Atheist, Gnostic, Theist, Agnostic

[Tanner]

I know nothing about him, but Tanner once said that when he looked at the stars, he found the universe a little too perfect to think there wasn't some level of design in it.

I don't remember exactly what I said here and I can't find the post but I doubt it was anything as buzz-wordy as "design". I was probably just waxing poetic.

I'm very much the gnostic atheist. And I'm appalled at you guys for thinking a god might exist because we can't disprove him! Common sense disproves him. We can't, with the technology we have now, disprove a giant flying spaghetti monster in space, but does that increase its chance of existing? Of course not. The fact of the matter is that a god living somewhere in space and just chillin' is ludicrous. We should be rejecting the notion as a matter of common sense, not pondering its existence based on the fact that we can't disprove it.

This is a silly post. Maybe you just miscategorized yourself but being a gnostic atheist means that you think we can know absolutely whether is or isn't a god and that you believe there isn't one. Basically you're telling us that you have irrevocable proof of the non-existence of god.

On an unrelated note, I had a discussion with Nicole last night about where we each stood on on this graph and she placed herself on the agnostic theist side of things. It's seems to be a pretty popular position and it's one that sort of confuses me. When I asked her why she put herself towards the theist side of things she said it was mostly "fear". Of the unknown, death, being wrong, etc. and that the idea of there being some sort of higher power was comforting to her. She couldn't tell me why, though, so I imagine that this is still just some remnant of her Catholic upbringing.

The reason why I've put myself where I have (very strong agnostic, weak atheist) and why I have trouble understanding why you would be an agnostic theist is because, though I recognize the inherent irrationality of believing something while also believing that we can never know for sure, I've try to approach metaphysics by keeping everything as simple as possible. Socrates' dialectic, Occam's razor, Kant's Pure Reason, whatever. These all seemed like the best way to approach something of which the only constant in the evolution of my thought on this matter to date has been agnosticism. Throw in LaPlace's "Je n'ai pas besoin de cette hypothèse." quote and I seem to end up at the opposite end of the God of the gaps argument. Irrational, yeah, but it seems less so than the alternative.

[scythe]

The counterargument is the anthropic principle. That is, we're wired to find the Universe interesting, not the other way around. Which makes sense, considering that studying the Universe is what got society to where it is today; finding the universe interesting clearly presented an advantage for humans.

I like this. Any good books on the subject?

Harder question than it sounds.

I'd recommend starting with something on epistemology. Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert M Pirsig is a great book, though it's only tangentially related to your question, it's a good way to understand where we come up with the idea of 'beauty' in the first place -- without a good foundation here it's hard to look at a question like "why is the universe beautiful" and come away with anything reasonable.

http://design.caltech.edu/Misc/pirsig.html

Evolutionary psychology includes a lot of brilliant reasoning and a lot of speculative crap. The problem is that it's hard to tell them apart, and I'm constantly second-guessing myself whenever I look at something from it. There's a Wikipedia article - the wrong version, of course - that gives an overview of the pitfalls and the merits of the field. Charles Darwin's The Descent of Man and The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals are good, I think.

As for the anthropic principle itself...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_ ... _carbon-12

On the more practical side of things, that is, the value of scientific inquiry, and how it contributed to the rise of society, I'm not too sure where to point you. I've read Guns, Germs, and Steel, and it's interesting, but it's not amazing. The whole thing starts with the Age of Enlightenment in the West.

[otters~1]

When I asked her why she put herself towards the theist side of things she said it was mostly "fear". Of the unknown, death, being wrong, etc. and that the idea of there being some sort of higher power was comforting to her. She couldn't tell me why, though, so I imagine that this is still just some remnant of her Catholic upbringing.

No, I don't think so. Fear of the unknown and finding comfort in a higher power are two ingrained traits of homo sapiens. Among other things, this is why humanity came up with religion in the first place.

