It does? How so?

I don't think so really - they just don't have any reason for ascribing a cause to the decay yet. If something suggests that there really is some cause and that it isn't random, I'm sure quantum theory will be revised.
I'm not relying solely on science, FWIW, I'm just requiring some kind of a reason*. Science doesn't currently give me one, but it didnt used to know why the sun shines either - now it does. It didnt used to know what caused biodiversity, now it does. It doesn't currently know why the big bang 'happened'...maybe it will.

If someone wants to suggest they know why it happened, I'm happy to hear the reason. But "I think it's more reasonable thatr it was an all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful God who sent his son to be murdered in payment for our sins rather than that it just popped into existence for no reason at all." is not really a reason - it's a claim that we have to make a choice now and I don't see why that's the case. I don't know if there's a reason for the big bang occurring or if there is - but I'm comfortable in my ignorance and it doesnt affect my life at all.


*This is all kind of devil's advocatey of course, since I do think God made the universe. I don't think that's a rational belief though and I don't think it counts as a reason.
I'm suggesting its a "no explanation yet" event, not a "no explanation" event. That's not arbitrary, it's because we have no explanation yet.
Well, I'll wait for that before discussing it once more (obviously I don't see any reason for making a decision before there is sufficient evidence).

If I tell you that my wife looks good in blue, is a doctor, likes making jigsaw puzzles and then ask you what her top score at tetris is... Are you forced to make a decision? Isn't "I don't know" a perfectly fine answer? I can see no difference between that and the creation of the universe - we know some things about it, but not enough to make any kind of informed judgement.
It's not really relevant whether it's the best explanation, the issue is whether the available evidence is sufficient to justify it.* The default position is ignorance, my position is not that we should claim that it had no cause.


*This is assuming we're talking about knowledge, of course. We can't help forming beliefs.

I will get to this later, I just wanted to say that I really wish we would do a skype conference call and discuss things like this. I really want to "argue" less and discuss more, and I find it easier for me to talk then to write out what I am trying to say. And I think that it would be much more fun.

I'd be happy to tee something like that up sometime. It'll have to be some time my wife is away - she already thinks I waste too much time "talking to those internet geeks". I'll pm you when she goes on her next conference, see if there's some mutually convenient time.

EDIT: I'm in the US for a couple of weeks in June too if you happen to be in Hawaii, Boston or New York around then.

One comment though - I don't really consider this 'arguing' in any unpleasant sense. I'm not really sure on the distinction between argue and discuss there - I'm probably going to be just as objectionable face-to-face..

I don't really mean it in a negative sense either, more so that it just seems more formal when we are writing, I guess. A lot of the time I feel that it comes across like "this is why you need to agree with me" when what I am really trying to get across is "this is why I believe/think this way".

Your asking me to judge a beauty pageant with the light off. The best you will get is idk....can you turn the lights on.

lol

I disagree (obviously). I would say it is more akin to judging a beauty pageant with her:



and her:



and someone saying to you "just wait maybe someone else will show up" or someone saying "Wait, we can't see all of them, let's wait till we can all of their body, maybe we will change our minds!"

Either way, the way I see it, there is a clear winner and a clear loser here (sorry the world is a harsh place).

Geez, bunny makes stronger and more eloquent points about my position than I can. I certainly can't improve on these last couple of posts.

I'm really tempted to just leave it at - What he said.

Well all i know is i dont know what caused the universe and i haven't decided and me deciding is not something i have done, accept for saying idk. As soon as the strong atheist who says its natural shows his goods or as soon as the theist shows his ill take a look. But as of right now no one is showing their fun parts.

So... you really think the Homer chick is clearly hotter than Megan Fox?

the argument for the existence of god imo is neither a religious one nor a scientific one, but rather a philosophical one. a proper argument would fill up multiple pages, but i really think that the causality dilemma of the big bang makes god's existence an axiom. i hate to use the phrase "proof of god's existence" because that sounds like a scientific perspective which it is not. it is simply a logical necessity because it must be. to refute this is to put one's faith in the course of time to discover anything and everything (basically parallel but opposite to faith in the divine), which is why, in my opinion, atheism is paradoxically equally if not more illogical than theism. simply put, god's existence makes little sense, but god's non-existence makes even less sense. you do the math

Originally Posted by KB24
what about the causality dilemma of God?

