Log in

View Full Version : Theist Questions Answered Please Answer My Questions


I am a mad person
February 23rd, 2009, 04:39 AM
These are the thiest questions, bellow are my answers in bold...

Why does the universe need a reason to have been made?
Not neccesarily

What sanctioned your god making the universe?
If I did believe in God, nothing would necessarilly need to sanction him.

Can you prove that your god exists?
Logically? Yes. In a logical way in which everyone agrees? No

Why do we use the original 10 commandments rather than the replacements that God gave to Moses after Moses broke the tables containing them?
Commandments were at one point laws punishable by death.

Does God have the right to rule the universe?
What right? Who would stop him? Rights are irrelevent

Can you show that God is not a malevolent, omnipotent and all-deceiving being?
Yes, because if "God" is good, he is not malevolent. If he is all decieving, he is not good. If he is not omnipotent, he is not God. If God allows humans the gift of free will under the terms that he will judge them, and doesn't strike anyone dead the instant they sin, then God has exercised his own free will to do so, but if God chooses to manifest himself in something that causes others to believe in him for no logical reason, he has exercised his free will to make himself known. If he speaks through people but someone does not understand the intended idea, the people are ignorant, but God is still all knowing. If he could make known everything to all people so there would never be a missunderstanding, he might, but doesn't have to.

How is God going to punish me if I don't believe he exists?
I don't know, maybe sending you to heaven and putting you in a cage where you get to watch Christians sing songs about God. You might consider that hell.

How can you prove that your scriptures (Bible, Koran, Torah, whatever) really represents the will of God, and not the humans, who wrote it?
You can't really.

Can God create a rock so big that he cannot lift it?
No. He can create a rock the he chooses not to move though and you can't prove to me he can lift it. You also can't divide by zero.

So then, if you are not all knowing, how do you know there is not a God? If you are not certain, are you not agnostic? If you are agnostic, but there is God, there is no possibility that God doesn't exist. Likewise, if there is no God, then there is no possibility that God exists.

So finally, certainly God exists or certainly God does not exist. Certainly if you are unsure as to weather or not God exists, you are agnostic. Certainly, if you have made a decision to believe or not believe in God, you have made either an educated or uneducated guess. Certainly, if you have decided that God is real, you have faith. Certainly if you have decided God is not real, you have faith that you are right because you have come to a logical conclussion that God does not exist, but you are not certain. If you are not certain as to weather or not God exists, you are agnostic, but then you can't be an athiest without faith (as in you believe without knowing).

If you say there is a very small chance that God exists, you are making up a statistic. In reality, God either exists or he doesn't, there is a 100% chance of this, and you cannot calculate wheather or not God exists, nor can you prove it.

So basically I am at this point, my questions I wanted answered have question marks after them. Also, please tell me where I said something that doesn't make sense. I'm not really going anywhere with this except I am trying to learn because at this point I am agnostic.

Tsar Phalanxia
February 23rd, 2009, 02:26 PM
I have five minutes of my lunch hour left, so I'll come back to this.

google_is_my_friend
February 25th, 2009, 08:08 AM
Why does the universe need a reason to have been made?
Scientific proof or some shit like that.

What sanctioned your god making the universe?
maybe the universe created him

Can you prove that your god exists?
i can prove google exists.

Why do we use the original 10 commandments rather than the replacements that God gave to Moses after Moses broke the tables containing them?
Commandments are really fluffy rabbits

Does God have the right to rule the universe?
thats a good question to ask a serious christian

Can you show that God is not a malevolent, omnipotent and all-deceiving being?
I would try....does anyone got his phone number?

How is God going to punish me if I don't believe he exists?
slap on the wrist

How can you prove that your scriptures (Bible, Koran, Torah, whatever) really represents the will of God, and not the humans, who wrote it?
you can't

Can God create a rock so big that he cannot lift it?
ummmm if he really wanted to

sam the moderately wize
February 27th, 2009, 08:14 PM
Atheism does not require faith in the same way as theism:

Russell's Teapot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot)

The default state should be scepticism rather than agnosticism.

tagnostic
February 28th, 2009, 12:46 PM
The default state should be scepticism rather than agnosticism.

shouldn't the default state be agnosticism?
you begin by admitting you don't know,
which is the impetus for seeking
an answer which can be
theist/deist/athiest or continued agnostic?

