KnownUnknown:


if asked for an example of a necessary thing apart from your god, you will draw a blank.

I have not drawn a blank. How many times, and how carefully, have I mentioned infinite space and infinite time as necessary things.
You have not addressed yourself to those and you keep talking.

PS: It is well to keep interrogating the views of others on the mystery of existence. May I ask - what is your own view on the matter of our existence?

These days, this sort of argument looks boring to me.

Any discussion or debate on the origin or source of existence is more or less based on speculation, philosophy, and metaphysics since there has been no scientific breakthroughs in the endeavor to know the source of all things in existence.

The more one delves into certain aspects of Physics, the more one realizes our ignorance of our "tiny" planet Earth and the unimaginably large Universe.

That's why I think the best and most honest answer to the question, "What's the origin of existence?", is "it's unknown".

Hence, the agnostic position, in its basic form, is the best.

Any other thing apart from this is mostly speculative, though I must say some approaches to the question of our source of existence such as Otemic or Atumic approach have a lot of depth.

IMO, that could be the correct (or close to the correct) answer.

I said so because that approach captures the concepts of first cause and nothing (something arising ex nihilo).

In particular, the Otemic approach postulates that in some realms of existence, time doesn't exist, which is scientifically plausible.

That establishes that the first cause has no cause.

Still, this is purely philosophical, and with time, I believe scientists will make breakthroughs in these areas (though it may not be in this lifetime).

A001:
These days, this sort of argument looks boring to me.

Any discussion or debate on the origin or source of existence is more or less based on speculation, philosophy, and metaphysics since there has been no scientific breakthroughs in the endeavor to know the source of all things in existence.

The more one delves into certain aspects of Physics, the more one realizes our ignorance of our "tiny" planet Earth and the unimaginably large Universe.

That's why I think the best and most honest answer to the question, "What's the origin of existence?", is "it's unknown".

Hence, the agnostic position, in its basic form, is the best.

Any other thing apart from this is mostly speculative, though I must say some approaches to the question of our source of existence such as Otemic or Atumic approach has a lot of depth.

IMO, that could be the correct (or close to the correct) answer.

I said so because that approach captures the concepts of first cause and nothing (something arising ex nihilo).

In particularly, the Otemic approach postulates that in some realms of existence, time doesn't exist, which is scientifically plausible.

That establishes that the first cause has no cause.

Still, this is purely philosophical, and with time, I believe scientists will make breakthroughs in these areas (though it may not be in this lifetime).

Very well said, old friend.
How you dey? Long time.

DeepSight:


Very well said, old friend.
How you dey? Long time.

Fine. Thanks.

KnownUnknown:


McMickie is spaceless, timeless, and immaterial………but he is mutable, so he probably caused the multiverse. Mutability is his nature and that’s probably why he gave this attribute to the universe and all other realities. I call him he but that doesn’t mean she has a gender, just calling her that for convenience. He is also not a deity.

Just a note: This sort of mockery of the conversation is disrespectful - not to me - but to the very ideas being discussed.
PS: I saw you mention somewhere "scientific" investigations or so, of the multiverse. There is no such thing because science is based on observation and no one has, and no one can, observe any such "multiverse."

Words like "multiverse" sit well with you - as unobservable as any such thing is, as purely hypothetical as it is. And yet you get furious when someone says there must be a timeline and space outside this universe. Weird.

DeepSight:


Just a note: This sort of mockery of the conversation is disrespectful - not to me - but to the very ideas being discussed.
PS: I saw you mention somewhere "scientific" investigations or so, of the multiverse. There is no such thing because science is based on observation and no one has, and no one can, observe any such "multiverse."

Words like "multiverse" sit well with you - as unobservable as any such thing is, as purely hypothetical as it is. And yet you get furious when someone says there must be a timeline and space outside this universe. Weird.

There are tons of things and phenomena that can't be observed directly in nature. Yet we know they exist because we can observe the effects of their existence on matter or waves.

Examples of such are the ghostly neutrino particles, electron, proton, positron, and several other subatomic particles.

