DeepSight:

Pr0ton, thank you for taking the time to give a detailed and reasoned response. Many are so flippant in discussions concerning these serious existential matters these days, that it is always refreshing when one comes across a person who accords such discourses the seriousness they deserve.



Fair enough, and most appreciated.



My dear friend, I doubt that we little human beings are in any position to draw this line with respect to what we can or should be agnostic on. The mere twin facts of our own existence and the size of the universe are enough to strike us with silent wonder with respect to what else or who else may be out there. Most cosmological scientists these days believe that given the size of the universe and the abundant presence of carbon therein, it is extremely unlikely that we are the only life - intelligent or otherwise - in the universe. And if we can hold out that possibility, it is not unreasonable to fall into even greater and more silent wonder when faced with the question as to what may exist beyond our universe. There is no reason for you to peremptorily foreclose or delimit the conversation in that regard, and you are too limited - too vastly limited to decree that no one may reasonably envisage the subject of the existence of God or gods.

I can only grant that you may reasonably reject the existence of the sort of God or gods described by religions - some of which can be shown to be ontologically inconsistent and therefore either impossible or improbable. But as I pointed out to you earlier, many people have different perceptions of "God" or "gods" - and you would be wise therefore not to generalize in this matter. There are so many different persuasions on the matter that in fact you simply cannot reasonably generalize. Where do you want to place the Deist? The Pantheist? The Panentheist? The Autotheist? The Dystheist? The Maltheist?

To put this in context I am forced to repeat myself with respect to the size of the universe: Imagine a grain of sand. Just a single grain of sand at the beach. Imagine that within that grain of sand a solar system exists and in that solar system a planet exists and on that planet, 7 billion people dwell. Now none of these 7 billion people have ever stepped out of this grain of sand and not only do they make presumptions as to what may exist at the other end of the beach, they are so bold as to "draw the line" with respect to the existence of beings on other continents far away from that beach, and even other worlds outside the planet on which that beach is situated, the beach where that grain of sand is.

This only represents a faint clue as to what you are doing by presumptuously "drawing line(s)" against the existence of this or that beyond our universe. When you consider it carefully it must become out-rightly ridiculous even in your own sight that you do so.



Sincerely, I personally have no idea as to the consciousness of God or gods - I only know that it is a matter well above our pay grade. My private philosophy regarding the existence of God has become a little complex: and perhaps this is not the place to delve into it properly as it is bound to raise too many complex, mysterious and puzzling questions.

Nevertheless I cannot imagine that you are in a position to insist that all definitions of God require the factor of consciousness (and in this I trust you refer to the sense of a self-conscious personality). I can conceive of, and I certainly know of many theistic persuasions that do not quite see "God" this way - some perceiving "IT" more as a neutral all-pervading force. Nor does this mean they are dis-entitled to the application of the word "God" - as the principal common factor for the definition of "God" is its role as the origin, and to a lesser extent, sustainer, of all things.



What is wrong with the possibility of spirituality? What does spirituality mean to you?
For me, the spiritual is inevitably real.



You have a point here, and to be honest, I had feared you would bring it up. I had held back my more thorough view on this subject, on account of my fear that it would muddy the waters before we even understand one another. However, as you have been astute enough to point this out, I will take the plunge.

In truth, when I use the words "time and space" here, I have only used them in the way materialists and scientists like to use them. I have used them simply in a casual and convenient way. However if you go through my posts on this forum spanning a decade, you will see that I do not believe in this type of materialistic time and space. However, for the sake of clarity, and on account of the limitations of language, let us call this type of materialistic/ scientific time and space "finite time" and "finite space". And let us say that our words above refer to this finite time and finite space.

Because in truth, I believe in infinite time and infinite space - both of which are self-existent and cannot be created, cannot "start" - cannot "begin" - cannot "end" - cannot "expand" and so forth. This self-existent infinite time and space, in my worldview, are components of what I call God. Indeed, this is a good juncture at which to tell you that I have once described "God" as I see IT, on this forum, as "the sum of all self-existent laws."

Therefore again, please be wary of generalizing and drawing lines on what people may perceive of as "God."

Moving back to your point - it is in that infinite time and space, which transcends our finite realm, that I assert there remains the open possibility of causes which transcend our realm.