[Rose]

By the time I got to the end of the first page I lost interest, so this is just a response to the content of the OP:

Somehow I'm not surprised that I hold what is considered to be an "unusual position". :p I would consider myself an agnostic theist. Do I personally believe that God exists? On most days. Do I think he can be proven on an objective level? Absolutely not.

[SlappyMcGee]

I've read the foremost, scythe, and had not made the connection, although I find it really interesting that you have.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

If you think about it, either God exists or He doesn't, so it's basically 50/50.
I flipped a coin once and it came up tails, so that's why I'm an atheist.

[Kablizzy]

The reason why I've put myself where I have (very strong agnostic, weak atheist) and why I have trouble understanding why you would be an agnostic theist is because, though I recognize the inherent irrationality of believing something while also believing that we can never know for sure, I've try to approach metaphysics by keeping everything as simple as possible. Socrates' dialectic, Occam's razor, Kant's Pure Reason, whatever. These all seemed like the best way to approach something of which the only constant in the evolution of my thought on this matter to date has been agnosticism. Throw in LaPlace's "Je n'ai pas besoin de cette hypothèse." quote and I seem to end up at the opposite end of the God of the gaps argument. Irrational, yeah, but it seems less so than the alternative.

Wouldn't the simplest solution, though, be that we do actually have a purpose? That there is a reason that existence... exists?

[Tanner]

The reason why I've put myself where I have (very strong agnostic, weak atheist) and why I have trouble understanding why you would be an agnostic theist is because, though I recognize the inherent irrationality of believing something while also believing that we can never know for sure, I've try to approach metaphysics by keeping everything as simple as possible. Socrates' dialectic, Occam's razor, Kant's Pure Reason, whatever. These all seemed like the best way to approach something of which the only constant in the evolution of my thought on this matter to date has been agnosticism. Throw in LaPlace's "Je n'ai pas besoin de cette hypothèse." quote and I seem to end up at the opposite end of the God of the gaps argument. Irrational, yeah, but it seems less so than the alternative.

Wouldn't the simplest solution, though, be that we do actually have a purpose? That there is a reason that existence... exists?

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that. Could you explain what such a purpose might be and why god/a god/gods would be necessary for the aforementioned?

[Kablizzy]

No Gods, no divine, just purpose. Theism at its core is striving for purpose. The theism that I believe has no requirements for old men in beards or prayer or anything like that, it just requires that we're here for something larger than ourselves, even if that's simply the betterment of the human species.

I mean, after all, why *are* we here? Really? What the Hell are we doing here? Why *are* we sentient, anyway? Why and how can we even conceptualize these things?

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

No Gods, no divine, just purpose. Theism at its core is striving for purpose. The theism that I believe has no requirements for old men in beards or prayer or anything like that, it just requires that we're here for something larger than ourselves, even if that's simply the betterment of the human species.

I mean, after all, why *are* we here? Really? What the Hell are we doing here? Why *are* we sentient, anyway? Why and how can we even conceptualize these things?

You're really going to have to explain why you think that there being a purpose is more sensible than no purpose.
People have often told me that it's hard for them to believe that we're here for no reason, as though the default is that there should be one.
The same goes for "why is there something rather than nothing?" -- why should it be the case that "nothing" is the norm, the expectation, the default? It's not like we'd be around in a universe of nothingness wondering, "why is there nothing rather than something?"

[Kablizzy]

You're really going to have to explain why you think that there being a purpose is more sensible than no purpose.
People have often told me that it's hard for them to believe that we're here for no reason, as though the default is that there should be one.
The same goes for "why is there something rather than nothing?" -- why should it be the case that "nothing" is the norm, the expectation, the default? It's not like we'd be around in a universe of nothingness wondering, "why is there nothing rather than something?"

