Im really not qualified to defend myself from you sooty. I'm really not the greatest christian. I can say its a whole lot easier to be a skeptic (which is a one word definition for agnosticism) than it is to be a believer. I know my experience so my assumption is based off reason so I know there is a higher power. I feel there is sufficient evidence of something greater. Being it occured to me as a christian in a christian church I have no doubt that higher being is god. I don't think its a categorial mistake since I've reasoned god is real through my experience.

The categorical mistake I was pointing out (that I think theists often make, although certainly some atheists also do so) is calling their belief of god(s) "knowledge" of god(s). I'm a pretty hard-line agnostic about the knowledge of the supernatural, so that's where it comes from.

To some extent, I'm not an 'enemy' to your beliefs. I don't claim that you are unjustified to hold the beliefs you do; they can be perfectly reasonable for you. And even if it's not, I might still not give a damn. Plenty of people have unreasonable beliefs about all sorts of mundane things. A problem only arises when some people mistake their belief for knowledge and proceeds to act based on their belief-as-knowledge in ways I personally find unacceptable.

1) no discussion of religion can be complete without including pastafarianism.
Look up church of the fsm if curious.
2) the big bang theory is actually more complicated than people are discussing. Most hardcore physicists believe the big bang is a misnomer and actually are not convinced there was an actual "big bang" The evidence points to an expanding universe, which is pretty much accepted and there is evidence to support what happens UP UNTIL micro or milliseconds before a possible big bang. But there is no evidence as to what happened before then or if there was a big bang, or if all matter came from a central point. It is possible that the universe oscillates in size, or there are other factors. Basically, we suffer from observer bias in our measurements of universal phenomenon. I.e. Measuring a thrown ball when you are standing on a moving train.
for more info, theck out the wikipedia page on the big bang.

I looked up church of fsm. Its funny. I'm probably supposed to get all excited and pissed off about it but I'd rather just let events unfold and take it easy. Its funny yes, but the nature of it is meant to be offensive. I think its probably more prudent to pray for their safety rather than to stop their cause.


I find the big bang theory not so great. As someone mentioned black holes, dont quote me on this because I could be talking out of the side of my neck, im not a physicist. But black holes are something so dense because they have collapsed under their own gravitational pull and compressed. So.. long story short, I think if enough matter was close enough to explode and create an expanding galaxy it would collapse rather than expand. I wonder if the collapsing causes an explosion.

Edit: I just read this thing on "natural spirituality." Why do people still have the need to feel spiritual if they "know" theres no god? Seriously, I hate being spiritual. That was always one of the benefits of being agnostic during my agnostic theist period.

Before big bang there was no time in our universe. Without time there is no causality, so the question of what caused big bang to happen doesn't really make sense. The universe always (there never was a time when it wasn't) was here, so there's no need to ask what caused its birth. I guess it's possible that some event in some other universe caused our big bang to happen, but that explanation just replaces one problem with many harder ones. Same thing with God.

If there is a God / gods, he seems to have no effect whatsoever on our lives. Quantum theory and relativity leave very little room for some unknown cosmic power to meddle in our affairs. But sure, it can be argued that God just deliberately makes it seem that way to test our faith or whatever. And that's fine. I think religion is ok as long as it doesn't stop you from thinking.

My personal view is it doesn't matter whether there are gods or no. This is because they don't seem to have any effect on anyone's life and even if our actions or thoughts did have some effect on some god, how can we know what actions would make him suffer or happy? If he doesn't bother giving any feedback even though he could, there's no reason to care, IMHO. Why think about some mystical being who might or might not exist and is out of our reach when there are all these definitely real living beings around us, on whose lives and happiness we definitely have an effect on?

Anyway, all of this stuff has been discussed and debated over and over thousands of times. I think there are hotter philosohical topics, like: How to live our lives as individuals, where to find a reason to live, if there can be any, and what guidelines - if any - we should live by? How should we live as a species, where should we aim and how should we treat other species and so on, or does it even make sense to think from whole species' perspective? How should we treat a supposedly conscious and thinking machine? And of course, what does ANYTHING matter?

EDIT: I removed some weird stuff before anyone comments on it and added that last paragraph. I'm still lurking here sometimes and couldn't resist posting in this thread.

I will grant that it is tough to question agnosticism...however, I also believe that we have minds and should use them to decipher the truth about the universe as well as we can. Agnosticism seems to me to just be avoiding the tough questions. There are people who have faith simply because of what they have been taugh or some sort of "burning in the chest" or other emotional feelings. I can't have a faith that is simply based on emotion.

