So are you agnostic?

omokoladejames:


Aiit... let me try putting some things into perspective a bit, for clearer understanding


Basically cosmic inflation is an idea that, at it's beginning,the universe rapidly expanded by a factor atleast 10^26 in less than 10^−32 secs( thats way faster than the speed of light in a very short time).
Why do we need it? If we are to accept big bang as the origin of the universe as we know it and assume regular gravity was always the only force at work, we run into two major problems(there are a couple of other ones but these are the major ones):
a) Flatness: to keep it simple. We know(atleast to best of our understanding) our observable universe is flat(the density of matter in the universe appears "fine-tuned" to be very close to the critical value at which space is perfectly flat rather than a hyperbolic or spherical). But that's kinda of a problem because our knowledge of physics tells us that an expanding universe should not be flat, especially if it had started out even by the tiniest degree not flat.

b)Horizon Problem: Basically, completely opposite sides of the universe that shouldn't have had time to be interact are at completely the same temperature. Think of when you mix cold water into hot tea, it would take time to mix together(some parts of the tea would be hot and some parts cold for a while). Given the size of the universe,all these opposite sides shouldn't have had enough time(speed of light limitation) to interact and have the same temperature.

The Inflation idea solves both problems by giving us a force(or whatever we want to call it) that could expand the universe at speeds way faster than the speed of light in a very very short time. What this force,stuff,anti-gravity or anything we want to call it is, we just don't know. And we have no proof for it with our current scientific methods because 10^-32 sec into the beginning of the universe is as far as our theories can go and anything beyond 10^-42,everything we know about fundamental physics is thrown out the window. Most scientist just believe inflation must have happened even though we have absolutely no idea what the stuff is, what started it and why it stopped.

Actually,lets make the statement clearer. Its because of what we observe in the universe that makes the big bang not a theory of the origins of the universe but more accurately an explanation describing a series of events that happened to the universe following its existence.Basically the big bang started after inflation. Most scientist just accept inflation as what happened before the big bang even though we don't have proof or evidence for it.

So i brought this up with our friend earlier because, the notion that just because there's no evidence for God from a "proof it to me by science(because apparently cause and effects are no longer good enough)" worldview, is simply not be consistent position to hold.
I also brought up consciousness with him to make the same point. Trying to proof or test for it has been one of the most complex problem in science and philosophy till date; mainly because there's seems to be no material component to it as far as we know. But consciousness is one of the few things we are sure exist because it is part of us. If it was outside of us, there would be no way of proving it from a naturalistic point of view.

U and I can both agree that the universe seems to be fine-tuned for life to such degrees that are unimaginable. For example: if the gravitational constant alone varies by just 1/10^60, the universe would have either collapsed on itself or expanded too rapidly for any stars to have been formed. And we have many other extremely precise values from the universe at large down to most minute living organism, all of which have been independently balanced on the tip of a blade.

Of course you can chose to believe it all just randomly happened, or believe super advanced aliens from another universe sowed the seed and they might be extinct by now for all we know or that we are living in a simulation, that's all fine; but saying the believe in a Creator is irrational is not an honest opinion to me sha.
You can rightly reject the notion of God for many other personal reasons(which is understandable) but hiding behind rationality and science is not just one of them. They are both answering fundamentally different questions and not at odds with one another.

doitforyou:
So are you agnostic?

Naaa, I'm actually a christian.
Although i do think being agnostic is a much more honest position to hold if you have a problem with the notion God, especially if everything you've been taught about him is wrong. Just my opinion sha, I could be wrong.

I understand what you are saying, that's why I am agnostic. I think the mistake some atheist make is looking at theism through the lens of the Christian god or any other man made religion. The existence of God or gods cannot be proven or disproved. I believe that even if god exists he/she is not represented by any religion or beliefs on earth. All religions are man made, they are different cultural interpretations of the concept of a supernatural being. So there is no real representation of a deity on earth to make accurate comparison vis-a-vis atheism.

omokoladejames:


Naaa, I'm actually a christian.
Although i do think being agnostic is a much more honest position to hold if you have a problem with the notion God, especially if everything you've been taught about him is wrong. Just my opinion sha, I could be wrong.

doitforyou:
I understand what you are saying, that's why I am agnostic. I think the mistake some atheist make is looking at theism through the lens of the Christian god or any other man made religion. The existence of God or gods cannot be proven or disproved. I believe that even if god exists he/she is not represented by any religion or beliefs on earth. All religions are man made, they are different cultural interpretations of the concept of a supernatural being. So there is no real representation of a deity on earth to make accurate comparison vis-a-vis atheism.

