It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Dogmatic Skepticism

page: 2
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 01:48 PM
link   
You are misjudging agnosticism. An agnostic first understands that it is impossible to know anything with 100% certainty. Second, they use this principle to understand that since absolute knowledge on a subject is impossible, then any idea that can be postulated has a possibility of being true. There is always a chance that they or the person they are listening to is wrong, that is undeniable. This doesn't mean that an agnostic can't believe in things though. They certainly can, but at the back of their minds they are never 100% convinced and are always open to the possibility that they are wrong.

Also about the bible or other things that are highly unlikely to be true. Yes we still keep a mindset that these things could be true, but in order for those things to be true, many other things with better evidence supporting them would have to be VERY untrue. So in these cases, you just recognize the possibility of truth, but at the same time understand that the likelihood is VERY low of that actually being the case.

I am very vocal that I don't believe that the bible is true, but if tomorrow someone were to show me undeniable proof of the Christian god, I would sing a different tune. That is because I always leave the possibility in my mind that it could be true. If I didn't do that, my mind would be closed to the evidence of the god when it is presented and I'd deny it.

So while you may view it as intellectually lazy, I view it as intellectually honest. I also view it as the most open to all ideas by giving them all a chance to be true. I just happen to assign different probabilities to the different ideas for their chance of being true.

ETA: That isn't to say that stupid people can't misuse agnosticism, but it appears that you are trying to label all agnostics as the type that are misusing it. Which isn't true.
edit on 26-9-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


An agnostic first understands that it is impossible to know anything with 100% certainty.



This doesn't mean that an agnostic can't believe in things though. They certainly can, but at the back of their minds they are never 100% convinced and are always open to the possibility that they are wrong.


But this is contradictory, and that is my difficulty with this position.

How is it “impossible to know anything with 100% certainty” when anything is possible?

Are you 100% convinced that it is impossible to know anything with 100% certainty? Or do you just believe it?

By what evidence do base your assumption “it is impossible to know anything with 100% certainty” upon?

My question to the agnostic is, how are you so certain about your principle, when the principle is that one should never be certain? Or is this a simple case of irony? It is no wonder the great ironist Socrates espoused this same view.


I am very vocal that I don't believe that the bible is true, but if tomorrow someone were to show me undeniable proof of the Christian god, I would sing a different tune. That is because I always leave the possibility in my mind that it could be true. If I didn't do that, my mind would be closed to the evidence of the god when it is presented and I'd deny it.


I’m not sure if I believe this. It’s not because you leave a possibility open that you changed your tune, it is because you were faced with contrary evidence and experience in the context of your relation to states of affairs. What relation do the principles “anything is possible” and “it is impossible to know anything with 100% certainty” have with actual states of affairs? I am 100% certain a rock will not fall up. It is not possible that a pink tyrannosaurus is in my room. Leaving possibilities open is not the sign of an open mind. it is the sign of indecisiveness. An open mind is not about being open to possibilities, but being open to contrary evidence.

As an ethical position, agnosticism has its merits insofar it can absolve one of all dogmatism towards a certain subject, but at that point, if the agnostic is no longer concerned with certitude on the matter, he should vacate the argument entirely rather than linger around, as his presence in the debate serves as a mere annoyance. It is not intellectually dishonest to disavow an argument then continue to debate it.

Agnostics leave the possibility of God open because it is possible that a God may come down from the sky and prove us all wrong. I ask what grounds does an agnostic base this on? How is it possible that a God may come down from the sky and prove us all wrong? By what evidence should we consider this proposition? By what reason? I contend that there is none.



posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm



im talking about the sort of intuition that tells us faith is all we need to establish a claim as fact.


Yes, such an argument holds no warrant. Intuition alone, like reason alone, is useless.



posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: Krazysh0t


An agnostic first understands that it is impossible to know anything with 100% certainty.



