A Question to Agnostics

[Harry Tuttle]

If I were God tomorrow I would be far more kind, just, and merciful than the guy in the fantastic stories bandied about in any of today's religions.

It seems like atheists and agnostics tend to hold God to a higher standard than believers do.  I can't count the number of times I've heard one say basically "The god I don't believe in is better than the one you do." 

Perhaps you are right, but when I hear "god is love" or "he is infinitely merciful" and all of that kind of malarkey, it makes me want to sigh and shake my head.

[Diogenes The Cynic]

From the perspective of the agnostic its safer to take the position with the least amount of assumptions. Since there isn't any conclusive evidence of aliens, much less that they're inquisitive, or benevolent enough to create us, it seems that G-d would have less implied assumptions.

You guys are getting soft if you don't see the question I built into this phrase.

[Harry Tuttle]

I guess I didn't catch the question, but I can state my position pretty briefly. I don't believe in in a being that consciously created humanity and hangs around to observe all of use individuality and judge the morality of our actions. I don't have any evidence that there no such being, I just find the concept so ludicrous that it is without merit. I am not interested in following rituals "just in case" there is such a being, any more than I would keep a tuxedo in my car just in case I run into Halle Berry and she invites me to run away with her and get married right now.

I do, occasionally, observe certain small rituals, such as saying "bless you" when someone sneezes, just to keep humans from acting hateful toward me, but not out of any sense that the lord shall smite me or that some boogeymen are going to get my "soul".

[fatcat]

Yes, because most Westerners who believe in a god generally assert that he is infinite in at least one sense-- having no temporal beginning or end.  Humans are not capable, so far as I can tell, of recognizing such a being if confronted with one.  I'm not talking about any other version of god. 

So how do you know you can't recognize it if you've never encountered it?

That's exactly the point-- I wouldn't know if I've encountered it.  If I did know, that would mean I had recognized it. 

The only way it would be impossible to prove an existent entity exists, is if that thing had no measurable effects and no measurable presence, in which case it is the same as nothing.

I don't know what would automatically prevent an infinite being from having measurable effects.  If an infinite being burped once every twenty years, you could measure that....but would you know if it was infinite?   Or would you just know that something has been burping every twenty years as far back as you can tell, and shows no signs of stopping? 

This is exactly my point.

If it was impossible to recognize god, then there'd be no way to distinguish between an unrecognizeable god, and the lack of a god.

If you can't make any distinction whatsoever between nothing and something, then that something is as good as nothing. There's a strong danger between confusing "I haven't seen any evidence yet", with "I might have seen evidence but I might not have been able to recognize it as such".

Its completely redundant to say "well if god was unrecognizeable I wouldn't know if I encountered it or not"

You can say that about any concept if you put a unrecognizable caveat in there. I wouldn't know if me from 50 years in the future came back, kicked me in the nuts and erased my memory. So what?

Why not say the same things about Leprechauns or the Flying Spaghetti monster? While in concept they're all as impossible to disprove as another, it gives certain supernatural beliefs undue legitimacy by being "agnostic" to 'God', whilst ignoring other dumb supernatural beliefs, as if its okay to just disregard silly myths, but the concept of "God" is so much more important and fundamental that you have to give it proper "respect".

If you really don't think its sensible to assume a god doesnt exist till its proven, just like you do with everything else in the world, then at least take a more general stance of "I don't think its possible to disprove any supernatural beings".

As far as proving something is infinite or not, you're right in so far as you need to have a full view to tell. Whether god will exist for an infinite amount of time, or have infinite amount of power, has nothing to do with with whether it can be proven to exist.

If it exists now, it exists whether it will exist infinitely or not. You don't need to prove it will always exist to prove that it exists. In fact the very fact that theists believe they know god is infinite without having any measurements of it just reinforces how dumb the concept is. How could they possibly know anything will last an infinite amount of time when we don't know if such a thing is even possible?

If it can't be measured in any way, and its effects can't be measured in any way, it doesn't exist. To assume otherwise would be ludicrous, and no one acts like that on anything that really matters (i.e. my crossing the road example).