100 years ago, micro-organisms were not observable. Today, they're.

In the same vein, I predict in the future, scientists will discover the evidence for the existence of another universe (through the effects of the other universe on ours) or the multiverse.

Personally, I agree with OtemAtum who says that time and space only exist within the Universe not outside of it (i.e. the Universe doesn't occupy space), that multiple universes exist, and that another universe existed before ours like physicists such as Roger Penrose also says.

If you can't observe something, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

DeepSight:


Just a note: This sort of mockery of the conversation is disrespectful - not to me - but to the very ideas being discussed.
PS: I saw you mention somewhere "scientific" investigations or so, of the multiverse. There is no such thing because science is based on observation and no one has, and no one can, observe any such "multiverse."

Words like "multiverse" sit well with you - as unobservable as any such thing is, as purely hypothetical as it is. And yet you get furious when someone says there must be a timeline

and space outside this universe. Weird.

Ironic that whenever one uses the arguments of the religious, it’s always “stop making a mockery”.

I said they have hypotheses that are being discussed using the same methods they use to make predictions and describe the theories. They work with the “standard model” and calculations they have and multiverse is one of their predictions.
However, McMickie fits the description of the probable cause. A “purely philosophical” description because she probably exists in a realm in which space, time, or spacetime do not exist.

DeepSight:


I have not drawn a blank. How many times, and how carefully, have I mentioned infinite space and infinite time as necessary things.
You have not addressed yourself to those and you keep talking.

PS: It is well to keep interrogating the views of others on the mystery of existence. May I ask - what is your own view on the matter of our existence?

What is infinite space and infinite time? All you are doing is creating a receptacle for the universe while claiming the receptacle is infinite and intangible……. and necessary. I guess it is also immutable.

DeepSight:


Pls see my post to KnownUnknown above where I touch some more on this matter of expansion.

What is time?

justcool:
The vastness of existence haunts mankind; we know so little about the universe whose vastness overwhelms our imagination.
Some people doubt that the human mind is capable of knowing all that exists; therefore, the knowledge of whether the universe has a creator or not is out of the question. Hence, agnosticism!
The Agnostic proposes that the human mind is incapable of knowing whether God exists or not.
Is the agnostic right? Do you think that we can know whether the universe has a creator or not?
Join us as we examine the interesting viewpoint of agnosticism.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxIqkwRE5m8

I use to be a Christian l, then atheist, at least I found out Tha Agnosticism seem to be the best philosophicsl stand point.

Bacteriologist:


I don't find them mutually exclusive. Atheism is a belief claim.

A - theism = Absence of belief in god.

(A)Gnosticism relates more with knowledge and confidence levels.

And since knowledge is a subset of belief both can co-exist.

So we can have an Agnostic atheist or a Gnostic theist.

believe it or not, these are constructs, we have pure Agnostics.

I am one of them. I do not know if God exits and it ends there. I don't believe it or not

Workch:
believe it or not, these are constructs, we have pure Agnostics.

I am one of them. I do not know if God exits and it ends there. I don't believe it or not

Why not gods?

LordReed:


This might not be true because it is possible to show at the quantum level that A can cause B and B cause A. If like some scientists postulate the big bang was a result of perturbations at the quantum level then it stands to reason that a true first cause might not exist.

That fact that A can cause B and Be can cause A does not answer the question of first cause for me. Unless you want to buttress the point to make me understand you better

KnownUnknown:


Why not gods?

Because many gods can be disproven using a Controlled experiment to test their ttributes or claims in their religious books.
Fore example, the genesis creation story has been disproven by science and its a pointer to the fact that those stories were made up. We can test the veracity of miracle claims and we will get 100% statistical level of significance. So, we can conclude that the christian God was made up.

However, a deistic god is hard to disprove, because there is no attribute whatsoever to test. Hence I will conclude that I don't know if a creator exist or not based on that reason

Workch:
believe it or not, these are constructs, we have pure Agnostics.

I am one of them. I do not know if God exits and it ends there. I don't believe it or not

Agnosticism has nothing to do with belief, as it is a knowledge claim.