This doesn't mean that an agnostic can't believe in things though. They certainly can, but at the back of their minds they are never 100% convinced and are always open to the possibility that they are wrong.


But this is contradictory, and that is my difficulty with this position.


No it isn't. There are an infinite number of percentages that aren't 100%, not just 0%.


How is it “impossible to know anything with 100% certainty” when anything is possible?


Because if you don't know if something is true with 100% certainty, that means that any other idea could also be true if the idea you are currently favoring is wrong.


Are you 100% convinced that it is impossible to know anything with 100% certainty? Or do you just believe it?


No I'm not 100% convinced of that. Who knows, maybe humans (or some other intelligent and rational species) will stumble upon the ultimate truth and be able to know this is true, but it seems HIGHLY unlikely.


By what evidence do base your assumption “it is impossible to know anything with 100% certainty” upon?


The null hypothesis


My question to the agnostic is, how are you so certain about your principle, when the principle is that one should never be certain? Or is this a simple case of irony? It is no wonder the great ironist Socrates espoused this same view.


Because it is the safest and most honest approach to knowledge growth.


I’m not sure if I believe this. It’s not because you leave a possibility open that you changed your tune, it is because you were faced with contrary evidence and experience in the context of your relation to states of affairs. What relation do the principles “anything is possible” and “it is impossible to know anything with 100% certainty” have with actual states of affairs? I am 100% certain a rock will not fall up. It is not possible that a pink tyrannosaurus is in my room. Leaving possibilities open is not the sign of an open mind. it is the sign of indecisiveness. An open mind is not about being open to possibilities, but being open to contrary evidence.


But see if I wasn't open to the idea of being wrong, I would just deny contrary evidence to my position. Look at evolution deniers. There are mountains of evidence proving the evolution is a a real process, yet evangelical Christians will deny that evidence in favor of their book (which doesn't have evidence for it). That is the difference between me and them. If undeniable evidence surfaced in favor of the bible, I'd change my opinion of things. Anyone else would just deny it exists or ignore it.

Again, there is an INFINITE number of numbers between 0 and 100%. The odds for something being true could be 10^-100000000000000000, but as long as they aren't 0 then it's possible.


As an ethical position, agnosticism has its merits insofar it can absolve one of all dogmatism towards a certain subject, but at that point, if the agnostic is no longer concerned with certitude on the matter, he should vacate the argument entirely rather than linger around, as his presence in the debate serves as a mere annoyance. It is not intellectually dishonest to disavow an argument then continue to debate it.


No, because you are making the fallacious assumption that we cannot have beliefs. I already said that we can have beliefs. I believe that evolution is a real process. I believe that the Big Bang is a real process. These things have evidence saying that they are correct, so I believe that they are likely true. But I also understand that we don't have the full picture yet so are largely incomplete and wrong at the same time.


Agnostics leave the possibility of God open because it is possible that a God may come down from the sky and prove us all wrong. I ask what grounds does an agnostic base this on? How is it possible that a God may come down from the sky and prove us all wrong? By what evidence should we consider this proposition? By what reason? I contend that there is none.


Because we cannot say one way or another if god exists or not. So it's just safe to say that I don't know about it. You are looking too deeply into this.

Agnosticism, as I mentioned earlier, comes from the null hypothesis. It is the default hypothesis until better evidence can be presented that can present a different conclusion. Also, since it the universe has few if any absolute limits, the null hypothesis would posit that there is no way to be 100% sure about anything. Until more absolute limits can be established, that hypothesis remains the valid and most likely scenario, but again agnosticism says that there is a chance it can be wrong. So one shouldn't cling to that idea with 100% certainty. In fact, if you are using the null hypothesis correctly, the idea is to eventually replace it with a more fluid hypothesis anyways.



posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 09:33 PM
link   
you'd probably like:

the Science of Death Faking Chuck Missler
youtu.be...



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


No it isn't. There are an infinite number of percentages that aren't 100%, not just 0%.