[Rillion]

Its completely redundant to say "well if god was unrecognizeable I wouldn't know if I encountered it or not"

You can say that about any concept if you put a unrecognizable caveat in there. I wouldn't know if me from 50 years in the future came back, kicked me in the nuts and erased my memory. So what?

Why not say the same things about Leprechauns or the Flying Spaghetti monster?

Well, because presumably I would recognize those.  You seem to be conflating "unrecognizable" with "unobserved."  I've never seen a leprechaun, but in theory if I met one I would be perfectly capable of saying "Hey, that's a leprechaun" with a reasonable amount of certainty.   But if I met God?  No way I could do that.  

If you really don't think its sensible to assume a god doesnt exist till its proven, just like you do with everything else in the world, then at least take a more general stance of "I don't think its possible to disprove any supernatural beings".

Please don't throw the word "supernatural" in there, as it will cause me all kinds of headaches.  I don't want to debate the supernatural.  And I also didn't say it's not sensible to assume a god doesn't exist-- that would be silly, as I do assume that.  I just said that it can't be proven, one way or another.  

Whether god will exist for an infinite amount of time, or have infinite amount of power, has nothing to do with with whether it can be proven to exist.

You say that, but you haven't explained why it is true.  How would you prove or disprove the existence of something infinite?

If it can't be measured in any way, and its effects can't be measured in any way, it doesn't exist.

I didn't say otherwise.   I said that having effects which can be measured doesn't disqualify something from being infinite.  

P.S.  I have a raging hangover and the brain is not working properly, so if I've just completely misunderstood what you're saying I apologize.

[fatcat]

You say that, but you haven't explained why it is true.  How would you prove or disprove the existence of something infinite?

I don't need to. Its up to you to explain how something being infinite makes it unrecognizeable.

How does it being infinite effect the ability to prove its existance or not? The universe's size is infinite (although it may just appear infinite because we don't have the ability to fully comprehend the nature of the boundary), and we're fully capable of recognizing both the universe exists, and that its size is as good as infinite.

The only thing you might not be able to prove is whether it exists for an infinite amount of time, unless you can live for an infinite amount of time to, if its even possible to have infinite time.

Well, because presumably I would recognize those.  You seem to be conflating "unrecognizable" with "unobserved."  I've never seen a leprechaun, but in theory if I met one I would be perfectly capable of saying "Hey, that's a leprechaun" with a reasonable amount of certainty.   But if I met God?  No way I could do that.   

Surely if by god we me an omni-max creator, it would be well within its power to demonstrate its existence in an empirical fashion. In fact if we mean the bible god, there are specific verses about god revealing himself to people.

The only way this wouldn't work, is if we get back to a situations where the god is deliberately making it impossible for it to be measured, or for any of its effects to be measured, in which case it would have to make itself the same as nothing.

So I guess its possible for there to be a god that makes itself exactly the same as nothing, in which case its a completely banal and useless concept.

Thats a god that would be impossible to prove exists, because it would be indistinguishable from something that doesn't exists, but I don't think its accurate to say any other concept than a 0 effect god can not be proven.

There's currently no way to directly measure a black hole, but we can know it exists by measuring the effects it has on other things. If it exists, it can be proven, if it couldn't what possible use could the word "exists" have in a context of an immeasurable 0 effect entity?

Or in other words, if a god has all the same properties of nothing, in what way can it be said to exist?

[Rillion]

You say that, but you haven't explained why it is true.  How would you prove or disprove the existence of something infinite?

I don't need to. Its up to you to explain how something being infinite makes it unrecognizeable.

How does it being infinite effect the ability to prove its existance or not? The universe's size is infinite (although it may just appear infinite because we don't have the ability to fully comprehend the nature of the boundary)

Gah---that caveat is exactly the one I'm making about God.  How come you're willing to make it for the universe but not for a deity?   

The only thing you might not be able to prove is whether it exists for an infinite amount of time, unless you can live for an infinite amount of time to, if its even possible to have infinite time.