I kind of agree with most of what you said. I've come to understand that the statement you made at the bolded is only true for the God of Philosophy I.E a creator god and nothing more. In that sense, you're right.

I don't think we should be critical of that "God" per se. The God of Philosophy was an idea brought about in good faith, and was a good explanation at the time. And the God of Philosophy is vague, and has never really hurt anyone.

Instead, the critics should primarily be against Christianity and religion in general, which is what atheists are against. Talk about the Bible, the Ten Commandments, Jesus, and all the contradictions, miracles, etc. I've seen Muslim and Christian apologists debate atheists, and they hide behind the God of Philosophy (many rehashing arguments word for word that Aristotle came up with), and never debate the specifics of their religion. Many people find the idea of the God of Philosophy reasonable, and it's not the worst idea in the world. The problem is that people buy into that, and then lazily go to their nearest religious institution. People default to whatever the culturally dominant religion is, often without any reflection, and religious apologists exploit this.

By debating the reasonable God of Philosophy, we're playing into their hands. This is why like 90% of the critique has always and should be towards Abrahamic religions. It's much easier to reasonably prove these religions are man made and harmful to society, than to disprove a vague and somewhat reasonable God of Philosophy. And it's harm reduction too. Vague religious beliefs are kind of harmless if not channeled into a religion. Belief in Christianity = Christian religion. Belief in vagueness = new age, deist, spiritual, etc. Mostly harmless.

omokoladejames:


Naaa, I'm actually a christian.
Although i do think being agnostic is a much more honest position to hold if you have a problem with the notion God, especially if everything you've been taught about him is wrong. Just my opinion sha, I could be wrong.

It's easy to jump into the conclusion that your an agnostic judging by how largely open minded your posts seem.I guess you've done your time outside religious dogmatism hence the flexible orientation you seem to have.

IAmSabrina:

I kind of agree with most of what you said. I've come to understand that the statement you made at the bolded is only true for the God of Philosophy I.E a creator god and nothing more. In that sense, you're right.

I don't think we should be critical of that "God" per se. The God of Philosophy was an idea brought about in good faith, and was a good explanation at the time. And the God of Philosophy is vague, and has never really hurt anyone.

Instead, the critics should primarily be against Christianity and religion in general, which is what atheists are against. Talk about the Bible, the Ten Commandments, Jesus, and all the contradictions, miracles, etc. I've seen Muslim and Christian apologists debate atheists, and they hide behind the God of Philosophy (many rehashing arguments word for word that Aristotle came up with), and never debate the specifics of their religion. Many people find the idea of the God of Philosophy reasonable, and it's not the worst idea in the world. The problem is that people buy into that, and then lazily go to their nearest religious institution. People default to whatever the culturally dominant religion is, often without any reflection, and religious apologists exploit this.

By debating the reasonable God of Philosophy, we're playing into their hands. This is why like 90% of the critique has always and should be towards Abrahamic religions. It's much easier to reasonably prove these religions are man made and harmful to society, than to disprove a vague and somewhat reasonable God of Philosophy. And it's harm reduction too. Vague religious beliefs are kind of harmless if not channeled into a religion. Belief in Christianity = Christian religion. Belief in vagueness = new age, deist, spiritual, etc. Mostly harmless.

i actually don't see the difference between God of philosophy and God of religion. No matter how it is been painted. You can use philosophy to help establish your beliefs, the way the religion works, why it works that way, everything. Religion and philosophy are like plant and Photosynthesis. Great philosophers and theologians are so, because of philosophy. Some religions and basically based on philosophical principals, like Buddhism or Taoism, and some philosophers have greatly shaped religons, like Saint Tomas aquinas, or saint Augustine (Christianity)and aviceena (My favourite Islamic philosopher ).

EmperorHarry:

It's easy to jump into the conclusion that your an agnostic judging by how largely open minded your posts seem.I guess you've done your time outside religious dogmatism hence the flexible orientation you seem to have.