It is contradictory to say it is impossible to know anything with absolute certainty, and then say anything is possible. You would rather calculate a possibility to an infinite decimal point to avoid saying something is true or not? Why? How do you find the time?


Because if you don't know if something is true with 100% certainty, that means that any other idea could also be true if the idea you are currently favoring is wrong.


I’m not sure how a proposition can be true when it is less than 100% true.


No I'm not 100% convinced of that. Who knows, maybe humans (or some other intelligent and rational species) will stumble upon the ultimate truth and be able to know this is true, but it seems HIGHLY unlikely.


I think we can both agree that there is no “ultimate truth”. But not saying a proposition is true because there is no ultimate truth is like saying 1+1=2 is false because there is no ultimate magical encyclopedia from which we can check its truthfullness.

“There is no ultimate or absolute truth, therefor there is no 100% certainty”, is a premise I cannot agree upon. If there is no ultimate or absolute truth, there can be no correlation between a magical absolute truth and human certainty.



The null hypothesis


I don’t think that is evidence.

I’ll ask again: By what evidence do base your assumption “it is impossible to know anything with 100% certainty” upon? Huxley, for instance, provided argument that no philosopher has been right, and based his agnosticism on the fact that there is a wide variety of speculations on certain topics. Because of this, he suspected such speculations were useless, and would rather spend valuable thinking on things we can be certain about.


Because it is the safest and most honest approach to knowledge growth.


In your opinion, sure. In my opinion, it is the most clumsy, annoying and least confident approach to human knowledge. It puts down human knowledge because human knowledge is not divine enough to know. This is confusing human knowledge with divine knowledge. It is a superstitious position.


But see if I wasn't open to the idea of being wrong, I would just deny contrary evidence to my position. Look at evolution deniers. There are mountains of evidence proving the evolution is a a real process, yet evangelical Christians will deny that evidence in favor of their book (which doesn't have evidence for it). That is the difference between me and them. If undeniable evidence surfaced in favor of the bible, I'd change my opinion of things. Anyone else would just deny it exists or ignore it.

Again, there is an INFINITE number of numbers between 0 and 100%. The odds for something being true could be 10^-100000000000000000, but as long as they aren't 0 then it's possible.


You may be open to the idea of being wrong, but you are definitely closed to the idea of being right. I don’t find that open minded. You are willing to round to an infinite decimal point so as to never say something is true. I say you have zero grounds, besides ethical reasons, for being so closed-minded about being right.


No, because you are making the fallacious assumption that we cannot have beliefs. I already said that we can have beliefs. I believe that evolution is a real process. I believe that the Big Bang is a real process. These things have evidence saying that they are correct, so I believe that they are likely true. But I also understand that we don't have the full picture yet so are largely incomplete and wrong at the same time.


Not true. I am well aware of the differences between knowledge and ignorance vs. belief and doubt. No fallacy here. The Big Bang is a name we have given to what we do know, not to what we are ignorant about.


Because we cannot say one way or another if god exists or not. So it's just safe to say that I don't know about it. You are looking too deeply into this.


We can and do say whether God exists or not. You are not looking into this deeply enough.


Agnosticism, as I mentioned earlier, comes from the null hypothesis. It is the default hypothesis until better evidence can be presented that can present a different conclusion. Also, since it the universe has few if any absolute limits, the null hypothesis would posit that there is no way to be 100% sure about anything. Until more absolute limits can be established, that hypothesis remains the valid and most likely scenario, but again agnosticism says that there is a chance it can be wrong. So one shouldn't cling to that idea with 100% certainty. In fact, if you are using the null hypothesis correctly, the idea is to eventually replace it with a more fluid hypothesis anyways.


Agnosticism comes from T.H. Huxley, with its roots in ancient Greek skepticism.