Yiuel
March 3rd, 2009, 02:05 AM
shouldn't the default state be agnosticism?
you begin by admitting you don't know,
which is the impetus for seeking
an answer which can be
theist/deist/athiest or continued agnostic?

Sure, you must first doubt. But that is not Agnosticism, but Scepticism. And Scepticism is the first step.

However, your basic hypothesis must always be the null hypothesis, where there is nothing. Only if you find something (a disturbance not explained by previous theories) should you think that something is there. And Occam's razor will tell you to be as simple as possible.

But this is Science. It doesn't care much about truth or certainty. It cares about explicativeness and reliability.

And Agnosticism in all this is a mere handling of your basic hypothesis. You can say that you think that there is or there is not something, but you say that you aren't sure. Agnosticism is therefore only refusing to be adamant about a specific belief.

tagnostic
March 3rd, 2009, 08:10 AM
outstanding!

would beg to differ on the definition of agnosticism, though,
it is not a schroedingers cat state of being or not being,
it is the belief that you shouldn't open the box
to find out, because you'll never reallly
know until it's too late...

Tsar Phalanxia
March 3rd, 2009, 09:52 AM
I have a feeling Yiuel will feel right at home here. You should meet Perna.

tagnostic
March 3rd, 2009, 12:27 PM
Yepper's
this is going to be fun

Yiuel
March 3rd, 2009, 01:06 PM
Made a good impression? Great :)

Now, the meat.

would beg to differ on the definition of agnosticism, though,

I understand your image with S.'s cat and box, but you are missing a few details. In the box, you know there is something, you just don't know how it is (its qualities). The cat may be dead or alive, but it still is there, no matter how. And its double state is only this way because you don't disturb it : as soon as you do, you will know. If agnosticism is like that box, then you didn't dare to ask the question about the existence of something and measure its answer.

But existence does not work that way, you cannot "be" and "not be" at the same time. When something does not exist, it has no influence. When something does exist, it will have influence (note that the cat exists in both situations, only that in one he is dead, and in the other one he is well alive). Existence relies on relations to yourself, and the location of something within the Universe is determined by where those links bring you. But when something has failed to show you a proper link with yourself, you can doubt its existence.

(Existence however cannot deal about how things exists. God exists in books, for instance, but there, it's only words on paper given life by symbolism and linking to our own mind through language.)

The essence of agnosticism is then to refuse to say that "I am sure it does not exist" (Because, when there is something that you can relate to yourself, it certainly exists, so doubt is a bit misplaced) when you have not found any straightfoward evidence about something's existence (here, some metauniversal being). From there, you can choose to live by the null hypothesis (atheistically) or by the non-null hypothesis (theistically et al.). Otherwise, you're just conviniently tossing the question, but that is being secular, acting as if the question didn't exist.

All this is also why existence always lays the burden of proof to the one who claims something exists. Because you cannot fully disproove inexistence.

Well, that's what I think :)

tagnostic
March 3rd, 2009, 01:14 PM
excellent,

i still differ with you on your definition of an agnostic,
it's not a question of not questioning
it's the realization that if there
really is an answer, we
would be the last
to know
:D

Yiuel
March 3rd, 2009, 01:22 PM
it's the realization that if there
really is an answer, we
would be the last
to know
:D

Well, to that, I certainly cannot disagree. :)

tagnostic
March 3rd, 2009, 01:31 PM
dang, don't stop there,
it was just getting fun.
hehehehe

the diff between an athiest an and agnostic


athiest "there is no god"
agnostic "is it relevant""

Yiuel
March 3rd, 2009, 01:45 PM
Well, sure. :)

I have problems with the "Is it relevant?" thing. There is a whole world of differences between a world where God (or at least gods) and Paradise exists, and a world where they don't, and nothing exists beyond the Universe. To get a glimpse of how a theistic world could be, read Order of the Stick. Hilarious, but still a good example. And it shows that it certainly can't be like ours, so the question, to me, IS relevant.

(And let us not forget the masses who do believe in some god, and have been shown to react violently to someone denying that (and the Universe knows how many I know). So even sociologically, it is relevant.)