Again-- that's precisely what I'm saying about not being able to recognize an infinite being.  I'm not saying that you couldn't recognize the being at all; I'm saying that you could not recognize it as an infinite being.   Barack Obama could be God, and he's just working undercover wearing a human costume for a while.  You can't prove or disprove that.  Even if Obama dies, that could just be God changing costumes.  We can sure recognize that he's there, but we have no way of knowing whether he's actually an infinite being.  Is it incredibly unlikely?  Sure-- I deliberately picked a ridiculous example.  But we can't know for certain. 

[fatcat]

You say that, but you haven't explained why it is true.  How would you prove or disprove the existence of something infinite?

I don't need to. Its up to you to explain how something being infinite makes it unrecognizeable.

How does it being infinite effect the ability to prove its existance or not? The universe's size is infinite (although it may just appear infinite because we don't have the ability to fully comprehend the nature of the boundary)

Gah---that caveat is exactly the one I'm making about God.  How come you're willing to make it for the universe but not for a deity?

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

We can observe the universe and its boundaries (or lack of).  As far as I know there is no concrete evidence at all of any gods.

The only thing you might not be able to prove is whether it exists for an infinite amount of time, unless you can live for an infinite amount of time to, if its even possible to have infinite time.

Again-- that's precisely what I'm saying about not being able to recognize an infinite being.  I'm not saying that you couldn't recognize the being at all; I'm saying that you could not recognize it as an infinite being.   Barack Obama could be God, and he's just working undercover wearing a human costume for a while.  You can't prove or disprove that.  Even if Obama dies, that could just be God changing costumes.  We can sure recognize that he's there, but we have no way of knowing whether he's actually an infinite being.  Is it incredibly unlikely?  Sure-- I deliberately picked a ridiculous example.  But we can't know for certain. 

If thats you position, then I don't think it really matters whether the being is "infinite" or not. Obama has done nothing to demonstrate any level of god powers whatsover. The fact he "might" be a god in disguise is completely irrelevant if he acts and appears to be human.

To be clear, my main objection with your position is the idea that the existence of god is not something that can be proved either way.

Can the existence of the universe be proved either way? Can the existence of stars or atoms be proved either way?

How do you know the sun isn't just a projection from an alien species that is just making it look like a collection of burning hydrogen? We don't. BDoes that mean we can't prove for sure that the sun is made of hydrogen? Under your twisted definition yes, under any practical definition no. How can you be sure that the aliens aren't using such sophisticated technology that we'd never be able to tell?

I find the idea of absolute certainty you're talking about useless and disruptive to cognizant thought. Can I be certain that gravity exists? Not in a 100% covering for all caveats fashion, but if you're going to use that definition, any meaningful concept of certainty/uncertainty are out the window. Besides philosophical naval gazing it has no purpose and no interest.

 where the theism/atheism debate is happening, You have one side who are trying to make lack of proof explanation for their deity, and the other side who doesn't accept that.

God is everywhere. God is Math. God is happyness. God is in another dimension. God can't be comprehended by mortal beings.

its all bullshit, and while I know thats not your position, all the stuff you are saying about it not being possible to prove a god or not are getting dangerously close to wading into that bullshit.

Single label agnosticism is just a weak cop out. You're either an Atheist Agnostic or a Theistic Agnostic. Saying "both sides are just as irrelevant as each other" is faux intellectual fence sitting/appeal to comrpomise of the worst kind.

This whole argument comes from a faulty premise. I do not know of a single Atheist who claims to 100% know for certain gods don't exist, I would wager they're rarer than theists who claim to have seen god. The idea that atheists and theists are taking as both arrogantly certain positions on opposite ends of the spectrum is a giant strawman.

Its as reasonable to claim the tooth fairy does not exist as it is to claim Jehovah or Thor don't exist. I could be on board with your argument in a world where people felt the same towards those concepts I would not have an issue here, but the vast majority of agnostics I have met have been sucked in to giving the god concept undue reverence.