It is not a default hypotheses, but an active appeal to ignorance, and also, a negation of what we do know on the matter. It is a fallacy to draw conclusions based on what we do not know, and in this case, it is simply wrong to say we do not nor cannot know the nature of God, when the nature of God was born, articulated, and postulated entirely within the realm of human knowledge and understanding. We do know the nature of God because we invented it, but seldom admit it. To understand the nature of God and whether it exists or not, is as simple as reading a book. There, in that book, exists the sum-total of its properties, its evidence, and ontology, and therefor, that is where, what, and how, God exists. The human mind is the cause of Gods, and within the human mind, human knowledge, is where every god has ever existed. It is a mistake, based on no evidence, and contrary to all evidence, to assume that God might perhaps exist where we are still ignorant or outside of human knowledge. It is not safe, nor honest, to make such dubious assumptions.



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 07:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aphorism

It is contradictory to say it is impossible to know anything with absolute certainty, and then say anything is possible. You would rather calculate a possibility to an infinite decimal point to avoid saying something is true or not? Why? How do you find the time?


The idea that anything is possible is true until you can prove that something is impossible. Since its is not currently possible to know anything definitely, it is currently (and probably for forever) impossible to prove something isn't true. You are misunderstanding the claim that anything is possible. In the grand scheme of things, obviously not everything is possible, but we cannot know for sure what is and isn't possible so we just allow that until it can be shown otherwise, it is possible.


I’m not sure how a proposition can be true when it is less than 100% true.


Example: If I say that there is a 98% chance that evolution is true and let's say hypothetically that in the grand scheme of things it is true, the remaining 2% of doubt I have would account for unknown variables and that we might not have the exact correct method down for how evolution works. By the way a 98% chance of being true means that it is most likely true, and in this example it is true. The probability accounts for the unknowns in human knowledge not for its ACTUAL chances of being true. Its actual percentage is either 100% or 0% (true or false).


I think we can both agree that there is no “ultimate truth”. But not saying a proposition is true because there is no ultimate truth is like saying 1+1=2 is false because there is no ultimate magical encyclopedia from which we can check its truthfullness.


I'm not saying that 1+1=2 is false because we can't know for sure that it is true. I'm saying that it MIGHT be false, but it is probably true. That is a big difference from what you said.


“There is no ultimate or absolute truth, therefor there is no 100% certainty”, is a premise I cannot agree upon. If there is no ultimate or absolute truth, there can be no correlation between a magical absolute truth and human certainty.


There is most certainly an ultimate or absolute truth. I just say that we, humans, don't know it and probably can't.



I don’t think that is evidence.


Sure it is. In logic or science it is the base assumption that you make. Also as a valid assumption, it has to be disproven before you can say it is wrong. Since humans currently don't have a valid way to disprove things, the null hypothesis always has a chance of being correct.


I’ll ask again: By what evidence do base your assumption “it is impossible to know anything with 100% certainty” upon? Huxley, for instance, provided argument that no philosopher has been right, and based his agnosticism on the fact that there is a wide variety of speculations on certain topics. Because of this, he suspected such speculations were useless, and would rather spend valuable thinking on things we can be certain about.


That's why I assign probabilities to ideas. If something has a ridiculously low probability of being true then I don't entertain it as an idea. That's why I don't entertain Christian dogma as a valid truth. Sure there is a chance it is true, but it is so low that its not worth it to entertain it as a valid hypothesis.


In your opinion, sure. In my opinion, it is the most clumsy, annoying and least confident approach to human knowledge. It puts down human knowledge because human knowledge is not divine enough to know. This is confusing human knowledge with divine knowledge. It is a superstitious position.


Clumsy? Why would you use that adjective? It gives equal consideration to any hypothesis then elevates or reduces the hypothesis' credibility based on the evidence that supports or refutes it. You keep assuming that I give equal weight to someone saying the earth is flat with someone talking about cell theory. That isn't true. Just because I consider it possible, doesn't mean that I entertain it as a reality.


