"Why I'm Agnostic" (Good read for believers and non-believers)

[Rath]

Jumpin said:

Andrespetmonkey said:
 

1. In that Carl Sagen quote you forgot to to highlight the "by some definitions" part. Atheism isn't the assertion that there is no gods, I and most other people don't define it that way. I am an agnostic atheist meaning I don't think there is a god, but I don't know. It just seems unlikely to me.

2. And to the part that I highlighted. It's incredibly easy to know why the idea of gods has arisen. Because people didn't know what caused certain things to happen, they couldn't explain it, our brains are also programmed to see pattern, this is an evolutionary trait. We see "pattern" in the universe and feel the need to attribute it to something, and if we don't understand it, the easiest thing to attribute it to is a god or gods.

3. And I have no idea why you started wrting about morality. That has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote. But whatever, I'll give it a shot. The objective viewpoint I have to criticize Hitler, the Crusades and Jihad on is my knowledge of how a successful and happy society works and how the world is a better place when people aren't cunts to eachother. I also don't need an objective viewpoint anyway, since the basis of morality is subjective (empathy).

1. Then you and most people are incorrect about the definition as it is fairly clear. Atheism by definition is the belief that no Gods exist. If you do not assert that no Gods exist, you are not an atheist. Agnosticism is the belief that the knowledge of God is unknowable, so therefore that assertion is not made. Carl Sagan made the implication that Atheism was stupid, he himself was a firm agnostic and freethinker; and he certainly did not believe in a humanoid God. Perhaps you are actually an agnostic? I personally believe that agnosticism is probably the most rational philosophy at this time.

2. It's the simplest explanation, Occam's razor. I agree. Although if you feel that this means it is a false belief, then by definition that argument would commit the genetic fallacy; and would thus be invalid.

3. I believe I covered this in my last post.

 

Anyway, I still don't think you had any arguments against the Cosmological, Teleological, and Ontological arguments. To briefly highlight them:

The Cosmological Argument
* Everything that had a beginning had a cause for its existence
* The Universe had a beginning
* Therefore - the Universe had a cause for its existence.

Throughout much of modern history, it was believed by the atheist that the universe was eternal, and had no beginning. This, in the 20th century was refuted by evidence that shows that the universe is expanding - The Big Bang Theory.  The Big Bang Theory also states that time, matter,  and space began approximately 13.7 million years ago, and has been expanding ever since.

Since that beginning required a cause of its existence, that cause would have to be beyond the material world, beyond, time, and beyond space. That means that the beginning had to be one of two things, an abstract object such as numbers - or God. Since we know that abstract objects such as numbers can't create, that leaves God as the possibility.

* If the Universe (space, time and matter) has a cause for existence, it must be God.
* Therefore God exists.

Of course, all of this is dependent on the Big Bang Theory being true - currently it is widely accepted by nearly all of the scientific community to be accurate. Other philosophical theories (such as a multiverse, or the crunch) do not have any scientific evidence for them, and the "Big Crunch" has much evidence against it. This also just pushes the beginning back a step, and does not disprove the Cosmological argument.

 

The Teleological Argument
* The Fine Tuning of the Big Bang for the existence of matter and the possibility of life must be due to either: Chance, Law, or Design.
* The probabaility of chance is so small that it is absurd to argue that it is by chance.
* The laws of physics are not dependent of the laws of nature, therefore it is not by law.
* Therefore the Universe was created by Design

Throughout much of modern history, it was often just assumed that the Universe ended up in its current state by chance. Since the 1980's, scientists have been stunned to discover that the initial conditions of the Big Bang were fine tuned so that the universe can exist the way it currently does; and that is, allowing for life permitting planets to emerge. When the laws of nature are divided into mathematical terms, we find constants - wuch as the gravitational constant. These constants are not determined by the laws of nature. Secondly, there are certain arbitrary quantities put in as intitial conditions on which the laws of nature operate (the amount of entropy, or the balance between matter and anti-matter). All of these constants and quantities fall into an extraordinary range which allow for a life permitting universe that even if they were moved by a hair, the universe would not be able to have planets such as earth - it would probably not allow for material beyond helium.

String theory predicts that there are about 10 to the 500th power possibilities for a matter and life permitting Universe, - the odds are so incomprehensible that it is not by chance. 

 

The Ontological Argument
* It is possible that the greatest being in the Universe exists - we call this God.
* If it is possible that the greatest being in the Universe exists, then it is possible that it exists in a conceivable universe.
* If that possibility exists in some universes, then it can exist in all conceivable universes.
* If the greatest being can exist in every conceivable universe, then it exists in the actual universe.
* Therefore the greatest being exists in the actual universe.
* Therefore the greatest being exists
* Therefore God Exists.

There's not really a question of the points 2 through 7, they're logically sound. The first premise is potentially fallable, but I have not seen a good argument against it. Is God's existence possible? The preceding Cosmological and Teleological arguments strongly suggest that Gods existence is highly possible. Therefore given the logical progression of the argument from premise one, God exists.

As conclusion, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that God exists. In light of what we know about the universe (scientifically speaking), it is irrational to conclude that God doesn't exist. However, it IS rational to conclude that human knowledge has not advanced far enough that our sciences are accurate - and again, this does not support atheism in the slightest, but it does support agnosticism.

What are the arguments of atheism? I often see a lot of bigoted comments towards religions as "support" for atheism; but nothing really solid in the form of a well supported and logically sound argument. Agnosticism and theism are the two rational philosophies. Atheism takes a huge leap of faith.

Ok I'll argue against these things.

The cosmological argument assumes causality (based on our experience that everything is caused by something else). However our experience (and causality) are governed by the universe - the same rules cannot necessarily be applied to the universe. 

The teleological argument, that physical laws are perfect for life, runs into the fact that if physical laws were not perfect for life then we would not be able to observe them. It is quite likely that there are other universes which are not perfect for life and that will never be observed. Only the universes suited for life will ever have observed physical laws.

Your version of the Ontological argument seems to be lacking at the point at which there is a crossover from the possibility of god existing to the necessity. In any case I dislike the ontological argument in general because as far as I can see it essentially boils down to "If we define God as existing then God exists".

 

Also in terms of atheism, a disbelief in something for which there is no physical evidence is not irrational. There isn't evidence for atheism anymore than there is evidence for not believing in unicorns - all there is is a lack of evidence to the contrary.

 

Also for a good page about the ontological argument (including the arguments against it):

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/