We basically come back to my original point on this: It seems more reasonable to me to believe in a being that exists outside of space-time and got things started than it does to believe either that matter spontaneously came from nothing or that matter always existed and at some point in the distant past mysteriously decided for that instant to ignore several known laws of physics with no metaphysical explanation.

It seems to me to be true that once impossible options are eliminated, some other option, however implausible, must be the truth.

Further, it makes more sense to me to have a singular prime-mover than multiple entities that exist. That leaves us with only Judaism, Christianity, Islam, a few small religions (ex Zoroastrianism), and several modern offshoots.

When you say "that leaves us with...", do you mean that one of these religions must be hold the truth? If so, are you referring only to its ontological content (it's description of the nature of god and the universe), or to its ethical content as well?

If we consider these two things:
1) There is a single prime mover. As I have stated, I believe this is the most logical conclusion given the physical evidence we can see.

and

2) That prime mover has communicated to intelligent beings within the universe, which to me seems likely if there is a single intelligent prime mover.

Then:

It seems that at least some religions would be based at least partly on that communication. The only major religions which believe in a singular, intelligent prime mover are Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (although there are smaller religions and offshoots as well).

I would further suggest that if a religion is correct about the nature of God, that gives at least some credence to any other beliefs or claims that religion holds.

It seems that your argument has 3 main parts:

1. The Big Bang is impossible without the involvement of a sentient being.
2. If such a being exists, it would communicate with use, and at least some people would have a good idea about it's nature.
3. Those people would also be in a good position to prescribe ethics.

I see some major flaws in each of these logical steps.

1. Big Bang -> Prime Mover

I've only taken undergrad physics, so I don't really know if physicists can give a good account of the Big Bang. So let's assume that you are correct and they can't. This would not be the first time that physics fails to explain something. For example, towards the end of the 19th century, physicists realized that matter is made of electrons orbiting atomic nuclei. However, they had a problem: if the electron is electrically attracted to the nucleus, what keeps it from crashing into it? Under the classical physics of the time, there was no explanation for this.

Now, a philosopher going by your logic would say: "According to natural laws, it is impossible for the electron to keep orbiting the nucleus. Something must be holding it up, and that something must have sentience. This proves the existence of God."

Fortunately, what the philosophers and physicists of the time did say was: "Clearly, our understanding of natural laws if flawed. Let us try to improve it". The inquiry that followed gave us Quantum Mechanics.

So now we again have a gap in our physical knowledge - a phenomenon unexplainable by natural laws as we know them. All this means is that our understanding of these laws is incomplete. For example, our theory may fail under extreme gravity - in the same way that pre-relativistic physics failed under extreme velocities. This only means that we need to keep working at improving and refining the theory.

Conjuring a sentient being to magically wave away each gap in our knowledge is not going to lead to improved understanding.

2. Prime Mover -> Religions with Correct Ontology

Even if we do accept the Prime Mover hypothesis, it doesn't follow that it communicates its nature to people on Earth. In your argument for this, you make quite a few unwarranted assumptions (under the heading: "it seems logical to me that...").

Perhaps the Prime Mover doesn't even know we exist, having moved to other, more interesting projects (omnipotence does not imply omniscience). Or maybe it does know, but doesn't care. Perhaps it does communicate, but for whatever reason, it chooses to mislead us in various ways.

Yes, it's definitely possible that it chooses to communicate, that it only communicates the truth, and that for some reason it only communicates that truth to a select few, hoping that the rest of us will believe them. It's definitely an option. I just don't see why that option is better than all the other options I can think of.

3. Correct Ontology -> Correct Ethics.

While it is possible, in principle, to the know the truth about ontology (because the Prime Mover told you, or through scientific experiment, or any other method), it is impossible to the know the truth about ethics, because no such truth exists. Ethics are not a thing that physically exists - they are belief systems held by persons and cultures.

Suppose you could prove to me with all the rigor of science that a Prime Mover exists, and tell me a lot about its nature, and about the system of ethics it subscribes to. What would be the moral implications of that demonstration? Suppose my value system is different than that held by the Prime Mover. Is there any reason I should prefer the Prime Mover's values to my own? Other than "might makes right", that is.

if the laws of physics precluded the big bang, then the big bang theory wouldn't be a valid theory. I have no idea where you're getting your information, but that's just not how science works.

does anyone here still believe in Zeus?