You may be open to the idea of being wrong, but you are definitely closed to the idea of being right. I don’t find that open minded. You are willing to round to an infinite decimal point so as to never say something is true. I say you have zero grounds, besides ethical reasons, for being so closed-minded about being right.


Saying you are right with 100% certainty is arrogant and putting the cart before the horse. We don't have all the evidence so there is no way to know with certainty that something is true. If you say that something is certainly true then you are making assumptions about things you don't have the evidence to say is true or not (because you don't know about them).


Not true. I am well aware of the differences between knowledge and ignorance vs. belief and doubt. No fallacy here. The Big Bang is a name we have given to what we do know, not to what we are ignorant about.


Yes but there is a chance that what we know and say about the Big Bang isn't entirely true (which is evident since the theory doesn't say the same thing since when it was first theorized).


We can and do say whether God exists or not. You are not looking into this deeply enough.


Well yeah I guess we technically CAN say that... But that is arrogance. If you want to say that god does or doesn't exist, produce the proof of it.


Agnosticism comes from T.H. Huxley, with its roots in ancient Greek skepticism.

It is not a default hypotheses, but an active appeal to ignorance, and also, a negation of what we do know on the matter. It is a fallacy to draw conclusions based on what we do not know, and in this case, it is simply wrong to say we do not nor cannot know the nature of God, when the nature of God was born, articulated, and postulated entirely within the realm of human knowledge and understanding. We do know the nature of God because we invented it, but seldom admit it. To understand the nature of God and whether it exists or not, is as simple as reading a book. There, in that book, exists the sum-total of its properties, its evidence, and ontology, and therefor, that is where, what, and how, God exists. The human mind is the cause of Gods, and within the human mind, human knowledge, is where every god has ever existed. It is a mistake, based on no evidence, and contrary to all evidence, to assume that God might perhaps exist where we are still ignorant or outside of human knowledge. It is not safe, nor honest, to make such dubious assumptions.


I agree. God is most likely a product of man's imagination, but history is told by the winners and is full of lies and distortions. So a god may really exist, even the Christian one. Though a lot of irrational and unlikely events would have to occur for that to be true so the likelihood is VERY low, but it is still a possibility until it can be proven otherwise that a god can't exist.
edit on 29-9-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 08:48 AM
link   
You seem very interested in epistemology. I think the rationalism vs. empiricism argument is stupid, I'm with Immanuel Kant. You take in raw sensory data through the five senses and then subsequently rationalize it. I also like Immanuel Kant's opinions on why we should believe in God.



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 10:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Chimpout
You seem very interested in epistemology. I think the rationalism vs. empiricism argument is stupid, I'm with Immanuel Kant. You take in raw sensory data through the five senses and then subsequently rationalize it. I also like Immanuel Kant's opinions on why we should believe in God.


perhaps you should provide links. i would be interested in at least a brief overview of this man's opinions, although the name seems familiar already.



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm
Immanuel Kant was a German Philosopher. He believed it was essential to believe in god because evil isn't always punished in this life, so in order to deter evil from being commited the perpetrator would have to believe that he'll for sure be punished in the next, regardless of if he gets away with it in this life.



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Chimpout
a reply to: TzarChasm
Immanuel Kant was a German Philosopher. He believed it was essential to believe in god because evil isn't always punished in this life, so in order to deter evil from being commited the perpetrator would have to believe that he'll for sure be punished in the next, regardless of if he gets away with it in this life.



so its a cheap scare tactic. heh.



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: [post=18473778]TzarChasm[/post
A deterrent, yes. Not cheap. People pay a heavy price for evil deeds.



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


There is most certainly an ultimate or absolute truth. I just say that we, humans, don't know it and probably can't.


