Well, that's just wrong.

Not at all, it's just facing facts. Which is that the material we see before us is constituted in that way (as documented by science), not as to its, or our origins.

what remains unexplained?

Whether our origins are a happenstance of dust (which itself fails to explain it), or our origins lie in some other means like idealism for example.

Why not?

Again, that is what the mathematics of the big bang theory describes. — Banno

No exceptions taken. I'm supprised though, I didn't think you'd acquiesce to Deity.

So it's everything all the way down? — Punshhh

There's something other than everything...? Odd. :)

No known phenomenon has ever been best explained by the gods or supernatural magic — could literally be raised to explain anything and therefore explains nothing, not itself explicable, cannot readily be exemplified (verified), does not derive anything differentiable in particular, has consistently been falsified in the past — literally a non-explanation.
The gods are similar to things we know aren't real and unlike things we know are real; no gods are unambiguously detected by unbiased observers; gods take idealized forms that the person can conceive and hold attitudes and values the believer projects into them.
Every posited god that has things of utmost importance to tell all mankind (perhaps like worship, perhaps the importance of whichever religious scriptures) has failed (not almighty) or is deceptive (not omnibenevolent).
But, hey, ...

Do we always strand on "the unknowable", "the ineffable" or some such (by way of Sagan's procedure)?

What do you believe "explains our origins" requires or entails?

I try to distance my thinking from belief. I sense that I know something, but not really due to thinking as such, but through living. I can't answer your question though.

I can't answer your question though. — Punshhh

So then your dismissal of the explanatory relevance of [physical cosmology / quantum gravity ... ]
.

None of that explains our origins, all it does is describe the world we find ourselves in.
So yes " "it's all smoke and mirrors" ". — Punshhh

likewise is nothing but "smoke and mirrors" too. Okay. Just checking.

But there is no reasoning or logic invo[lv]ed...just guesswork. — Frank Apisa

Like a broken record you keep repeating this "guesswork" with "no reasoning or logic involved", but repetition doesn't make it so and only reminds me/us that your 'agnostic confusion' is not even false. Rodeo clownin' you has become a guilty pleasure, Frank. :sweat:

The gods are similar to things we know aren't real and unlike things we know are real; no gods are unambiguously detected by unbiased observers; gods take idealized forms that the person can conceive and hold attitudes and values the believer projects into them. — jorndoe

You know of only your existence here on earth. How can you be so certain of the nature of existence in the wider universe? The multiverse? All possible kinds of realities?

It is illogical to profess certainty on such a question.

But there is no reasoning or logic invo[lv]ed...just guesswork.
— Frank Apisa
Like a broken record you keep repeating this "guesswork" with "no reasoning or logic involved", but repetition doesn't make it so and only reminds me/us that your 'agnostic confusion' is not even false. Rodeo clownin' you has become a guilty pleasure, Frank. :sweat: — 180 Proof

No reasoning or logic involved in any of the guesses about whether there are gods or not. Strong atheists and theists share that quality...making blind guesses and having "faith" that those blind guesses are correct.

I figured you didn't have the guts for a real conversation. Go pick on some theists...be the bully. But make sure you don't tangle ass with someone who can actually show you to be the blind guesser you are.

But make sure you don't tangle ass with someone who can actually show you to be the blind guesser you are. — Frank Apisa

Well, you're definitely not one of them, ... so I'm still waiting. :victory: :smirk:

180 Proof
1.5k
But make sure you don't tangle ass with someone who can actually show you to be the blind guesser you are.
— Frank Apisa
Well, you're definitely not one of them, ... so I'm still waiting. :victory: :smirk: — 180 Proof

If you want to blindly guess there are no gods...and pretend it is something more than a blind guess...do so, 180. I enjoy a laugh as much as the next guy...and I thank you for providing it.

There's something other than everything...? Odd. :) — jorndoe

:up:

Projection on this forum, Frank, is pathetic. In these many months you've not so much as scuffed one of my arguments while I've blown down your infantile "I know nothing" houses of cards every time with barely a whisper. Like the Donald, you seem to forget there is, in this case, reams of written evidence (mine, others & yours) of your incorrigible (or disingenous) confusions & non sequiturs. You're the one "guessing" (gassing), sir. :mask:

180 Proof
1.5k
↪Frank Apisa Projection on this forum, Frank, is pathetic. In these many months you've not so much as scuffed one of my arguments while I've blown down your infantile "I know nothing" houses of cards every time with barely a whisper. Like the Donald, you seem to forget there is, in this case, reams of written evidence (mine, others & yours) of your incorrigible (or disingenous) confusions & non sequiturs. You're the one "guessing" (gassing), sir. :mask: — 180 Proof

I have no problem with you living in your land of fantasy, 180.

Best to think of my laughing as laughing WITH you even though you know I am laughing AT you. What the hell, in your fantasy land, it should be a snap for you.