That's right sir... I actually just became a Christian about 5years ago and I've been blessed to have had some great christains come my way early on...they helped me unlearn alot of wrong beliefs about Christ and what it means to be christian. It's been an interesting journey of learning and unlearning to say the least.

omokoladejames:


Aiit... let me try putting some things into perspective a bit, for clearer understanding


Basically cosmic inflation is an idea that, at it's beginning,the universe rapidly expanded by a factor atleast 10^26 in less than 10^−32 secs( thats way faster than the speed of light in a very short time).
Why do we need it? If we are to accept big bang as the origin of the universe as we know it and assume regular gravity was always the only force at work, we run into two major problems(there are a couple of other ones but these are the major ones):
a) Flatness: to keep it simple. We know(atleast to best of our understanding) our observable universe is flat(the density of matter in the universe appears "fine-tuned" to be very close to the critical value at which space is perfectly flat rather than a hyperbolic or spherical). But that's kinda of a problem because our knowledge of physics tells us that an expanding universe should not be flat, especially if it had started out even by the tiniest degree not flat.

b)Horizon Problem: Basically, completely opposite sides of the universe that shouldn't have had time to be interact are at completely the same temperature. Think of when you mix cold water into hot tea, it would take time to mix together(some parts of the tea would be hot and some parts cold for a while). Given the size of the universe,all these opposite sides shouldn't have had enough time(speed of light limitation) to interact and have the same temperature.

The Inflation idea solves both problems by giving us a force(or whatever we want to call it) that could expand the universe at speeds way faster than the speed of light in a very very short time. What this force,stuff,anti-gravity or anything we want to call it is, we just don't know. And we have no proof for it with our current scientific methods because 10^-32 sec into the beginning of the universe is as far as our theories can go and anything beyond 10^-42,everything we know about fundamental physics is thrown out the window. Most scientist just believe inflation must have happened even though we have absolutely no idea what the stuff is, what started it and why it stopped.

Actually,lets make the statement clearer. Its because of what we observe in the universe that makes the big bang not a theory of the origins of the universe but more accurately an explanation describing a series of events that happened to the universe following its existence.Basically the big bang started after inflation. Most scientist just accept inflation as what happened before the big bang even though we don't have proof or evidence for it.

So i brought this up with our friend earlier because, the notion that just because there's no evidence for God from a "proof it to me by science(because apparently cause and effects are no longer good enough)" worldview, is simply not be consistent position to hold.
I also brought up consciousness with him to make the same point. Trying to proof or test for it has been one of the most complex problem in science and philosophy till date; mainly because there's seems to be no material component to it as far as we know. But consciousness is one of the few things we are sure exist because it is part of us. If it was outside of us, there would be no way of proving it from a naturalistic point of view.

U and I can both agree that the universe seems to be fine-tuned for life to such degrees that are unimaginable. For example: if the gravitational constant alone varies by just 1/10^60, the universe would have either collapsed on itself or expanded too rapidly for any stars to have been formed. And we have many other extremely precise values from the universe at large down to most minute living organism, all of which have been independently balanced on the tip of a blade.

Of course you can chose to believe it all just randomly happened, or believe super advanced aliens from another universe sowed the seed and they might be extinct by now for all we know or that we are living in a simulation, that's all fine; but saying the believe in a Creator is irrational is not an honest opinion to me sha.
You can rightly reject the notion of God for many other personal reasons(which is understandable) but hiding behind rationality and science is not just one of them. They are both answering fundamentally different questions and not at odds with one another.

Two people see a goat's footprint trail leading into a house front door but none leading out. One person says I have not seen the goat nor am I sure it's a goat that actually made this trail but what I am seeing leads me to conclude that a goat is in that house. The other person says the wife of the owner of the house led a goat inside, killed it and has cooked a delicious pepper soup, jollof rice and egusi soup with the meat. These two people have exactly the same set of facts (the goat footprints nothing else) who would you consider is being reasonable?

omokoladejames:



U and I can both agree that the universe seems to be fine-tuned for life to such degrees that are unimaginable. For example: if the gravitational constant alone varies by just 1/10^60, the universe would have either collapsed on itself or expanded too rapidly for any stars to have been formed. And we have many other extremely precise values from the universe at large down to most minute living organism, all of which have been independently balanced on the tip of a blade.