Putting religious fantasies aside, the pure concept of God as an eternal source-point of existence also has both philosophical and logical credence.



So long as the vacuum is not a perfect vacuum, it is presumptuous to say that virtual particles have no cause. Indeed the only reason they refer to a quantum vacuum is in a bid to demonstrate that something can emerge from nothing - which fails straightaway, because the alleged quantum vacuum, as we have agreed, is not "nothing" or empty either. It is absurd to observe anything whatsoever emerging from something else and conclude that it is causeless. The very fact that it emerges from something else is enough to strike that thought away - even if the particulars - the specific scientific details - as to how it emerges remain unknown!

Now when you add to this the fact that virtual particles are not in fact a "thing" per se - but only a transient quantum fluctuation - then this line of reasoning must be put firmly away from discussions about causality. Because once we acknowledge that such alleged quantum vacuums are not "empty" then it becomes both mischievous and duplicitous to use fluctuations therein as proof that causality is not required in order to instigate movement. Those alleged vacuums contain low gaseous pressure, and thus a (very rough) example would be to say that this is like alleging that ripples in the wind are causeless, if one does not know how such ripples come about.

This is cast iron logic, and this will not change no matter how many scientists swoon over the false idea that virtual particles disprove causality.



Good. Hence my recommendation of agnosticism as wise and honest.

Crystyano:



Fields ....... alright.

Anyway...,

Being means existing..... not existence.
Anything with limits needs space to be possible...


Existence has no limit...

As for change,

It still has to do with limits...


No limit....no change...

Crystyano:


If a quantum vacuum can't be empty,then saying no real particle can be found in it is a contradiction....


If the particles are not real,then the vacuum is empty.....

There's nothing like every existence...

Space and time have to do with how long something with a beginning and end can exist ....

Existence itself has no beginning/end so it's not affected by time and space...




DeepSight...

Crystyano:



Have you seen my email



I need you to help me to stop those bastards!!

DeepSight:

The essentials of the idea of God are not entirely "wishful thinking." Some of the basic precepts can be grounded in philosophy and logic. A simple example is the quality of transcendence. This is the idea that whatever caused the universe to begin cannot itself be the universe - thus - the universe being material, the cause must be immaterial, the universe being of time and space, the cause must be beyond time and space, and so on. In short, that the cause transcends the universe.

The Multiverse theory you referred to is notoriously from thin air. It is a mere fanciful postulation without any conceivable proof. It not only lacks proof but is in fact unprovable - at least not until the day you find a way out of this universe. It is strange how atheists often hear this fanciful term and lend it greater credence than the idea of a God.

The excuse of/ allusion to virtual particles in a quantum vacuum is dead on arrival as there is no perfect vacuum observed anywhere. The said quantum vacuums contain low gaseous pressure and as such the excuse dies before taking off.

The fact that strange things happen in the quantum world was enough to frighten and humble Einstein. Is it not enough to frighten and humble you? What do you really know, oh human being?

From my point of view, you still need basic humility in matters like this. You presume too much. We are too little to make the sort of presumptions you are jumping to. This is why Agnosticism in these matters remains the wisest, most honest and most enlightened position a man can take.

Apply agnosticism in virtually all existential matters.

Cogito ergo sum - is as much as a man can know for certain.
Everything else is up for grabs.
The world you see could even be a simulation.
Very likely is.

DeepSight:


There are deep philosophical arguments for the existence of a transcendental instigation of the universe which I believe, (no offense intended sincerely) - require calmer and deeper reflection than you appear willing to tolerate.

I found it odd and a little amusing that you asked why anyone would even contemplate a God in the first place.

Odd, because the question of origin is so natural to humans, so intrinsic to our being, that it pops into the minds of even very little children.

Small problem - current science tends to disclose a beginning. Un-triggerred movement is not known to us. People try to evade this by recourse to quantum physics - which hardly anyone understands yet - but not even quantum physics constitutes a sufficient answer to the problem posed here.

Mind you, the question of the existence of God neednt depend on the ideas of the theist. God neednt be conscious in the sense evoked by most theist thought.

