Quote:

A friend, an intelligent lapsed Jew who observes the Sabbath for reasons of cultural solidarity, describes himself as a Tooth Fairy Agnostic. He will not call himself an atheist because it is in principle impossible to prove a negative. But "agnostic" on its own might suggest that he thought god's existence or non-existence equally likely. In fact, though strictly agnostic about both, he considers God's existence no more probable than the Tooth Fairy's. Hence the phrase Tooth Fairy Agnostic. Bertrand Russell used a hypothetical teapot in orbit about Mars for the same didactic purpose. You have to be agnostic about the teapot, but that doesn't mean you treat the likelihood of its existence as being on all fours with its non-existence. The list of things about which we strictly have to be agnostic doesn't stop at tooth fairies and celestial teapots. It is infinite. If you want to believe in a particular one of them - teapots, unicorns or tooth fairies, Thor, or Yahweh - the onus is on you to say why you believe in it. The onus is not on the rest of us to say why we do not. We who are atheists are also a-fairyists, a-teapotists and a-unicornists, but we needn't bother saying so.

---

Quote:

DieCommie said: Whether or not the big bang was a conscious or unconscious act is outside our capability to test and there absolutely nothing that implies leaning either way.

---

EntheogenicPeace said:

Ok. I was thinking there wasn't a contradiction between the two, but I wasn't sure exactly what most people who identify themselves as 'atheist' instead of agnostic' believed in this area.

Another question (specifically for those knowledgeable in physics on the second part, but not necessarily on the first part):

When theists make the argument that the "fine-tuning" of constants is a strong indicator of a designer, what is the best agnostic reply? I would think that the most logical answer would be to concede that it is possible, but that it no more an indicator of simply a higher (alien-type) power that it is of the traditional all-knowing, all-powerful & omnipresent deity (& certainly not a specific one from among all past human mythologies, all of which have no evidence for them to date). What are some other perspective on this argument? 

The second relates to the first, in that, what are the (physical) origins of the constants as the relate to the Big Bang, or are they also, like what was before the Big Bang* unknowable at the moment?

* This is assuming the Big Bang theory is correct. I believe that it is the current consensus among physicists & astronomers, but my physics & astronomy knowledge isn't advanced enough to know how much credence should be given to dissident views here; unlike my knowledge of biology & chemistry where I can spot the bullshit in "Intelligent Design" (i.e. creationism) attacks both geological & biological evolution almost, if not, instantly.

---

I think many people who have chosen not to believe in any of the traditional mythological "gods" just default to calling themselves atheists.  It's simply a word that is thrown around much more than "agnostic".

As for the big bang theory...I'm in the same boat as you, I'm not knowledgeable enough about it to say one way or the other.  It doesn't make much sense to me, though, that the big bang could be the true beginning of Everything.  There had to be a cause.  Whether that cause was God, or expansion out of a parallel universe, or what have you, I can't say.

(Great quotes in your sig btw )

EntheogenicPeace said:

Isn't saying, "There absolutely isn't any higher power" as close-minded as saying, "There absolutely is a higher power" (not counting the absurdity of claiming to know its exact identity/intent without any evidence)? Or am I, as an agnostic, misunderstanding atheism?

---

DieCommie said:

But there is evidence against tooth fairies and orbiting teapots.  You can use a camera to see adults taking the tooth, not a fairy. 

---

That still doesn't prove there's no tooth fairy.

blewmeanie said:

---

haha this is fitting.

The real issue would be if you are naturally bald or if you shave your head. Is it a hairstyle or not?

EntheogenicPeace said:

As an agnostic, I'm wondering the atheist explanation for what came before the Big Bang, or is agnosticism/atheism really the same in this regard; that it is, at present, anyways, unknowable? I'll concede, as an agnostic, that any claim of the divine (or any kind of higher power that isn't necessarily divine) being responsible for the universe (everything that we know of) has an infinitely small chance of being correct, but that it will remain as an infinitely small chance, & thus implausible & irrational to believe, until evidence is acquired for it.

Isn't saying, "There absolutely isn't any higher power" as close-minded as saying, "There absolutely is a higher power" (not counting the absurdity of claiming to know its exact identity/intent without any evidence)? Or am I, as an agnostic, misunderstanding atheism?

---

It will always be unknowable/no evidence because knowable implies some 'thing' you can know, the divine power is not a 'thing', it is the formless where this universe comes from, its the heart of all things. The knower, the seer, the experiencer. We invest so much in what we can know, but we dont even know the knower! The unknown is the divine power, anytime you try to turn it into the known it gets covered up again.

Its entirely unproovable in an objective scientific way because its beyond existence, we cant take hold of it & put it under a microscope, although its not seperate from you so inevitably discoverable.

Icelander said:

the divine power is not a 'thing', it is the formless where this universe comes from, its the heart of all things.

And you "know" this how?

---

Because when the truth speaks to your heart.....you know.

Quote:

DieCommie said: Assumptions need to be made either way so I dont believe the 'consciously created' side is more presumptuous.  For example, if you encountered an artificial intelligence would Occam's Razor lead you to believe it was not consciously created? 

In the end I dont think Occam's Razor is useful for any type of serious/deep philosophy or science.  Its only really a good rule of thumb for daily interactions.  Nature has its way, and it doesnt care what humans think about assumptions, simplicity or elegance.

---

I agree with you that Occam's Razor is not necessarily applicable in every situation (and I liked your quote that Nature will have its way regardless.)  I suppose my viewpoint is stemming more from a pragmatic standpoint, though.  When picking a theory to fit the evidence, one chooses the one that has the maximum predictive ability and the power to explain all previous data.  Our two theories, that of "there existed a conscious being that created the Universe" and that of "there did not exist a conscious being that created the Universe," are in this respect identical in their predictions and matching to the evidence--they say nothing different about what happens after the Big Bang; the only difference is in what happens before, which we can't experimentally test anyway.

So my point is--if these two theories are essentially equivalent, then why do you need to make the presupposition that a conscious being existed before the Universe?  What predictive benefit does this assumption gain you?  It certainly doesn't help simplify things, as now you have to have not only the idea of something existing before the Universe (which throws the concept of existence itself in for a loop), but the idea of a "conscious being" outside of the space/time continuum.  Considering that we're only able to find examples of consciousness within ourselves (and perhaps, at a stretch, assume that other spatiotemporal organisms on Earth possess this as well), it doesn't even make sense to talk about something not of space/time, prior to the Universe, and still conscious.  What does this even mean?  It seems very ill-defined, especially when you consider that the definition of consciousness usually implies some sort of sensory perceptions to go along with self-awareness, which is impossible outside of a medium where there can even be no perceptions to sense.  And I'd challenge you to give a precise definition of what a "being" not made of matter or energy truly is.

Assumptions do need to be made either way (as we still have no idea why the Big Bang occurred), but to assume the existence of a "conscious being" is not only spectacularly ill-defined, but pragmatically unnecessary.  Unless you can demonstrate some potent requirement as to why the existence of something unprovable, metaphysical, and definitionally contradictory is necessary for explaining further physical evidence, a world-view without a conscious "creator being" is intellectually cleaner and still a perfect fit to the data.

The Cypher said:

Our two theories, that of "there existed a conscious being that created the Universe" and that of "there did not exist a conscious being that created the Universe," are in this respect identical in their predictions and matching to the evidence--they say nothing different about what happens after the Big Bang; the only difference is in what happens before, which we can't experimentally test anyway.

---