IMO, this isn't a scientific position. There is no god "as imagined in the Bible." True. But that doesn't mean there isn't some form of higher power. And I think at the end of the day, this is really what science is about... understanding the Universe. Until there's definitive proof either way.
There used to be a time when folks were thought to be nuts for thinking there could be life elsewhere in space. People had no clue how vast space truly is, nor how many other planets exist beyond our universe. There are plenty of topics (like higher powers) that we don't understand.
If I see no evidence for higher power, I cannot give credence to its existence. The world is full of evidence for things that exist. If I have to take account of the infinite possibilities imagined by humans over the years, I exhaust my meaningful cognition. Hindu higher power better if I’m wrong
I think we see the evidence by the mere fact that we had to create a field of study to understand the evidence. Maybe someday we reach the definitive conclusion by being able to prove **everything** and there's nothing left to discover. But, we've a few minutes before we get to that point.
We just discovered a new moon orbiting a planet in our own solar system. It's been there throughout the entire age of humanity. We had no evidence of it, but it was still there. science.nasa.gov/blogs/webb/2...
Sick of all these planets trying to outdue us with their secret moons. Time to Make Earth Great Again!
A lack of evidence is not evidence. The question comes down to is there something that acts in the universe in a way that violates the laws of physics? i.e. supernaturally. We haven't found anything that violates those laws. So far any god is confined to following the rules. Not much of a god.
*of absence. The full quote is, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” ~ Sagan What's he's saying is just because you have absolutely no evidence of something, doesn't mean it isn't there.
He was discussing Russell's teapot. The burden of proof lies with one making the claim.
Russell used the words, to the effect of if there's no teapot, then it's unreasonable to believe in it. That I agree with. This isn't about a belief system. That said, history is littered with cases where human knowledge became aware of something it had no evidence of the day prior.
And to duck back a few points. I would give absolute credence to a hypothetical undiscovered moon somewhere in the solar system. But a higher power that never manifests to non-believers? Too solipsistic for me. I need spare bandwidth to read comics and listen to doom metal
You're still referring to "Bible God". Which is absolutely not what I'm talking about. It could be anything. It could be the "ego" character in Guardians of the Galaxy. It could be that our Universe exists in someone particle collider, and there Universe in another... could by anything.
Of course, but I run out of ink and paper long before I can factor those possibilities in. My world is bound by what we know. Open to new discoveries and challenges to orthodoxy. But I have so much to learn about what we have, I can’t spare time for improbable conjecture. Different viewpoints is all
You can’t prove a negative. Being an atheist means not assuming a deity without any evidence of one. It’s not a thesis that there is no god, it’s a position that evidence doesn’t suggest a god.
Dawkins (who I’m not a fan of anymore these days) said it best: we are atheist in practice, but agnostic in theory. Whatever exists outside and or before the universe is unknown and potentially unknowable
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." ~Sagan
Furthermore, as an atheist, I do have a form of faith. I do believe there has to be something bigger than our universe. I have faith that is not just one universe occurring once. If our universe reforms, if there’s other universes, and whatever mechanism exists larger than ours, I have no idea
FYI - Your definition makes you Agnostic, not an Athiest.
I don’t think that is actually atheist or agnostic. Atheist is just the absolute “no”. Agnostic is open to possibility, but has no faith or belief system.
An Agnostic holds the belief that it is not possible to know whether or not "God" exists, but does believe there is a Divine force in the Universe. Something bigger outside ourselves.
That’s more of a theistic or pantheistic argument. I’ve joked that I’m a transhuman pantheist before. Maybe believers just got the order wrong
That is the actual definition of the word agnostic from the Cambridge Dictionary.
I don’t think that’s quite right, but close. It’s someone who thinks that the existence (or non-existence) of God, gods, or ultimate reality is unknown or unknowable. It may be possible to know, but the question of if there is a divine force is yet to be proven.
It's right.
In other words, an agnostic doesn’t have a belief system. An atheist believes there isn’t a god. A theist believes there is a god (or gods). An agnostic is in the middle without a belief system, maybe there’s a god, maybe there isn’t.
Agnostics do have a belief system. They believe we all share a moral code that is not related to a religious belief.