And in my view, when it comes to belief there are two choices. You either believe or you don't. Or at least you lean towards one side than the other. There's no in between.

That's why like the picture says, you might have a Gnostic atheist or an Agnostic atheist. Both are atheists, they don't believe in god but the confidence levels differ greatly.

Im afraid what you call pure Agnosticism (without the theist/atheist Qualifier) considering the god belief does not exist. As you either believe in God or you don't.

Bacteriologist:


Agnosticism has nothing to do with belief, as it is a knowledge claim.

And in my view, when it comes to belief there are two choices. You either believe or you don't. Or at least you lean towards one side than the other. There's no in between.

That's why like the picture says, you might have a Gnostic atheist or an Agnostic atheist. Both are atheists, they don't believe in god but the confidence levels differ greatly.

Im afraid what you call pure Agnosticism (without the theist/atheist Qualifier) considering the god belief does not exist. As you either believe in God or you don't.

sincerely, that picture really cannot tell me what I feel about a creator.
I personally don't know if a creator/God exist or not.
I have not reached any conclusions from not knowing, that's why I am a pure Agnostic.


An atheistic Agnostic Will say that: I don't know if a God exists and I don't believe it until I see evidence. This is not what I share.

For me, I think it's impossible to find evidence for or against such. I don't know, I don't believe it or not

Workch:
Because many gods can be disproven using a Controlled experiment to test their ttributes or claims in their religious books.
Fore example, the genesis creation story has been disproved by science and its a pointer to the fact that those stories were made up. We can test the veracity of miracle claims and we will get 100% statistical level of significance. So, we can conclude that the christian God was made up.

However, a deistic god is hard to disprove, because there is no attribute whatsoever to test. Hence I will conclude that I don't know if a creator exist or not based on that reason

This post buttresses the point I made earlier that Agnostics still hold on to the god of whatever tradition they are used to while claiming they don’t know whether god exists. You come from a monotheist tradition therefore you don’t know whether god exists. If you had been reared in India, it’s highly probable you would say you don’t know whether gods exist. Your position is highly influenced by Christianity because that is the god you cited.

Other than the deist’s god lack of creation stories and miracles, what makes it hard to disprove more than the christian?
Isn’t it up to the deist to prove said god?

Workch:
sincerely, that picture really cannot tell me what I feel about a creator.
I personally don't know if a creator/God exist or not.
I have not reached any conclusions from not knowing, that's why I am a pure Agnostic.


An atheistic Agnostic Will say that: I don't know if a God exists and I don't believe it until I see evidence. This is not what I share.

For me, I think it's impossible to find evidence for or against such. I don't know, I don't believe it or not

You're committing what is known as the black Swan fallacy.

How did you come to the conclusion that no evidence can be provided for god? Just because we see black swans everyday since history began and we haven't seen any white swans in Africa does not mean whute swans don't exist. There are white swans in Europe and Australia.

In the same way:.
Just because there hasn't been any evidence for god to-date does not mean it is impossible to provide such evidence. If you claim this is truly the case you would have to demonstrate that with evidence.

The rational conclusion is to withhold belief until evidence is provided, correct. But it's equally irrational to claim no such evidence can ever be produced without backing it up.

Workch:
That fact that A can cause B and Be can cause A does not answer the question of first cause for me. Unless you want to buttress the point to make me understand you better

What it means is there could have been no first cause or that the concept is actually meaningless.

KnownUnknown:


This post buttresses the point I made earlier that Agnostics still hold on to the god of whatever tradition they are used to while claiming they don’t know whether god exists. You come from a monotheist tradition therefore you don’t know whether god exists. If you had been reared in India, it’s highly probable you would say you don’t know whether gods exist. Your position is highly influenced by Christianity because that is the god you cited.

Other than the deist’s god lack of creation stories and miracles, what makes it hard to disprove more than the christian?
Isn’t it up to the deist to prove said god?

this is not true, I am aware of all gods and I am sure that all of them do not exist but deistic god.