Now, I claim to be agnostic myself. To me, what is not relevant is not the question itself, which I think I demonstrated it is, but the foolishness associated with not being sure that something does not exist. I refuse to make it a definition of my life, without being an ass by claiming hard "God does not exist" (without any proof : how can I prove something like a non-existence?). I just happen to have chosen the null hypothesis in my life, as a scientist should always do when he fails to find some link. Hence atheistic agnosticism.

tagnostic
March 3rd, 2009, 01:55 PM
a difference that doesn't make a difference is not a difference.

ie if it has no actual impact on reality as i percieve it
why even postulate it?

(this is fun)

Yiuel
March 3rd, 2009, 02:45 PM
a difference that doesn't make a difference is not a difference.

ie if it has no actual impact on reality as i percieve it
why even postulate it?

(this is fun)

But it does make a difference, in our world with bazillions of theists, with some of them ready to kill for their belief. In some way, God exists through them, and they have a huge (and at times ugly) influence over my own life, wether the god they describe exists or not. And this, in turn, has an impact on our reality.

But this is not addressing my metaphysical argument, where a world with or without a god will be different in fundamental ways.

In our Universe, I postulate from observation that there is no god (at least in a Christian, Judaic or Islamic way), since I don't see any influence on my life the (except through the zealousness of its defenders, but that link can be dismissed if we postulate wild imagination and ultimately delusion). But I had to take the question and answer it.

The hypothesis that god exists has been brought up (and we all know the silliness brought forth by it), now I must either accept it or ditch it. I ditched it, for better or for worse, but the relevantness of god is null because I hold the null hypothesis of the existence question as the one being more explicative than the one where we suppose god exists.

Take it another way. What if we were talking about dragons? Is there a difference between an hypothetical world where dragons exist and where dragons don't? The question may be silly, but the hypothesis has been brought up. Now, we don't have anything to support the non-null hypothesis, so we can assume the null hypothesis to be right, and dismiss the idea. But that doesn't make the question irrelevant, it makes its object (dragons, here) irrelevant.

Or perhaps the invisible pink unicorn would have been a better choice.

tagnostic
March 3rd, 2009, 05:51 PM
the fact that you Allow theist's belief's to impact your reality/world view give's them a validity which they would otherwise not have, (psych's would call it 'enabling'). It still has no effect on my reality unless some one decides to make their point in the physical world, in which case the belief system is rather moot, and it becomes self defense as opposed to logical discussion, which is in itself an illogical conclusion, ie: Physically reacting on a belief system you cannot logically or intellectually defend is less than brilliant...
:D

(really enjoying this)

Yiuel
March 4th, 2009, 02:24 AM
the fact that you Allow theist's belief's to impact your reality/world view give's them a validity which they would otherwise not have, (psych's would call it 'enabling'). It still has no effect on my reality unless some one decides to make their point in the physical world, in which case the belief system is rather moot, and it becomes self defense as opposed to logical discussion, which is in itself an illogical conclusion, ie: Physically reacting on a belief system you cannot logically or intellectually defend is less than brilliant...
:D

(really enjoying this)

I will not argue that I find theistic beliefs ridiculous at best, and, for myself and my own life, I share none of it. Someone convincing me through arguments involving some god or something like that will just be as ridiculous as Meletos against Sokrates. And like Sokrates, absurd reasonings won't afffect my own thinking.

(As I said, to me, gods et al. only exist in books. Pretty much a sociological issue, not a metaphysical or theological one.)

But it may well influence my life. Sokrates's life was destroyed by said Meletos. Can't say, and hope, it will not go as far for me, but stupid reflexions breed stupid actions that will at least influence my life if only a little. Meletos-like people exist (so many!), but they can be deadly.

tagnostic
March 4th, 2009, 09:27 AM
i'm still rofl

that was awesome,

now, i'm more inclined to epictetus,
it goes along with the cartesian mind set
there's only one thing I am completely sure of
and have control of and that's Me

other than that it's all perception which can be doubted
:icon_lol:

sam the moderately wize
March 4th, 2009, 11:42 AM
Now, I claim to be agnostic myself. To me, what is not relevant is not the question itself, which I think I demonstrated it is, but the foolishness associated with not being sure that something does not exist.