Furthermore, you are in no position to assert that the Universe is vastly without consciousness. There are more stars in the universe than there are grains of sand on Earth, and we, standing within one grain of sand, have not yet been able to explore the next grain of sand. There is thus a great need for us to be humble. We know practically nothing as yet.

There you go - This is pure and simple agnosticism.

DeepSight:
@ Pr0ton -

"Gnosis" - refers to knowledge. "Gnostic" refers to persons with knowledge - usually of a special, deep, esoteric or mystical kind.
"Agnostic" simply refers to a person who declares an absence of knowledge.

In short, the gnostic says that he knows, the agnostic simply says that he doesnt know.
And that, my friend, is the wisest, most honest, and most enlightened position to take, not just on the question of the existence of god or Gods, but on the question of all existence.

Crystyano:



I have tried to send an email to you...

Reply..

triplechoice:



Anyone who responds to a false claim as if it were true and still continue to respond to it, is not different from the person who made the false claim in the first instance

Let's assume a "God" actually exist in a form or something we yet to see but only suspect it is there, how proper is it to entirely reject this "God" based on the false claims or description of it by theist that may not even know anything about it?

In other words ,if that "God" actually exist how did you determine that the description of it by theist is the correct one ?

What if God is not what we think it is or what the theist says it is, how would you know as an atheist?

These are questions the agnostic is seeking answers for before dismissing or rejecting it anything.completely.

Wrong. Theist did not create anything from thin air they sense something at the very beginning but are not certain about it and without being sure of what it is have decided to create imaginary stories around it that doesn't exactly describe what they sensed. It might be something that science would one day find a correct explanation for. We can't rule out this possibility.

Agnostics are not even close to accepting the God claim (description) by theists but considering the possibilty that such a thing like a "God" might exist or be there already but whose exact description is not known by any. We might already be interacting with this "God " and don't even know it since its description doesn't fit those of the two abrahamic religions which forms the foundation of most atheists worldview.

A001:

Yes, which means I don't believe in any god, and those entities must have also come from a (unknown) Source like all things in existence. I don't do beliefs, but knowledge.

God, if it exists, is unknown or unknowable.

I don't see or refer to them as gods. I thought I made that clear in my posts.

Yes, which means I don't believe in any god, and those entities must have also come from a (unknown) Source like all things in existence. I don't do beliefs, but knowledge.

A001:

Yes, that's true.

Yes, it's true that not all gods have human references. But all the gods worshipped in religions have human-like traits, including Yahweh and Allah.

They're all defied humans judging from the their traits in the religious texts. Can you give me examples of a monotheistic religion?

If you want to say Christianity, don't forget the religion was established on the concept of trinity in Catholicism.

Also, Muslims like to paint Allah as a monotheistic god but by the time you study the history of the other religions predating Islam and see how different gods formed a trinity and are worshipped together as a God-head (one God), then it becomes clear the same practice is in Islam.

In many parts of Qur'an, We is used to refer to God. That is a God-head you're looking at or a group of gods existing or worshipped as a single God.

But most Muslims and Christians didn't take the time to study the history of older religions predating Christianity and Islam to see that almost all the concepts in the two Abrahamic religions were stolen from paganism.

I clearly said the entities religious people call gods are advanced beings. I don't use the word god personally to refer to them.

If these advanced beings are existing in other parts of the Universe, I don't see them as gods or God.

No, in any Abrahamic religion, the entity worshipped as God is called the creator of the universe. That's how the concept is in the religions, not my own making.

I never told you that if the Universe has a maker, it has to be a god or God. That's your own conclusion.

You don't know the god worshipped in any Abrahamic religion is taken as the creator of the universe or the source/maker of all things?

You obviously haven't taken the time to study the Bible and Qur'an then.

You clearly don't understand what I said below, especially the highlighted because this comment of yours isn't related to my statement:

"The word god or God is man-made, but that doesn't mean all those entities worshipped in religions never existed on this planet at some time in the past and that doesn't also mean the Universe doesn't have an Origin or Source, which you might call God or refer to in another way."

I never said anything about the Source or Origin being God or a conscious being. Take your time to read posts before reacting to them.

If you understand the post you quoted, you won't be asking me this.

On this subject of gods' existence or non-existence, I regard all the entities called gods in religions as the early beings or the first settlers on this planet who created early humans in their image, taught them languages, and civilized them.