I know a method to test and invalidate all gods, I don't know any to use to invalidate a deistic god. If you know any, i Will revert me back to atheism or deism if need be

LordReed:


What it means is there could have been no first cause or that the concept is actually meaningless.

But If A can cause B and B can Cause A, it does not mean that C cannot cause A and B without A and B being unable to Casue C.


Now your quantum physics analysis is limited in this knowledge

Bacteriologist:


You're committing what is known as the black Swan fallacy.

please kindly let me know how that's a black swan. I do not see how

How did you come to the conclusion that no evidence can be provided for god? Just because we see black swans everyday since history began and we haven't seen any white swans in Africa does not mean whute swans don't exist. There are white swans in Europe and Australia.

it's not black swan if it's a known fact that we cannot.
Let me give you an example: can humans ever build a device that can achieve speed of light? No, it's impossible, that's not black swan, it's only possible theoretical. Same applies to knowing if there's a creator.
Its practically impossible for humans to figure what happened before time and space was formed, which is why we cannot know if someone or something actually formed that singularity or not.
We cannot build a device capable of looking back in time to see beyond the beginning of big bang for mathematical provable reasons, just like traveling at the speed of light.
It's provable that we cannot know what happened before big bang, there even no before big bang from a human perspective. How can you even look back in time to know what happened then when even time didn't exist then? so it's not black swan.

In the same way:.
Just because there hasn't been any evidence for god to-date does not mean it is impossible to provide such evidence. If you claim this is truly the case you would have to demonstrate that with evidence.

The rational conclusion is to withhold belief until evidence is provided, correct. But it's equally irrational to claim no such evidence can ever be produced without backing it up.

This is why I think that theism and atheism are different side of same coin. Both commit fallacy of appealing to ignorance.

Both reach opposite conclusions on the basis of lack of evidence, but both do not have enough information to reach any conclusions.
I am convinced that Agnosticism is the best philosophy based on this fallacy

Workch:
this is not true, I am aware of all gods and I am sure that all of them do not exist but deistic god.

I know a method to test and invalidate all gods, I don't any to use to invalidate a deistic god. If you know any, It. Will revert me back to atheism or deism if need be

If the universe has to be created, what created God?

Maynman:

If the universe has to be created, what created God?

When did I make a claim that the universe has to be created?

I don't know if the universe was created or not, it's impossible to know.

Workch:
When did I make a claim that the universe has to be created?

I don't know if the universe was created or not, it's impossible to know.

Then how did you arrive at this deistic god(gudan)?

Maynman:


Then how did you arrive at this deistic god(gudan)?

I am not saying that a deistic god exist, I am saying that there's a claim that a deistic god exist, which is impossible to disprove.

So I don't know if God exist or not

Workch:
I am not saying that a deistic god exist, I am saying that there's a claim that a deistic god exist, which is impossible to disprove.

So I don't know if God exist or not

If you claim something without evidence, it can be dismissed without evidence too.

To start with what’s “god”?

Maynman:

If you claim something without evidence, it can be dismissed without evidence too.

To start with what’s “god”?

True, but lack of evidence is not lack of existence.

You can say aliens exist without evidence, we can dismiss because of lack of evidence , but it doesn't mean aliens don't actually exist.

Maynman:

If you claim something without evidence, it can be dismissed without evidence too.

To start with what’s “god”?

God is probably someone who created the universe, that's a holistic definition.

Workch:
True, but lack of evidence is not lack of existence.

You can say aliens exist without evidence, we can dismiss because of lack of evidence , but it doesn't mean aliens don't actually exist.

How did you arrive at saying “aliens”.
It’s like me saying there’s flying lion, and until you disproved it, then flying lion exist..
What did you see before making the claim that “aliens exist”.

Workch:
God is probably someone who created the universe, that's a holistic definition.

So anyone that claims to create the universe is a god?
You just need to claim it?

Maynman:


How did you arrive at saying “aliens”.
It’s like me saying there’s flying lion, and until you disproved it, then flying lion exist..
What did you see before making the claim that “aliens exist”.

I didn't make a claim that aliens exist.

It seems you are not getting my point