And...if you want to pretend your blind guesses about the REALITY are more than blind guesses...so much the better. Comedy is best if the comedian plays it straight.:wink:

There's something other than everything...? Odd. :)

I don't think we can discuss everything, because we can only know things in our vicinity ( the known universe) and of that only what we can detect.

supernatural magic —,

literally a non-explanation.

It might be a problem if I try to explain something, but I'm not, I'm accepting the truth of our predicament.

Every posited god that has things of utmost importance to tell all mankind (perhaps like worship, perhaps the importance of whichever religious scriptures) has failed (not almighty) or is deceptive (not omnibenevolent).

I put that down to human frailty. Also we can't determine what events might have been influenced by Gods, should they exist.

Do we always strand on "the unknowable", "the ineffable" or some such (by way of Sagan's procedure)?

I am sure we stand on solid ground ( metaphorically), but that we are unaware of that ground, or its nature, we are ignorant of the truth of our origins. Sagan's procedure is only applicable when a theist makes claims about divinity.

There is NO way to KNOW if there is at least one god...or if there are none.

There is NO way to KNOW if it is more probable that there is at least one god than that there are none...,or vice versa.

One CANNOT get to any of those things through reason...or logic...or science...or math.

And your evidence/argument for these assertions is... ?

And obviously there is middle ground between knowledge and "blind guessing". You should also consider answering jorndoe's question about other entities whose existence is dubious- surely you don't take this same agnostic position with respect to dragons and underpants gnomes and so on? And if not, why the special pleading wrt theistic deities but not other fictional entities?

This is nothing more than a smoke and mirrors sleight of hand to convince believers in scientism that scientism has the big questions answered and that it is irrational to delve any deeper into them.

"nothing to see here"

Hardly smoke and mirrors or sleight of hand, though certainly an inconvenient or awkward situation for (at least some) theists. But given the current picture of our best and most rigorously corroborated physical theories, predictability and our ability to posit meaningful cause/effect relations breaks down utterly at the gravitational singularity of the Big Bang/relativistic picture.

And its actually immaterial for our purposes here, whether this represents something physically real or just a breakdown/artifact of theory (i.e. lacking as we do any viable alternative- a successful quantum theory of gravity)- either way, talk of "before" the Big Bang or any sort of prior cause is incoherent, literal non-sense, in the same way that "north of the North Pole" is incoherent. If you disagree, you're going to need to do a bit more than wave your hand and stomp your foot saying "nuh-uh!"- tell us how we can meaningfully talk about "before the Big Bang" or causes of the Big Bang, given that GR breaks down utterly at the t=0 singularity of the BB model, with all the bizarre shenanigans (path incompleteness, etc) that entails. Needless to say, we probably shouldn't hold our breath on this count.

:lol:

I agree it's immaterial if the science and the maths break down at the singularity. But you can't just stop at the singularity and say things like there is no before, or prior state for example. Or claim that such considerations are illogical, or incoherent.

Let's break this down a little.

The problem with the insistence that there is no before the Big Bang is that it is in reference to any before's in relation to the spacetime resulting from the Big Bang. In which case it is a valid argument. But it ignores any other states not of a result of the Big Bang. For example some other Big Bang, or some other unknown state/s in which the Big Bang originated.

The problem with both the claim that it is incoherent, or illogical is the same issue, it is only in reference to spacetime resulting to the Big Bang. It is perfectly rational to consider other states not as a result of the Big Bang. Because logic does not exclude the existence of other states, only that these other states are entailed in the Big Bang. For example it is problematic to make any claims about a God being involved in the Big Bang, because the Big Bang and the resultant universe appears to be an independent self autonomous entity encapsulating its own space and time and material. Such that for the God to have any involvement in its processes would violate the laws of nature within.


As an aside, there is a bigger problem for your side of the argument than the issue of the origin of physical material described by science. It is to do with the ground of physical material and the way in which events are orchestrated in time as we experience it and the nature of sentient beings. While we have no idea of the nature of the ground of the physical reality, or of being, we really are in ignorance.
For example is the ground some unknown cosmic dance between big bangs and black holes and nothing else, or is the ground some kind of artificial stage for the expression of being generated by highly advanced beings? Or is it some kind of dream of a God, or an unknown cosmic creature.
We really are ignorant regarding the grounds of existence.

Enai De A Lukal
170
↪Frank Apisa
There is NO way to KNOW if there is at least one god...or if there are none.

There is NO way to KNOW if it is more probable that there is at least one god than that there are none...,or vice versa.

One CANNOT get to any of those things through reason...or logic...or science...or math.

And your evidence/argument for these assertions is... ? — Enai De A Lukal

If you think I am wrong...easy enough to show me to be wrong.

Here is a C: Therefore there are no gods.

Give me the P1 and P2 to arrive at it.

Here is a C: Therefore there is at least one god.

Give me the P1 and P2 to arrive at it.

Here is a C: Therefore it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is one.

Give me the P1 and P2 to arrive at it.