I dunno how that's even remotely disputable. If there weren't anything, we would have no reason to question why there's nothing. The fact that we have the ability to question the concept fulfills the requirement in its entirety for me. Why is there a flower? It's a part of a complex ecology, and things interact with it. I don't think it's a matter of belief, it's just like my stance on determinism - Yes, everything is pre-determined given enough information. I feel the same about Existence. If there weren't a reason for things to be, then why would they? Even if the reason is no more complex than the Big Bang, everything that has been set in motion since definitively has a cause and a resolution.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

I dunno how that's even remotely disputable. If there weren't anything, we would have no reason to question why there's nothing. The fact that we have the ability to question the concept fulfills the requirement in its entirety for me.

I don't see how the ability to wonder if there's a purpose to one's existence has any bearing whatsoever on the existence of that purpose.
According to Stephen Hawking, the universe and its contents is a direct product of the principles of M-Theory, which is to say that (in his understanding of theoretical physics) it is more sensible for there to be something rather than nothing. Admittedly we wouldn't be present in a universe of nothing, but if we were, we ought to consider the fact that there isn't something to be a miracle. It would be more extraordinary if there wasn't something. Presently, most theists have it backwards.

If there weren't a reason for things to be, then why would they? Even if the reason is no more complex than the Big Bang, everything that has been set in motion since definitively has a cause and a resolution.

My intuition tells me that reasons for existence are constrained within existence. In other words, things began existing before reasons for their existence were applicable, or sensible to talk about.

[smartalco]

It would be more extraordinary if there wasn't something.

Why? I'm more intrigued by the idea of anything existing at all. Why is having nothing more astounding than the idea that the universe came to be. Why is there space, matter, time? Where the shit did all this come from? Is the universe infinite (in time), or was there a beginning to the universe (leaving the question, why did all this energy suddenly pop out of literally nothing) and will there be an end? And where the fuck did platypuses come from?

How does it not make more sense for there to be nothing? This almost absurd to try to thinking about, because if there was nothing, there would be no concept of space or time. Visualizing nothing as a black void as we have come to do is wrong because black is only the lack of light, which the very concept of light, and therefore the lack of, isn't something you could connect to a literal nothingness. There doesn't have to be a reason to be nothing. However, there has to be a reason, a cause, a purpose if you will, of something existing at all. (And I mean that from a physics standpoint, not a theological one, although it would be quite easy to mean both)

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

Here's where I have to admit that I'm not a theoretical physicist and that I bow to Hawking's superior intellect. Accordingly, I'll only argue this half-heartedly because that's the best I could hope to do.

Why? I'm more intrigued by the idea of anything existing at all. Why is having nothing more astounding than the idea that the universe came to be. Why is there space, matter, time? Where the shit did all this come from? Is the universe infinite (in time), or was there a beginning to the universe (leaving the question, why did all this energy suddenly pop out of literally nothing) and will there be an end? And where the fuck did platypuses come from?

And there's nothing wrong with asking these questions. The problem is that you ask no questions about the alternative.

Here's a really stupid parallel:
When you look at the Sun (at noon, let's say), it is very clearly white. You wonder, "why is the Sun white instead of, say, green?", and that's a fine thing to wonder. But that statement implies that the mystery is the fact that it is not green, and that if it were green you would be unsurprised. I am merely pointing out that you should be wondering why the Sun is any color, rather than arbitrarily deciding on an alternative and making it the default we'll back off to.

My point is that you're effectively saying, "in order for the universe to have any content, it must have been willed to have that content, as opposed to a universe of nothing which does not require that willful force." Why couldn't it be the case that the universe "wants" to bring itself into existence and could only be prevented from doing so by the constant, willful action of some transcendent being? Why couldn't it have supervised the universe as it tried to come into existence and prevent that, before deciding "fuck it" and leaving, allowing for the universe to explode into existence? What "purpose" would be behind existence in that scenario?

You don't fucking know. And it puzzles me that people could expect it to be anything in particular.

(And if at any point you find yourself calling "to exist" a valid purpose, I want you to eat a knife.)

How does it make more sense for there to be nothing?