Based on the evidence the universe presents me, I don’t believe there is a god. If there was an intelligence that created the universe, or whatever circumstances led to the universe, I have no idea. And whether information within this universe survives its end, also no idea, but I’m optimistic
LOL well there you go. Since we're sharing. I believe.. You are not God, I am not the goddess. But you and I and all things seen and unseen make up the Divine universe. I also believe in the divine intervention of the Big Bang and the subsequent Evolution thereafter.
I’m both, they answer different questions. Agonisticism answers the epistemological question while atheism answers the ontological question. I’m an atheist because I’m don’t believe in an extant deity, but agnostic because I don’t know if it’s knowable that a deity exists
Agnostics don't generally believe in a deity. Or that a deity exists. Rather that something probably exist but it's unknowable if that's fact or feeling.
It’s just thank the new atheists have so colored the word that it’s treated as a positive argument that god doesn’t exist rather than a statement of lack in a belief of a deity because there’s no evidence.
There are a lot of antitheists out there, that hate god. But to hate god you have to believe in their existence, otherwise you are just mad at a void
Well God is a job title not a name. So to believe in God you'd have to first Define what God is.
But I have faith that there’s more. I just don’t think there was a creative intelligence that just created this universe only and once. But who knows? Religious zealots sure don’t
I prefer to not call myself an atheist because it suggests a certainty about something unknowable. I prefer (and to be in line with Sagan as well) to call myself an agnostic.
Being ‘atheist’ does not imply certainty. It’s a stance, not on knowledge of which one can be certain, but of belief. We’re all ‘agnostic’ because no human has that knowledge ‘gnosis’. ‘Theists’ are believers, conversely, not ‘knowers’.
Understandable. I’m both, the new atheists kind of militarized the word. But I call myself an atheist Christian, so here’s to confusing the hell out of people who believe in reductive arguments🤣🤣🤣
And actually, to take it a step further... I really prefer "New Testament Agnostic." Because I think the generalized message that the character "Jesus" in the NT is good. I don't believe in the supernatural stuff, but if everyone actually followed the teachings, we'd be in a much better place.
Christianity isn't the only faith with a moral compass. I'm not anti-Christian, but Buddhists, Shamanism, Hinduism etc all have their forms of morality too. How about everyone just treat each other with Respect and Acceptance to get along and make the world a better place.
And yes, that is basically the crux of the Jefferson Bible. But I’m sure you can make a pretty good moral text out of ‘War and Peace’ if you pick and choose what you like. The difference is that ‘Pierrians’ wouldn’t have the weight to move public policy or forgo taxation.
Being a lapsed Unitarian-Universalist I don’t know a lot about the bible. But these days I’m thinking that perhaps the Old Testament vengeful god would come in handy
It’s nice to meet a fellow traveler. I also don’t call myself a socialist or a progressive… because I am no. I am a left wing libertarian (talk about another term ruined by jackasses). Basically I believe in collectivism but I am about force.
I believe you just described Thomas Jefferson’s Bible. americanhistory.si.edu/JeffersonBib...
Totally. It would be totally cool to magically end up in a different dimensional universive where we know all the mysteries of time and space or whatever, but I'm not counting on it.
Why? Short if we destroy ourselves before reaching it?
Oh, I don't know. Just kind of always been my fallback response to actually not caring at all what happens when we die. There's no point speculating and we're all going to get there.
And there is no absence of evidence for the existence of God in any case. There is plenty of evidence that suggests the #SolarSystem & #Universe are products of #IntelligentDesign. The testimony of the Biblical prophets & other prophets-mystics cannot be dismissed as pure fantasy and-or delusion.
So far we have not had to conclude that the only explanation for something that is supernatural. That is the first requirement to show there is any kind of deity. Discussing anything outside our universe is pure speculation because it can't be falsified.
Once we explain something, it is no longer supernatural. Lightning was once considered supernatural. We know now that it isn't because we can explain it. And we can even create it at smaller scales. It could be there is a higher power that we someday discover and can explain.
Quantum Physics has proven the existence of Universe & Consciousness. Science doesn't use terms like god or soul. Universe=the Divine, God, Higher Being. Consciousness=soul. You can absolutely find these experiments on the internet. You don't have to know QP to understand the outcome of experiments.
Did I just drop into an AA meeting?
I explain it like this: some believe in the power of a Holy Spirit. I've seen the power of the human spirit. I give credit where credit is due
It's more accurate to say there is no evidence of a god. So far we have found natural explanations for everything within the bounds of our universe and there is no reason to think that's going to change. Anything outside our universe is speculation because we have no way to measure that, for now.