This is the superstitious aspect of agnosticism I’m speaking about, which underneath is no different than assuming a god. There is no such thing nor is there a possibility of there being an ultimate or absolute truth. If there is a possibility, on what grounds do you base this assumption? Only an omniscient and omnipresent being could be everywhere, at every time, and know every thing at once. I dare say this is fallacious, for this confuses divine knowledge, of which there is absolutely no evidence, with human knowledge, of which there is plenty. There is only human truth. Truth and knowledge exists only within human works and reason, however limited it may be, and not somewhere in outer space.


Clumsy? Why would you use that adjective? It gives equal consideration to any hypothesis then elevates or reduces the hypothesis' credibility based on the evidence that supports or refutes it. You keep assuming that I give equal weight to someone saying the earth is flat with someone talking about cell theory. That isn't true. Just because I consider it possible, doesn't mean that I entertain it as a reality.


Because it’s marked with contradiction and paradox. I’m sorry but, you say this or that isn’t true, it is impossible to know, and then immediately say anything is possible, and that we can only know truth to a certain degree as long as its not 100%. You say that there certainly is an absolute truth, yet nothing can be certain, nothing is absolute, and so forth. It’s all contradictory. It’s circular. It is begging the question. The only argument an agnostic gives is “we cannot know because we cannot know”, without showing how or why this is the case. I've asked numerous times how this can be the case.


Saying you are right with 100% certainty is arrogant and putting the cart before the horse. We don't have all the evidence so there is no way to know with certainty that something is true. If you say that something is certainly true then you are making assumptions about things you don't have the evidence to say is true or not (because you don't know about them).


What is “all the evidence” that we don’t have? No it’s not likely we’ll document the position of every particle, but “all the evidence” is what exactly? We have enough evidence to know whether something is true or not. I am 100% certain there is not a living velociraptor in your kitchen. I don’t know if its more arrogant of me to make such a statement, or if its more arrogant of you to tell me I’m wrong because I don’t have all the evidence. It isn’t arrogant to be reasonable.


Yes but there is a chance that what we know and say about the Big Bang isn't entirely true (which is evident since the theory doesn't say the same thing since when it was first theorized).


If that is the case, there’s also a chance it could be entirely true. But such an assertion, just like saying it isn’t entirely true, is meaningless without evidence.


Well yeah I guess we technically CAN say that... But that is arrogance. If you want to say that god does or doesn't exist, produce the proof of it.


But therein lies the difficulty. It is also arrogant to say a god, absolute truth, miracles, are possible, without providing supportive evidence. So I ask if you believe this, produce a proof of how these are possible.


I agree. God is most likely a product of man's
imagination, but history is told by the winners and is full of lies and distortions. So a god may really exist, even the Christian one. Though a lot of irrational and unlikely events would have to occur for that to be true so the likelihood is VERY low, but it is still a possibility until it can be proven otherwise that a god can't exist.


Then please, tell me how a god may really exist. The question I’ve been asking this whole time: How is “anything is possible”, possible? Based on what evidence are we unable to know? Maybe some evidence that gives me reason to believe there is a possibility, and that I should entertain that possibility, would suffice, because I just cannot see it.



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Chimpout




You seem very interested in epistemology. I think the rationalism vs. empiricism argument is stupid, I'm with Immanuel Kant. You take in raw sensory data through the five senses and then subsequently rationalize it. I also like Immanuel Kant's opinions on why we should believe in God.


I think epistemology has ruined philosophy and stifled progress.



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 06:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: Chimpout




You seem very interested in epistemology. I think the rationalism vs. empiricism argument is stupid, I'm with Immanuel Kant. You take in raw sensory data through the five senses and then subsequently rationalize it. I also like Immanuel Kant's opinions on why we should believe in God.


I think epistemology has ruined philosophy and stifled progress.