Here is a C: Therefore it is more likely that there is at least on god than that there are none.

Give me the P1 and P2 to arrive at it.

And obviously there is middle ground between knowledge and "blind guessing". — Enai

Not on the question "Are there any gods or are there no gods."

You should also consider answering jorndoe's question about other entities whose existence is dubious- surely you don't take this same agnostic position with respect to dragons and underpants gnomes and so on? And if not, why the special pleading wrt theistic deities but not other fictional entities?

Here is my agnostic position (which I have given at least a dozen times in the forum:

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of gods is impossible);
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST (that at least one god is needed to explain existence);
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

Are you actually saying there is not enough unambiguous evidence about those things upon which to base a meaningful guess?

180 Proof
1.5k
↪Frank Apisa :lol: — 180 Proof

We agree on that, 180. Your position is laughable.

Not on the question "Are there any gods or are there no gods." — Frank Apisa

And hence, by your line of thinking, neither on ...

The Matrix (or Bostrom's thing perhaps)
Solipsism
Dream thought experiments
Intangible hobs that can control the weather
Applewhite's trans-dimensional super-beings
...

But that's fine I guess.

jorndoe
984
Not on the question "Are there any gods or are there no gods."
— Frank Apisa

And hence, by your line of thinking, neither on ...

The Matrix (or Bostrom's thing perhaps)
Solipsism
Dream thought experiments
Intangible hobs that can control the weather
Applewhite's trans-dimensional super-beings
...

But that's fine I guess. — jorndoe

Guess whatever you like. Great thing about a guess is...it might be correct.

Unfortunately, inherent in "it might be correct" is..."it might be incorrect."

:rofl:

You zoomed in on the wrong word, . :)

180 Proof
1.5k
↪Frank Apisa :rofl: — 180 Proof

Laughter is good for you.

We are both getting lots of laughs.

A win/win situation.

Don't get that very often on the Internet.

Hope you are enjoying it as much as I.

jorndoe
985
You zoomed in on the wrong word, ↪Frank Apisa. :) — jorndoe

Don't think so, Jorn.

But we will see where this goes.

"1. There was something before the big bang...
2. There was nothing before the big bang...
— opt-ae
3. There is no "before the big bang".

This last is the view implicit in the very physical theory that deduced the big bang. — Banno

I'd be rather careful with extrapolating physical theories as such given their parasitic assumptions on certain space-time philosophies. In this case it seems you're using a sort of spacetime realist interpretation of general relativity and also extending a theory perhaps to a point in which it breaks down (singularities appear). This is a particular interpretation of the theory and not exactly the one or only.

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of gods is impossible);
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST (that at least one god is needed to explain existence);
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't. — Frank Apisa

The first is direct personal admittance of ignorance and the latter comments a form of epistemologically successful deduction on your part. A respectable position to hold and for others rather frustrating as to hold any one position (theist, atheist, ignostic, agnostic) there must be a clear definition of the terms involved including the word god here. If such a concept proved to be incoherent then we would all be atheist, if it merely rebranded meaning wise to another readily existent thing/concept (universe) then perhaps we are all theistic, and if it falls along the line of a deistic/classical conception of god then an agnostic position would be perhaps most favored. In lieu of these situations we are all ignostics.

substantivalism
77
I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of gods is impossible);
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST (that at least one god is needed to explain existence);
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.
— Frank Apisa

The first is direct personal admittance of ignorance and the latter comments a form of epistemologically successful deduction on your part. A respectable position to hold and for others rather frustrating as to hold any one position (theist, atheist, ignostic, agnostic) there must be a clear definition of the terms involved including the word god here. If such a concept proved to be incoherent then we would all be atheist, if it merely rebranded meaning wise to another readily existent thing/concept (universe) then perhaps we are all theistic, and if it falls along the line of a deistic/classical conception of god then an agnostic position would be perhaps most favored. In lieu of these situations we are all ignostics. — substantivalism

I say, "Screw the descriptors. State a position on the question as fully and accurately as one can."

I even dislike using "agnostic" these days...and try always to use "This is my position, which is an agnostic position."

Then I state the position:

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of gods is impossible);
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST (that at least one god is needed to explain existence);
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

That is absolutely the truth for me.

If someone feels it is defective...I will live with that.

If you think I am wrong...easy enough to show me to be wrong.

I asked you a question, which you didn't answer. I'll ask again. What is your evidence/arguments for the following assertions-

There is NO way to KNOW if there is at least one god...or if there are none.

There is NO way to KNOW if it is more probable that there is at least one god than that there are none...,or vice versa.

One CANNOT get to any of those things through reason...or logic...or science...or math.

Or does your evasion of the question mean that you don't have any evidence or argument for these assertions?

Or does your evasion of the question mean that you don't have any evidence or argument for these assertions? — Enai De A Lukal

C'mon @Frank Apisa show your "evidence or arguments" to him/her like you showed me. :razz: