct and literal intepretation, most of them are likely wrong; most likely wrong in the sense they've been made up by man.

I am curious how they are self confirming/circular, etc. I would also like to know how you, an agnostic I assume) can know or claim to know that they are most likely wrong.

Given the huge number of concievable alternatives that can be made up by man, with self-reinforcing logics (read an near infinite number), and even more variables that go into making a religion successful, then it's obvious to a logically thinking agnostic (as opposed to one that doesn't think about it much), that none of the current religions are likely the 'right one'. So, no, there's no contradiction.

I think I have noted a few contradictions in what you have written, but I still find it interesting that as an agnostic, you are almost certain that all the religions are false, or at least the 'wrong ones'. Now, I can agree with you partially. Not all religions are true because they all contradict each other in key areas. Going with that, if any are true, then only one could be true.

Once again, see above. If you allow a creator to exist and arbitarily name it God, then it doesn't give you any more information on it. As an agnostic, even if you accept that there was a creator to the universe, you don't have any information on how, why, etc it created the univese, if you don't automatically accept on of the current religions.

Well, if a creator does exist, and this creator did choose to reveal himself to us, then would not one of the religions out there reflect that revelation? Without going into the details, I think it has occured. I know that I also have good evidence for it occuring, both logical and historical.

Once again, the problem with most Gods, especially an abrahamic God is that the logic behind it is self-reinforcing. You know what else can be self-reinforcing? Delusions.

I can agree with you there. You may be pinning that delusion on me, but I have also found several fatal contradictions in your agnosticism, while you have not found any in my theism, so I do not really see myself as the delusional one here.

Finally... I believe that any concientious believer of any religion, must at least once assess their stance and their beliefs deeply from an agnostic point of view; that is, to step away from a stance that takes some factors for granted and seeks to further prove by way of indoctrination. You don't even have to stop believing in your religion; rather just don't take certain things for granted, question all facets of the belief. Do you find yourself making up reasons and coming up with circular logic and specious thinking in defense of your religion?

If that isn't done, then that person does themselves and society a disservice, by not only continuing to waste their time, but wasting the time of others if they manage to convince those people (that might not necessarily have deeply examined religion from an agnostic point of view (it's important to note, that this is far from the default stance of people)) of their religion... as well as how their religious beliefs effect their views and actions on a multi-religion, secular world.

You assume too much about me. Read above please.

I am still waiting for a better alternative to theism, one that accounts for the evidence we currently have. The atheist's "something out of nothing" arguement is a grand fallacy, impossible as best as we know, and simply contradictory (if something comes from nothing, then nothing never existed in the first place).

But, like I said in the beginning, we can continue this discussion in a seperate place, as this is my last post in this thread.

 

[Zaptruder]

Said very well, although I find issue with your (really the atheist's) initial premise. I would define the word, and concept, of "Nothing" as the total absence of anything. That means within nothing is.....more nothing. No matter, no energy, just nothing. Now, if you have a whole lot of nothing, and let that nothing sit for a whole lot of "time" (once again, that word really cant be used here, but you get the idea) your still going to get a whole lot of nothing. Because really, out of nothing comes nothing. If there is nothing there, then it is impossible for anything to be there as well.

In the total absence of anything, you are left with nothing, and out of this nothing, comes nothing. Nothing cannot produce something.

Therefore, I find fault with the atheist's first premise, which the rest of the argument is based upon.

Your intepretation of the nothing word is too literal, and causes you to misintepret or fail to comprehend the argument completely.

I mean a nothing in the sense of the inky blackness as you'd traditionally concieve a void to be... but you add a property to that inky blackness because it's required in order for universe and existence to come about; the the inky blackness isn't quite nothing... it's quite close, but it possesses the property of bringing about something into chance, but with infinite chances. In actuality, this concept of nothing+chance is actually different to a nothing, and should fairly be given another name. But I use 'nothing' simply to describe its void like properties better.

If you reject the premise of the first argument, then you must learn to reject with a charitable meaning, instead of emphasizing on pedantic and erroneous means to defeat the argument.

I disagree. As an agnostic, how do you know that nothing can be confirmed? (I assume you are speaking of the idea of a deity existing, as am I)

Not so much know that nothing can be confirmed, so much as know that nothing has been irrefutably, to a relatively undeniability*, proven. At least to a scientifically acceptable level, taking into account the level of scrutiny such a subject would have.

*circular logic not withstanding.

I am curious how they are self confirming/circular, etc. I would also like to know how you, an agnostic I assume) can know or claim to know that they are most likely wrong.

If you'd like to show the relatively irrefutable proof, then I'm all ears... but starting out as a christian, holding onto alot of different arguments to hold my belief, I found them systematically shattered... even my prized ontological argument that I had arrived at myself, to discover that men from hundreds of years ago had expressed it much more eloquently, had given way to the idea... even if there is a 'creator', in so far as the universe didn't self actualize, how does one connect that idea and the Christian God?

The proof that is usually thrown up.... referring to Bible Scripture, referring to the story of genesis, which is then frequently redesigned to suit a laymen trying to account for the discrepancy between the literal interpretation of the bible and the reality of what has been discovered by science... as well as to various arguments by design, are all defeated, or at least put into serious and undeniable doubt with various other arguments...

In the end, given the weight of the circumspect arguments, where the arguments seem to evolve and shape dynamically, contradicting past arguments, compromising... in order to answer new doubts; the nature of human to cling to such things, and that many of the teachings in the bible seems like very human, flawed solutions to many diverse problems...
One is compelled to come to the conclusion that with regards to what we don't have the ability to measure, to observe, that we cannot confirm it.



I think I have noted a few contradictions in what you have written, but I still find it interesting that as an agnostic, you are almost certain that all the religions are false, or at least the 'wrong ones'. Now, I can agree with you partially. Not all religions are true because they all contradict each other in key areas. Going with that, if any are true, then only one could be true.

Well, if a creator does exist, and this creator did choose to reveal himself to us, then would not one of the religions out there reflect that revelation? Without going into the details, I think it has occured. I know that I also have good evidence for it occuring, both logical and historical.

Who says (or rather can prove) a creator has revealed itself in any sense? Just to be pedantic, note your theistic bias by simply assuming that the creator is 'himself' and that he's revealed himself to us.

You assume too much about me. Read above please.

I am still waiting for a better alternative to theism, one that accounts for the evidence we currently have. The atheist's "something out of nothing" arguement is a grand fallacy, impossible as best as we know, and simply contradictory (if something comes from nothing, then nothing never existed in the first place).

But, like I said in the beginning, we can continue this discussion in a seperate place, as this is my last post in this thread.

My concluding paragraph was not directed directly at you, but rather as a considered opinion on what it means to strong believe in something. Although it might not seem like it, I'd also include atheist as a religion, simply in the sense that it stands in a particular stance very strongly, which precludes other possibilities.