Please elaborate



posted on Sep, 30 2014 @ 07:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aphorism
This is the superstitious aspect of agnosticism I’m speaking about, which underneath is no different than assuming a god. There is no such thing nor is there a possibility of there being an ultimate or absolute truth. If there is a possibility, on what grounds do you base this assumption? Only an omniscient and omnipresent being could be everywhere, at every time, and know every thing at once. I dare say this is fallacious, for this confuses divine knowledge, of which there is absolutely no evidence, with human knowledge, of which there is plenty. There is only human truth. Truth and knowledge exists only within human works and reason, however limited it may be, and not somewhere in outer space.


How is it superstitious to say that there is an ultimate truth? By the way, when I say ultimate truth, I am talking about humans knowing everything. There has to be a saturation point where there is no more information that can be learned about the universe. I say this because there is a finite amount of energy and matter in the universe and none of it can be created or destroyed; it can only change state, and they can only take so many forms before they repeat. Keep in mind those previous sentences are a logical deduction given by our current scientific knowledge about matter and energy. So that very well may be wrong, but given what we currently know about science the likely idea is that there is an information saturation point, or an ultimate truth.

All I'm saying here is that if humans were to be given all (or figure out on our own) the variables and equations that make up the universe, we should be able to figure out all the underlying processes that develop the universe throughout its existence. My reasoning is that it is unlikely (I misspoke when I said impossible) that we (humans) would be able to actually know all the variables and equations that drive the universe. There also may be variables and equations that effect the universe externally which would be even MORE unlikely for humans to ever know. For instance, if god exists, that would be an example of an external variable.


Because it’s marked with contradiction and paradox. I’m sorry but, you say this or that isn’t true, it is impossible to know, and then immediately say anything is possible, and that we can only know truth to a certain degree as long as its not 100%. You say that there certainly is an absolute truth, yet nothing can be certain, nothing is absolute, and so forth. It’s all contradictory. It’s circular. It is begging the question. The only argument an agnostic gives is “we cannot know because we cannot know”, without showing how or why this is the case. I've asked numerous times how this can be the case.


It isn't marked with contradiction. It is quite simple. Humans currently don't know everything and likely won't be able to know everything therefore you never talk in absolutes.


What is “all the evidence” that we don’t have? No it’s not likely we’ll document the position of every particle, but “all the evidence” is what exactly? We have enough evidence to know whether something is true or not. I am 100% certain there is not a living velociraptor in your kitchen. I don’t know if its more arrogant of me to make such a statement, or if its more arrogant of you to tell me I’m wrong because I don’t have all the evidence. It isn’t arrogant to be reasonable.


For example: When evolution was first postulated, it was believed that all species evolve at the same rate over time. As the fossil record was developed over the next 150 years, we later changed our mind and determined that evolution works through punctuated equilibrium (animals evolve at different rates and evolution can speed up after great die offs). The original theory of evolution was wrong, but with the current evidence that was available, it appeared correct so was taught that way. Now we have new evidence that says otherwise and we changed the theory. Well there is still MORE unknown evidence and the theory of evolution will undergo more changes over the next 150 years (and probably for as long as it is an accepted theory). This is true about ALL of science.


If that is the case, there’s also a chance it could be entirely true. But such an assertion, just like saying it isn’t entirely true, is meaningless without evidence.


This is correct. But given how past scientific knowledge develops, I can make a prediction based on probability VERY close to 100% that it isn't entirely true. Though there is a chance that we already know the full picture. Of course there are other reasons why the claim "the big bang theory isn't entirely true," is close to 100% true as well.


But therein lies the difficulty. It is also arrogant to say a god, absolute truth, miracles, are possible, without providing supportive evidence. So I ask if you believe this, produce a proof of how these are possible.


They are possible because we cannot disprove their existence. That is the only evidence I can produce for it. It isn't enough to make their existence even CLOSE to likely, but we cannot rule out their existence either because there is no way to disprove something. Though you won't catch me saying they are real until more concrete evidence surfaces that would validate their existence. I just say that they MIGHT be real and leave it at that.