well that, of course, is the famous atheist response haha- richard dawkins especially. but asking that really ignores what the concept of the divine represents. and before anyone says it, yes i know rene descarte's Ontological Argument is paradoxcally illogical. nevertheless, i ask what caused the big bang: one could say "an event or 'actor' (or whatever) that had at least as much reality to it as the result it caused. then i ask "what caused the event that caused the big bang?" and so on and so on. is it really logical to suppose that there was a chain of causal events stretching infinitely backwards in time? if you don't believe in God, you must believe in that chain. but if you believe in that chain, in my opinion it makes more sense to believe in a Force, or Meaning, or whatever you want to call it that gives purpose to Ultimate Reality. you might as well call that God as far as im concerned. I picture God as being more resembling the Tao, or simply "How Things Are, or What Is" , rather than a man in the sky who throws lightning bolts. besides, i assume that as fallible human beings its not worth trying to comprehend this Force or whatever it is, because we are not capable of understanding fully.
In sum, this is why I see the existence of God as being an axiom.

Originally Posted by KB24
How about we say "we have no clue what happened"?

well in the sense that there is no scientific evidence for it, we don't have a clue, you're right. but it's obviously human nature to question that which we don't understand, and the thinking i've outlined makes logical sense to me at least. if you're ultimate position is that we can never even speculate, than i have to question why u participate in this forum in the first place, since you are clearly not going to be satisfied by any reasoning for god's existence that you read. however, in a way ur point is excellent in my opinion; it leaves no room for Atheists- only Agnostics. This is why whenever I meet an atheist, i always suspect that they have not thought about this question as in depth as is necessary.

Not sure I understand what you mean here....

If you are agnostic in relation to the God question, all that means is you don't think that the question can ever be answered with certainty. This has no bearing on whether you personally believe a god exists or not. It is quite possible for a person to be an agnostic atheist.

As far as I understand, your opinion here is a contradiction. Why would your personal belief pertaining to the god question not be inherently linked to the fact that the question of god's existence (according to agnosticism) cannot be answered with certainty? In other words, if you don't think the question can be answered, how can you take a valid stance on the matter (ex. be an atheist)? To be an atheist is to state that "God does not exist," while to be an agnostic is to say that "the question cannot be answered." There is no median between these two viewpoints, and therefore I disagree that agnostic atheism is possible.

note: being Theistic myself, this contradiction does not affect me. My point is that you must either be a Theist, or an Agnostic. To the critical mind Atheism is impossible, which is why, as I said before, I do not believe that atheists have considered this logic.

What if i dont know if there is a God but i wouldn't say the God question can never be answered because i dont know that either. What should i call myself?

Athiesm in general does not posit that God does not exist, only that one does not believe this is the case, nothing is positively stated.

It is confusing to me that you say one can be either athiest theist or agnostic, as agnosticism in general has nothing to do with these other terms.
You can be agnostic about a wide variety of subjects, while Atheism and Theism deal with the question of god directly. The way you a phrasing this is as if agnosticism is some sort of 3rd option to the question, but agnosticism does not deal with this question directly.

i suppose that would still make you an agnostic. if you do not know whether or not the god question can be answered, you (obviously) consequently would not be able to state whether or not you believe in god, and in the context in which i'm speaking of agnosticism that would by definition make you agnostic.

As far as I've ever understood the word "agnosticism" it is in reference to being undecided about the question of god's existence. Forgive me if that definition is inaccurate. However, now that you can see the context in which I mean the word, my argument still stands. What word should I use as a substitute for Agnosticism that still carries that definition?

And again I would ask you what a belief has to do with whether or not a question can be definitively answered.

well, i'm not sure the position does still stand. If we agree that agnosticism is not an answer the question of whether god exists or not, that what is our other option besides theism in regards to this question?

Alright i guess. But it does go against the version of agnosticism you put forth which says the God question cant be known.

Round these parts, I'd suggest you'd use 'weak atheist'. A-theist is taken quite literally to mean 'not a theist'. There are two ways to lack a belief in God - one is to believe God doesn't exist (strong atheism) and the other is to simply lack the belief without affirming it's denial (weak atheism). On this view, people who have never heard of God are atheists (since they don't believe in God) as are most agnostics (since most people who don't think knowledge of God is possible don't believe in him*). Very few people on this forum are strong atheists - when people tell you they are an atheist, they usually mean they don't have a belief in God and haven't yet expressed a view as to whether they think God definitely doesn't exist.


*Although, as it happens, I'm an agnostic theist. This stems from distinguishing between belief (which I have) and knowledge (which I claim nobody can have).

haha the level of thinking this whole argument requires starts to get confusing. umm i guess im calling it agnosticism because i simply don't know what else to call it. it's neither theism nor atheism. as far as im concerned, agnosticism addresses what you believe fairly accurately, but perhaps not 100% accurately??? i see what you're getting at though