That's my own stance.

And there are many pieces of evidence in various parts of the world and in religious texts and their histories in support of this position.

On this subject of gods' existence or non-existence, I regard all the entities called gods in religions as the early beings or the first settlers on this planet who created early humans in their image, taught them languages, and civilized them.

That's my own stance.

And there are many pieces of evidence in various parts of the world and in religious texts and their histories in support of this position.

Can you give me examples of a monotheistic religion?

A001:

The atheistic position looks naive to me as many atheists just think religious people merely manufactured names of the gods and goddesses they worship as God.

But only naive people would think that way because all these gods and goddesses are early beings that had existed on this planet.

For instance, if you study the history of our native religions in this part of the world, then you'll realize the fact all these gods and goddesses were deified humans.

So, only someone that's ignorant or naive about how the world works will say that gods and goddesses like Orunmila, Amadioha, Ala, Osun, Sango, etc. are objects of fiction that didn't exist or won't know that it's these early beings or past beings that rule the today's world.

The same thing applies to every other religion. All these gods and goddesses are simply past beings or the ancestors of their people (worshippers).

The word god or God is man-made, but that doesn't mean all those entities worshipped in religions never existed on this planet at some time in the past and that doesn't also mean the Universe doesn't have an Origin or Source, which you might call God or refer to in another way.

The entities called gods and goddesses are just advanced beings, and since we're yet to explore 1% of the Universe and have never set foot on any other planet in our solar system or beyond it, it's possible there are races of advanced beings out there in the Universe, which could be monitoring us.

Otem claims all these gods and goddesses are advanced beings who had lived and created all sorts of life on this planet billions of years ago and are now in other parts of the Universe and regularly monitor this planet with some technologies (built to look like stars in the sky but are really surveillance gadgets) and UFOs.

Given the vastness of this universe, there's a high chance that entities will be living in various parts of the Universe that our telescopes may not be sophisticated enough to detect yet.

For these reasons, I maintain that there's a possibility advanced beings that religious people call gods and goddesses do exist in other parts of the Universe.

The areas of Physics studying the origin and evolution of the Universe, UAPs, extraterrestrial life are Astrophysics, Cosmology, and ET/planetary science. And with time, advances made in those areas will reveal the truth.

It's more reasonable to me to approach the subject with agnosticism and open-mindedness rather than pitching my tent with either of the two extremes.

Kobojunkie:
I never said anything about eternal damnation meaning "ceasing forever" - that doesn't make sense. What the heck does "ceasing forever" even mean? You came up with that bullsheet all by yourself.

Go back through through posts to see.

Stop trying to shove your delusions at me. If you have something in Particular to state, go ahead and state it instead of trying to wiggle it in like some worm.

Kobojunkie:
What part of the post do you not understand?

jesusjnr2020:
But you who is busy chasing shadows, faults and what doesn't concern you, said that because i admitted that there were contradictions in the Bible, it proves I was a scam... but I used the instance of the sayings of the devil in the Bible to expose how ignorant and ridiculous your claim was.

Next time you come put your nose in matters too high for your scope.

A001:

How does saying God might or might not exist mean holding onto God as being the only alternative?

Agnosticism is just a position between the two extremes — atheism and theism.

It's very arrogant of a human that's extremely ignorant about his own planet to assert God doesn't exist as a matter of fact, when he's yet to explore 1% of the Universe, 10% of the world's oceans, and is completely ignorant of most of the things existing or happening even in his immediate environs.

Holding such a position makes you the same as a religionist.

But an agnostic considers that God or gods might exist, is open-minded, and looks to science to solve the riddle with time.

Atheists are dogmatic IMO, just like religious people, though it's still much better to be an atheist than a religionist.

But agnostics are open-minded and prefer to approach these things with a curious, inquisitive approach like a baby.

For an agnostic, it's scientific discoveries and data that determine the truth, not the parochial wishes of an atheist or the ill-informed, superstitious notions of a religionist.

Kobojunkie:
Do you even understand what the word eternal in those terms mean at all?

If I punished a child for 20 minutes...- 20 minutes punishment. be sure that that punishment is not eternal as it is only slated to last 20 minutes. What that means is the child in question consciously endures that punishment for 20 minutes.