Ask any average person whether they think father christmas or the tooth fairy exist. They'll happily answer no without any caveats on absolute certainty, and understandably so. Making a special case of the "god" concept, delivers undue attention and value to the ideas that are on the same rocky "you can't prove it doesnt exist" ground.

Try getting a theist to donate money to you because you claim you have special powers and you made the universe. They'll (rightly) demand proof, yet no such proof is demanded for their same god that they donate in the name of. Agnostics of the "both sides are as bad as each other" type, are doing a great disservice to the level of harm and wasted potential that is caused by such inconsistent standards, and are inconsistent themselves.

Why not take the same position towards Homeopathy? You can't prove that Homeopathy isn't having some immeasurable beneficial effect, just as you can't prove Obama isn't some immeasurable god. But I will gladly call homeopathy and god made up bullshit in the same breath.

The whole point of science is explanation. If a being that could fit the description of a god, it has to have some tangible presence, either matter, energy, or something else we don't know of yet. "It can't be detected in anyway" is not a viable option, unless it is nothing or something identical to nothing.

[Rillion]

What I love about that post, fatcat, is that you start out by saying that you don't know what I'm getting at, and then proceed to write a lengthy refutation of positions that I don't even hold.  What is the point of that, exactly?  I'm not trying to convince you that it's rational to believe in a god.  I'm not telling you that we need to be absolutely certain of anything in order to comfortably believe in it.  So why are you doing all of this hand-waving and telling me things I already know? 

The position I do hold is breathtakingly simple, and what's more you've already said that you agree with it: Finite beings cannot comprehend infinity.  That's it. 

Why is it important?  It's not, really, except to point out that there's a dramatic difference between the finite and the infinite, that there's no such thing as "nearly infinite," and therefore if infinity is part of the fundamental nature of God then humans couldn't perceive the difference between God and a super advanced alien (for example).  It's Arthur C. Clarke's third law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic," only slightly tweaked to say "Any sufficiently impressive being is indistinguishable from an infinite being."  From our vantage point, at least.  It's a matter of perspective. 

Am I saying that an infinite being exists?  No.  Am I saying that a being which even appears  infinite exists?  No.  Am I saying that people should go about their lives in a state of perpetual doubt about whether there are any infinite beings?  No.   

Why not take the same position towards Homeopathy? You can't prove that Homeopathy isn't having some immeasurable beneficial effect

If it's an effect, it's measurable.  You're explaining science to me, and you don't know that? 

[freeAgent]

I consider myself agnostic because I don't think there's proof one way or another.  I'm not planning to worship anything, god or not, so I don't see religion as relevant to my life.  I also believe that all of the stories about various gods I've heard are bullshit.

[fatcat]

If it's an effect, it's measurable.  You're explaining science to me, and you don't know that?  

My whole point.

I don't agree with your "finite beings can't comprehend infinity" posit, and seems nothing more than a tautology. I would agree that you can't tell if something is temporally infinite since you'd never know if it would end or not. However I'm not sure such a thing is even possible given time appears to be a function of existence and not something separate/parallel.

 However the idea that we can't comprehend infinity purely on the basis of us being finite is shear bunk. Infinite concepts such as recurring decimals are used all the time in maths, and everything maths is used for. Prime numbers is another great example. We couldn't possibly know every prime, but we know there are an infinite amount of them.

You're simultaneously making a point about not comprehending infinity, aswell as the position that you couldn't prove Obama wasn't just god in disguise and such.

I think I dealt with that point in length. My whole comment on Homeopathy was to cut to the root of that faulty position, of the idea of an immeasurable existent entity.

If homeopathy was having an effect (other than placeabo) it could be measured. Likewise, The idea that a god or anything could exist and also be unprovable fits into the same bunk. A god with no presence and no effects is nothing. I know you're not arguing that such a god exists, but that it could be impossible to prove that it does (which is what i don't agree with). If that is not your argument then I believe I have misread the situation. The only thing you couldn't prove was that it would exist for an infinite amount of time, which is not the same thing as being able to prove its existence.