The Dawkins Seven-point scale:

1) Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
2) De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
3) Theist/Agnostic: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
4) Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
5) Atheist/Agnostic: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
6) De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
7) Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

You seem to be using the term agnostic (or Theist/Atheist-Agnostic) to include almost all of the states in the scale. I consider myself to be a de-facto atheist, and tend to term myself an atheist rather than an agnostic, even though I am not entirely certain. If I had to be a God-Agnostic, I would also have to be an agnostic about almost everything else up to and including the existence of a world outside myself.

Also, if you term yourself an agnostic, you will be seen by society as an agnostic, and I'd rather be seen as an atheist. Lingual lables are significant things.

Yiuel
March 4th, 2009, 04:16 PM
The Dawkins Seven-point scale:

1) Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
2) De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
3) Theist/Agnostic: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
4) Pure Agnostic: Gods existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
5) Atheist/Agnostic: I do not know whether God exists but Im inclined to be skeptical.
6) De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
7) Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

You seem to be using the term agnostic (or Theist/Atheist-Agnostic) to include almost all of the states in the scale. I consider myself to be a de-facto atheist, and tend to term myself an atheist rather than an agnostic, even though I am not entirely certain. If I had to be a God-Agnostic, I would also have to be an agnostic about almost everything else up to and including the existence of a world outside myself.

Well, to me, all from 2 to 6 are pretty much agnostic (no certainty), though 2 and 6 are very borderline. It's just a gradiant about how adamant you are about the existence of something. Pure 4) is to me the most absurd answer, as existence itself is not a gradient, you cannot be between existence and non-existence. Even tagnostic pretty clearly shows he's not 4, but at least at 6 if not 7.

I am right between 5 and 6 on that scale. I don't think it's improbable (who am I to say something is improbable), but I don't think I am merely skeptical about the issue either. Somehow, the most logical conclusion to me is no-god, and I'll live by it, but I'll always put things in doubt, as we always should in front of a question, no matter how absurd it may be.

Also, if you term yourself an agnostic, you will be seen by society as an agnostic, and I'd rather be seen as an atheist. Lingual lables are significant things.

I prefer agnosticism, for when something does not seem to exist, you never can be certain, and I certainly don't want to be an ass about my own reflexions on god's existence (I will always place them in doubt, for the sheer fun of it at least). But I'll term it atheistic, because I live "as if there were no god", since me it's the most logical conclusion when you do not have anything conclusive. Again the null hypothesis thing.

Also, it puzzles a lot of people around me. Both on the theist side and on the atheist side. Life is full of doubt, and this is only one of them, why should I care whether I know something for sure? Certainty if for those who are afraid of Life as It is, doubt and uncertainty is for those people who will forever be able to enjoy new questions and issues that pops out. It's fun to have questions, so I'll show myself as always having some.

And having them enraged seeing my confidence in uncertainty (and my sense of wonder in front of every silly existence in the Universe) is something of a trademark, and a cool thing to do. :)

tagnostic
March 4th, 2009, 04:21 PM
Even tagnostic pretty clearly shows he's not 4, but at least at 6 if not 7.


interesting thought,
i've always considered myself a 4
I do think there should be a 4.5
"don't think it matters except as an intellectual exercise"


my confidence in uncertainty :)

that is a classic line
total win

Perna de Pau
March 4th, 2009, 05:13 PM
Great discussion! (Tsar was right)

I understand why Dawkins presented his seven-point scale but I do not find it very helpful.

For me the position is either "I believe that there is a god" and you are a theist or "I do not believe that there is a god" and you are an atheist. The fact that your belief is strong or weak does not change the fact that you believe and the fact that your disbelief is strong or weak does again not change the fact that you do not believe. In the end there are only two possibilities.

As nobody can prove either the existence or the non-existence of god(s) we would all be agnostic in Dawkins' scale.

I agree that point 4 is absurd and badly formulated: belief is not linked to probability.

tagnostic
March 4th, 2009, 05:20 PM
hehehe
good to see ya Perna,
wondered when you'd jump in.


why does belief have to be binary?
theist/athiest
i like the trinary third state,
being unknowable, and having no bearing
on my perception of reality (real life)
it's irrelevant except as a discussion point
:icon_question:

Yiuel
March 4th, 2009, 05:26 PM
Great discussion! (Tsar was right)

I understand why Dawkins presented his seven-point scale but I do not find it very helpful.