So out of at least 30 billion planets in our galaxy alone there is signs of intelligent life as we know it on only one and you think this is a significant achievement? You mean your god just created all of these planets for show? Or it was experimenting on them to see which would be the best to have life on?

Given the vast almost incomprehensible size of our universe it seems rather arrogant to think the universe was fine tuned for your existence. Our time on this earth as humans from the time we acquired consciousness to now is so tiny compared with the age of the universe that if our universe timeline was a 3hr movie we won't have existed long enough to complete 10 seconds of movie time, yet you think all of this was made for you, that you are the star of the show. How utterly arrogant.

LordReed:


So out of at least 30 billion planets in our galaxy alone there is signs of intelligent life as we know it on only one and you think this is a significant achievement? You mean your god just created all of these planets for show? Or it was experimenting on them to see which would be the best to have life on?

Given the vast almost incomprehensible size of our universe it seems rather arrogant to think the universe was fine tuned for your existence. Our time on this earth as humans from the time we acquired consciousness to now is so tiny compared with the age of the universe that if our universe timeline was a 3hr movie we won't have existed long enough to complete 10 seconds of movie time, yet you think all of this was made for you, that you are the star of the show. How utterly arrogant.

It is well sir ... Have a good weekend

doitforyou:
I understand what you are saying, that's why I am agnostic. I think the mistake some atheist make is looking at theism through the lens of the Christian god or any other man made religion. The existence of God or gods cannot be proven or disproved. I believe that even if god exists he/she is not represented by any religion or beliefs on earth. All religions are man made, they are different cultural interpretations of the concept of a supernatural being. So there is no real representation of a deity on earth to make accurate comparison vis-a-vis atheism.

I can also relate to your train of thought, that's why I personally believe,no matter what side of the divide we stand, we should always be able to have conversations without hostility. Everyone has a story and a reason for their beliefs but at its core,we are all humans and every human deserves to be treated with dignity and respect irrespective of the group they belong to.

Cheers01:
Kingebukasblog the number one artful Dodger.

The guy will post nonsense and then dodge when he is called out for the rubbish he posted.

One thing I know is he isn't a Christian anymore. His Twitter is @iamkingebuka. I found him last year asking about some deist posts and now apparently he's become an expert on deism. He only posts these to rile atheists on Nairaland up, lol. I'm a deist as well, because atheism has too many gaps for me. It's a lack of belief in God but I'm not comfortable just living without attempting to find out more about my existence. For me Pandeism answers all my questions about the universe and seems logical enough. If you're such a person who's thirsty for knowledge and an atheist, then it's very possible you'd come to one of the conclusions in his opening post. However I agree that it's fallacious because not all atheists care that much

IAmSabrina:

I kind of agree with most of what you said. I've come to understand that the statement you made at the bolded is only true for the God of Philosophy I.E a creator god and nothing more. In that sense, you're right.

I don't think we should be critical of that "God" per se. The God of Philosophy was an idea brought about in good faith, and was a good explanation at the time. And the God of Philosophy is vague, and has never really hurt anyone.

Instead, the critics should primarily be against Christianity and religion in general, which is what atheists are against. Talk about the Bible, the Ten Commandments, Jesus, and all the contradictions, miracles, etc. I've seen Muslim and Christian apologists debate atheists, and they hide behind the God of Philosophy (many rehashing arguments word for word that Aristotle came up with), and never debate the specifics of their religion. Many people find the idea of the God of Philosophy reasonable, and it's not the worst idea in the world. The problem is that people buy into that, and then lazily go to their nearest religious institution. People default to whatever the culturally dominant religion is, often without any reflection, and religious apologists exploit this.

By debating the reasonable God of Philosophy, we're playing into their hands. This is why like 90% of the critique has always and should be towards Abrahamic religions. It's much easier to reasonably prove these religions are man made and harmful to society, than to disprove a vague and somewhat reasonable God of Philosophy. And it's harm reduction too. Vague religious beliefs are kind of harmless if not channeled into a religion. Belief in Christianity = Christian religion. Belief in vagueness = new age, deist, spiritual, etc. Mostly harmless.

Whatever God that exists anywhere must be a lunatic

Let there be light 🕯️🕯️🕯️🕯️🕯️