[Rillion]

I would agree that you can't tell if something is temporally infinite since you'd never know if it would end or not.

Great!  Disagreement ended.  The issue of measurable effects is absolutely irrelevant to the point I was actually trying to make.  See how easy that was?  

Oh, wait.

The only thing you couldn't prove was that it would exist for an infinite amount of time, which is not the same thing as being able to prove its existence.

It is the same thing as being able to prove its existence as an infinite being.  If God is infinite by definition, and you cannot prove that any being is infinite (or not infinite), then you cannot prove (or disprove) the existence of God.  I'm sorry, but I don't know how to make that any clearer. 

[fatcat]

I would agree that you can't tell if something is temporally infinite since you'd never know if it would end or not.

Great!  Disagreement ended.  The issue of measurable effects is absolutely irrelevant to the point I was actually trying to make.  See how easy that was?  

Oh, wait.

The only thing you couldn't prove was that it would exist for an infinite amount of time, which is not the same thing as being able to prove its existence.

It is the same thing as being able to prove its existence as an infinite being.  If God is infinite by definition, and you cannot prove that any being is infinite (or not infinite), then you cannot prove (or disprove) the existence of God.  I'm sorry, but I don't know how to make that any clearer. 

Okay then...

I wasn't meaning to talk about proving the infinite part, just the existing part. I thought you meant that because a god is supposedly infinite, that it can't be proven to exist, not that it can't be proven to be infinite.

If a god exists NOW thats pretty much all I care about being prove, plus getting people to avoid single label self identifying agnosticism.

[Rillion]

Okay then...

I wasn't meaning to talk about proving the infinite part, just the existing part. I thought you meant that because a god is supposedly infinite, that it can't be proven to exist, not that it can't be proven to be infinite.

It's the same thing.  If the definition of god requires being infinite, then you cannot prove the existence of a god without also proving the existence of an infinite being.

You cannot prove the existence of an entity without also proving the requirements for its existence.   If baking a cake requires eggs, then you can't prove cake without proving eggs.  You cannot prove the existence of an infinite being in particular if you can't prove the existence of an infinite being in general. 

[fatcat]

Okay then...

I wasn't meaning to talk about proving the infinite part, just the existing part. I thought you meant that because a god is supposedly infinite, that it can't be proven to exist, not that it can't be proven to be infinite.

It's the same thing.  If the definition of god requires being infinite, then you cannot prove the existence of a god without also proving the existence of an infinite being.

You cannot prove the existence of an entity without also proving the requirements for its existence.   If baking a cake requires eggs, then you can't prove cake without proving eggs.  You cannot prove the existence of an infinite being in particular if you can't prove the existence of an infinite being in general. 

Faulty logic there Rillion.

Will the universe last forever? We don't know. Does the universe exist? Yes.

It seems a bizarre posit that without knowing one property of something, its impossible to know it exists.

Your egg cake analogy is also faulty. Can you have an proton without Quarks? No. Can you prove protons exist without also proving quarks exist? Yes. its been done. I'd like for you to directly address this one as its as close as i think i've come to directly refuting one of your claims.

A god with infinite power could quite easily demonstrate itself by turning all humans into infinite super beings with the ability to comprehend it.

Its not necessary to observe every property of something to prove it exists. Thousands of years ago, all we could see of the sun is from the naked eye, no knowledge of the hydrogen and nuclear fusion it contained.

If a creature claiming to be god, appeared to all humans, and resurrected dead people, and made life, and struck people dead and did all the things the god of the bible could do, it would be so close to fitting the profile of a god that it is as practical calling that proof of a god, as the plum pudding model was proof of electrons.

Could it turn out that that "god" was just a super advanced alien species? Yes. But knowledge is a fluid and adaptive thing, not unchangeable cast iron thing (besides axioms). It was once thought electrons where inside atoms as in the plum pudding model, before atomic nuclei were proven to exist, but the original plum pudding model still fulfills vital explanatory power as a form of knowledge.

As would any sort of empirical observation of a "god" figure, even if its infinite status was not able to be established.