This is what Hawking says. I personally am confused by it, too, but I trust him to know what he's talking about because he has an excellent track record. Personally, I'm more concerned with why it makes more sense to you that there should be something -- after all, a universe of something surely raises many more unanswerable questions than a universe with nothing.

How does it not make more sense for there to be nothing? This almost absurd to try to thinking about, because if there was nothing, there would be no concept of space or time. Visualizing nothing as a black void as we have come to do is wrong because black is only the lack of light, which the very concept of light, and therefore the lack of, isn't something you could connect to a literal nothingness.

This is merely a consequence of there being nothing; it is not a reason that it would be absurd.
There is, after all, an infinite number of things which do not exist, yet you carry on fine without them. The existence or non-existence of things is totally independent of whether or not we can comprehend them or if they will be useful to us.

There doesn't have to be a reason to be nothing. However, there has to be a reason, a cause, a purpose if you will, of something existing at all.

This is a total non sequitur. You have only spoken of what would be missed by humans if it were gone and what is comprehensible by us. Who's to say that nothingness wouldn't require damned good reasons and that somethingness turns out to have very simple reasons? Surely you'd need to be omniscient to know these things. Until you become omniscient, I don't think it's sensible to believe one to be more sensible than the other.

[Mute Monk]

Why couldn't it be the case that the universe "wants" to bring itself into existence and could only be prevented from doing so by the constant, willful action of some transcendent being? Why couldn't it have supervised the universe as it tried to come into existence and prevent that, before deciding "fuck it" and leaving, allowing for the universe to explode into existence? What "purpose" would be behind existence in that scenario?

Doesn't the existence of some transcendent being preclude the idea of "nothingness"? If such a being exists, then there's obviously something (the being) existing that isn't nothing.

Personally, it seems as though a state of complete nothingness would take far less energy. Isn't there something about thermodynamics that says "blah blah universe likes to be efficient with energy blah blah"? I dunno, I wasn't particularly good at physics. Of course, the argument could then be made that if there was nothing, no such law of thermodynamics would exist, which pretty much puts that argument away.

I agree with Kablizzy in that it's difficult to think of this universe as being completely meaningless...but at the same time I get Suki's point about existing not necessitating purpose. Doesn't this sort of link to the anthropic principle, if only tangentially? The only reason we find existing any more special than not existing is because...well, because we exist. Or something.

I just woke up, so my thoughts are even less cohesive than normal.

[otters]

Yeah.

Saying that something "seems designed" is not a good reason to believe that it is. It's a veiled form of argument from personal incredulity, i.e. "I cannot conceive of some process that would lead to this universe, apart from a designer, so a designer must exist." It's a well-documented logical fallacy.

That's interesting. I don't think it's an argument that necessarily proves or disproves the existence of a God, surely. I'm not arguing that there is definitely a creator because I can't understand how the stars came to be so beautiful. I'm not even saying that I do not understand Big Bang Theory and that because we don't know more about that, I think God is viable. It just seems to me like.. you know that joke about all of the monkeys with typewriters eventually writing Shakespeare? Well, it's simply untrue. The monkeys won't write Shakespeare. Paint does not just accidentally fall to canvas and make the Mona Lisa.

Well, according to the laws of probability, with an infinite number of tests, all possible outcomes are going to occur; not only that, but occur an infinite amount of times. So yeah, an infinite number of monkeys could do it.

Personally, I don't find it much of a stretch to say that a universe that's about 800 yoctameters across and full of an incomprehensibly high number of planets and stars could take four billion years for some organisms to develop naturally.

[SlappyMcGee]

I don't believe in infinity, anyhow.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

I just woke up, so my thoughts are even less cohesive than normal.

Your thoughts are incohesive? I just realized from a re-reading of my last post that I changed positions halfway through!

[smartalco]

Who's to say that nothingness wouldn't require damned good reasons and that somethingness turns out to have very simple reasons? Surely you'd need to be omniscient to know these things. Until you become omniscient, I don't think it's sensible to believe one to be more sensible than the other.