Then please, tell me how a god may really exist. The question I’ve been asking this whole time: How is “anything is possible”, possible? Based on what evidence are we unable to know? Maybe some evidence that gives me reason to believe there is a possibility, and that I should entertain that possibility, would suffice, because I just cannot see it.


Well if you want to know that, go talk to a fanatical Christian about how the bible can be true and listen to all the mental gymnastics they have to go through for their reality to be true. Those mental gymnastics make it VERY unlikely and irrational to be true, BUT the fact remains that they could be right and that would be a valid scenario of god's existence.

Human knowledge doesn't know enough to rule out their existence. They likely don't exist, but I nor you nor anyone can disprove a negative so we can't say definitively that they don't exist. I believe the saying goes, "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence." So until you can produce the evidence that it doesn't and can't exist then the possibility of existence remains.

By the way, since I say that anything is possible, to figure things out requires a healthy application of Occam's Razor (outcome with least amount of assumptions is likely true).
edit on 30-9-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2014 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


By the way, when I say ultimate truth, I am talking about humans knowing everything. There has to be a saturation point where there is no more information that can be learned about the universe.


i feel i can state with a certain amount of factuality that humans will never know everything there is to know about the universe. nor do i believe that if there is a saturation point for the human species, it will be reached before we evolve - and are therefore no longer technically humans.


There also may be variables and equations that effect the universe externally which would be even MORE unlikely for humans to ever know. For instance, if god exists, that would be an example of an external variable.


an intelligent entity cannot force its will on a universe without leaving a footprint. the trick is to catch it leaving the footprint.
edit on 30-9-2014 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2014 @ 09:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
i feel i can state with a certain amount of factuality that humans will never know everything there is to know about the universe. nor do i believe that if there is a saturation point for the human species, it will be reached before we evolve - and are therefore no longer technically humans.


I am pretty sure of that analysis as well; that's why I was using the word impossible earlier in the thread when speaking about the ability to know everything. Though that is technically incorrect since we can't know for sure that the knowledge saturation point is unknowable and I think the use of the word "impossible" here was confusing the OP and causing him to think that I was creating a contradiction.


an intelligent entity cannot force its will on a universe without leaving a footprint. the trick is to catch it leaving the footprint.


Maybe. Maybe not. That depends on if the laws of cause and effect work outside the universe, which we don't know is the case.
edit on 30-9-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2014 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: TzarChasm

i feel i can state with a certain amount of factuality that humans will never know everything there is to know about the universe. nor do i believe that if there is a saturation point for the human species, it will be reached before we evolve - and are therefore no longer technically humans.




I am pretty sure of that analysis as well; that's why I was using the word impossible earlier in the thread when speaking about the ability to know everything. Though that is technically incorrect since we can't know for sure that the knowledge saturation point is unknowable and I think the use of the word "impossible" here was confusing the OP and thinking that I was creating a contradiction.




an intelligent entity cannot force its will on a universe without leaving a footprint. the trick is to catch it leaving the footprint.




Maybe. Maybe not. That depends on if the laws of cause and effect work outside the universe, which we don't know is the case.


at the very least, we could isolate an entry point and do a "stake out" if you will. the instant such an entity enters our universe, it is subject to the laws of our universe and risks a domino-esque catastrophe if it violates those laws, particularly if it likes to "miracle" all of its actions into happening. teleporting everywhere and spawning planets and stars into being...thats gotta make some splashes in the cosmic balance. unless its just an intelligence and THATS IT. a disembodied string of thoughts capable of bullying the universe around with a word.

might be harder to nail that one down. but i still say its worth it if we can come up with something.

edit on 30-9-2014 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2014 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Fair enough. But what if the universe was just a giant simulation in a computer and all the processes that make it up are algorithms programmed into the simulation? An outside influence could be the implementation of a new algorithm (say a version upgrade) that takes effect retroactively throughout the whole simulation past, present and future. Since humans travel through time in one direction we'd think that the algorithm always existed as soon as it was uploaded.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join