For me the position is either "I believe that there is a god" and you are a theist or "I do not believe that there is a god" and you are an atheist. The fact that your belief is strong or weak does not change the fact that you believe and the fact that your disbelief is strong or weak does again not change the fact that you do not believe. In the end there are only two possibilities.

Indeed, the scale is just that, the certainty of your belief. But it is a good tool to evaluate whether you are sure or not about your belief. It's good in a way, because being 100% sure is probably the worst thing possible on Earth (beside not choosing a side).

Perna de Pau
March 4th, 2009, 05:38 PM
hehehe
good to see ya Perna,
wondered when you'd jump in.


why does belief have to be binary?
theist/athiest
i like the trinary third state,
being unknowable, and having no bearing
on my perception of reality (real life)
it's irrelevant except as a discussion point
:icon_question:

Good to see you Tag.

But do you really think there is a third state in believing (or not) in Russell's tea pot or in the flying spaghetti monster (may you be touched by his noodly appendages)? :icon_rolleyes:

tagnostic
March 4th, 2009, 06:01 PM
yes, i, believe that it's possible to believe that you do not and never will know for certain, and while mentally stimulating and a fun exercise in logic it has absolutely no effect on my life other than when others of different belief systems impact my life, which does not make any impact (so far) on me other than conversation and reinforcing my belief that it's not in any way useful to me or worthy of other than fun debate...

hehehe

Dr Goofy Mofo
March 4th, 2009, 06:07 PM
I completely agree with Tag on this. We had this discussion earlier with Mushy if I am not mistaken.

Perna de Pau
March 4th, 2009, 06:14 PM
What you say (also about this being no more than a fun exercise) is right but belief is not related to knowledge (on the contrary:icon_lol: ).

You do not "believe", but you "know" that you do not and never will know for certain. This knowledge however does not interfere with your belief.

Despite that knowledge some people believe and others do not.

If belief was linked to knowledge or probabilities, nobody would gamble.

By the way would someone correct the spelling of the name of the thread: it should be theist, not thiest.

Dr Goofy Mofo
March 4th, 2009, 06:24 PM
What if my belief is I do not care if there is a god, or what if I never heard of god so thus I do not believe either way in something I do not know exist. The 3rd thing we are talking about is the un-belief, not knowing either way. If only DutchPastaGuy were here I think he explained it better then I can with my lack of knowledge of the English language(even though it is the only thing I know)

tagnostic
March 4th, 2009, 06:34 PM
What you say (also about this being no more than a fun exercise) is right but belief is not related to knowledge (on the contrary:icon_lol: ).

rofl, total concurrence belief!=knowledge
and knowledge is a process not an end result


You do not "believe", but you "know" that you do not and never will know for certain. This knowledge however does not interfere with your belief. I can go with that insofar as my 'belief' is that I will never have enough knowledge

Despite that knowledge some people believe and others do not.Would change that to "lack of knowledge, and the lack of recogition of ones own lack of knowledge", wow, that got convoluted.

If belief was linked to knowledge or probabilities, nobody would gamble.what Probabilities?

life's a mean curve,
I'm just surfing the standard medium
and the wave is cresting


By the way would someone correct the spelling of the name of the thread: it should be theist, not thiest.time to goto work Sciky,
heheheh

rmw
March 5th, 2009, 02:35 AM
By the way would someone correct the spelling of the name of the thread: it should be theist, not thiest.

Done.

I tend to vaccilate between theistic agnosticism and atheistic agnosticism--I can never know for certain the existence or non-existence of god/s, however my belief (or lack thereof) tends to depend on the situation. Funnily enough, my tendency towards belief is usually when I'm having a bad day, and I'm convinced somebody up there hates me. ;) When I'm having a good day, the belief in god/s is a non-issue, as life is too good at the moment to worry about some vengeful deity.

sam the moderately wize
March 11th, 2009, 08:38 PM
interesting thought,
i've always considered myself a 4
I do think there should be a 4.5


The scale is continuous, so you can go for whatever decimal you like.

Also, I find that many of the beliefs that I hold and used to consider to be in the purely theorectical realm, with no bearing on real life, have turned out to shape the way I live to a surprising extent. My atheism has led me to seek other paths to meaning in a meaningless universe, which has led me on to Camus...

I doubt that this would have happened if I had maintained a state of permanent agnosticism on principle, and I like the way it has turned out for me.