I'm going to pretend your entire post is expressed within these three sentences because I'm actually supposed to be writing an essay.

How exactly would nothingness require a reason? Coming from a universe made up of this odd space-time stuff, there would have to be some physics relating reason for all the energy in the universe to just disappear, but to be a state of nothingness, why would that require any reason at all? There is no start to nothingness, there is no empty space in nothingness, there is no time in nothingness, and there would be no omniscient knowledge in nothingness (because then there would be something). Whereas with something, you have the questions of where the shit did all this energy come from that is just floating around in space? Why did it just suddenly spawn out of what may have previously been nothingness, or has it always been here? Even if you don't find it sensible at all to have a reason for the universe as we know it, I'm still wondering how it is any more sensible for there to be any damn reason at all for nothing.

[Kablizzy]

(And if at any point you find yourself calling "to exist" a valid purpose, I want you to eat a knife.)

Precisely my point.

Blizz: 1, Crippled Genius: 0

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

How exactly would nothingness require a reason?

Neither of us know, but you're pretending you do.

Blizz: 1, Crippled Genius: 0

Explain you this me.

[Tanner]

[When Vonnegut tells his wife he's going out to buy an envelope] Oh, she says, well, you're not a poor man. You know, why don't you go online and buy a hundred envelopes and put them in the closet? And so I pretend not to hear her. And go out to get an envelope because I'm going to have a hell of a good time in the process of buying one envelope. I meet a lot of people. And, see some great looking babes. And a fire engine goes by. And I give them the thumbs up. And, and ask a woman what kind of dog that is. And, and I don't know. The moral of the story is, is we're here on Earth to fart around. And, of course, the computers will do us out of that. And, what the computer people don't realize, or they don't care, is we're dancing animals. You know, we love to move around. And, we're not supposed to dance at all anymore.

http://www.pbs.org/now/arts/vonnegut.html

[scythe]

What causes us to define the universe as ordered?

Why, the laws of physics, of course!

But these laws are not ordered! They are quite random. The fine structure constant, the gravitational coupling constant, the equal-action-and-reaction concept which is required of the fundamental forces, the uncertainty principle, these are all essentially arbitrary. So, the order produced by the laws of physics demands an external cause for the laws of physics, which are themselves disordered? It is useless.

You would be better served looking elsewhere for something profound. Tanner has the right idea.

[SlappyMcGee]

[When Vonnegut tells his wife he's going out to buy an envelope] Oh, she says, well, you're not a poor man. You know, why don't you go online and buy a hundred envelopes and put them in the closet? And so I pretend not to hear her. And go out to get an envelope because I'm going to have a hell of a good time in the process of buying one envelope. I meet a lot of people. And, see some great looking babes. And a fire engine goes by. And I give them the thumbs up. And, and ask a woman what kind of dog that is. And, and I don't know. The moral of the story is, is we're here on Earth to fart around. And, of course, the computers will do us out of that. And, what the computer people don't realize, or they don't care, is we're dancing animals. You know, we love to move around. And, we're not supposed to dance at all anymore.

http://www.pbs.org/now/arts/vonnegut.html

BAILLIE JUST USED THIS YESTERDAY AT ME

[Kablizzy]

What causes us to define the universe as ordered?

Why, the laws of physics, of course!

But these laws are not ordered! They are quite random. The fine structure constant, the gravitational coupling constant, the equal-action-and-reaction concept which is required of the fundamental forces, the uncertainty principle, these are all essentially arbitrary. So, the order produced by the laws of physics demands an external cause for the laws of physics, which are themselves disordered? It is useless.

You would be better served looking elsewhere for something profound. Tanner has the right idea.

I highly doubt that "random" organizes in any way, ever.

Suki: If we're not here to "just exist," then we're here for another purpose! Suck on *that*, cripple king!