Now imagine, if you can, what an eternal punishment/damnation would imply and tell me how you can confuse it with that which is not of eternity?

1Sharon:


A bit naive. If you can't prove something, it's not true? Really? I'm sure there are things that have happened to you that can't prove. We just have to take your word for it
But extraordinary claims require proof.

This is what I'm saying. You are disproving something was never proven to begin with.

How on earth are theists meant to prove something that is invisible ? And how are atheists going to disprove something that was never proved in the first place?
Nobody can ever know.

And people don't come back from the dead. Once dead, that's it. The dead person will never ever know there is a god or not.

A001:

I don't understand you. Which assumptions do agnostics live by?

Do you see assumption as possibility or vice versa because that's the impression you gave with this comment?

Where are the assumptions in my post you quoted?

The agnostic doesn't say a god exists or doesn't exist. He/she simply asserts there's no evidence for God's existence or non-existence due to the limitations of our understanding of the Universe using science as a tool and owing to the limitations of our senses.

The agnostic is open-minded and seeks evidence for or against either of the two positions, not just one possibility because if he supports either of the two sides, then that's not agnosticism.

Based on our current level of scientific knowledge of the Universe, we may never be able to know as a matter of fact that God exists or doesn't exist at least while on Earth.

Kobojunkie:
Confused about what exactly?

jesusjnr2020:
Lol!

You think we're the ones ridiculing ourselves, while it's actually your obsession to find fault where there was none, that's being ridicled here.

I'm sure you're ignorant that the words of the devil whom you obviously serve was also in the Bible, right?

So I shouldn't disregard it right because it's in the Bible, right?

Well keep chasing shadows instead of the Light of the Truth if you like, so that you'd continue to live in gross ignorance and darkness.

Your choice!

Kobojunkie:
Again, I am not here interested in a defining of eternal damnation as I said to you earlier. What Jesus Christ said is True and I believe Him.

1Sharon:


LOL. You do know that atheists and theists are opposites on a spectrum? Because they both make arrogant claims. Agnostics are humble.

Atheists are CERTAIN God doesn't exist, theists are CERTAIN he exists. Agnostics got it right.

God's existence can never be proven because who comes back from the dead?

How do you disprove something that can never be proven to begin with? God is said to be invisible, how do you want to prove or disprove that?

A001:

That's the atheistic position which I don't subscribe to.

We know very little about the Universe to say it as a matter of fact that God exists or doesn't exist.

Given the facts that the Earth is just one of the trillions (or even unlimited number) of planets (worlds) in existence, that the Earth is about 4.6 billion years old when the Age of Scientific Enlightenment is less than 600 years (a millennium), and that most of the things existing in our environs are filtered by our senses (i.e. we don't see and may not be able to see what actually exists in reality), it's possible God exists.

Our sciences, for all its glory and breakthroughs, are still elementary in many ways and nascent in many key areas of life.

Thus, it's not reasonable to conclude a god or God doesn't exist. When one understands the limits of our senses and organs — especially the brain, eye, and ear — one understands life is much deeper and complex than science paints it.

Reality is different from existence as something can be existing but isn't real to us as limited beings.

For these reasons, the agnostic position is the most reasonable IMO as it makes one open-minded about things.

1Sharon:


You're an atheist right or are you trolling?

Long time sha

1Sharon:


Proton saying this?

Kobojunkie:
Has been defined? Are you serious at all? I suggest you go back and read Matthew 25 vs 31 - 46 so you maybe see that no definition of what eternal damnation is is necessary .

The point is the damnation will be eternal(forever) and so it is what it is.

A001:

That's why there are agnostics like me. When scientists present concrete evidence for God's existence, agnosticism will die a natural death.

Given the fact that we know very little about the Universe, one can't conclude that God exists or doesn't exist. Hence, I find the agnostic position convenient.

A001:

Okay. Do you have any scientific evidence for God's existence?

A yes or no would do.

Kobojunkie:
Hell is a place of eternal damnation just as Jesus Christ Himself said in Matthew 25 vs 40 - 46.

I believe in Jesus Christ so I believe His Word is Truth.

A001:

You're obviously the confused one.

Can you quote an agnostic you know that told that contradictory nonsense (the highlighted) that only exists in your head?