Agnostics are Believers

[Questerr]

This is not about your claims about what you think scientists believed or not. Science is not based upon beliefs of scientists. Neither is physical reality. They never said it would violate reality. You are just making stuff up.

Hold on, do you think science exists independent of humans?

 

[devildavid]

I’m not telling anyone to believe anything. I’m saying rejecting possibility is illogical. The correct answer is “I don’t know”.

Rejecting the possibility of the impossible is logical.

 

[Questerr]

Concepts change, but physical reality does not. This doesn’t leave an opening for the non physical.

And it’s possible that in the future we will find there is a non-physical reality. We can’t definitively say we never will any more than people 200 years ago were right when they definitively said we would never achieve space flight.

 

[devildavid]

Hold on, do you think science exists independent of humans?

Science is a body of knowledge, not the beliefs of individual scientists. So in that way, it does exist independently.

 

[Questerr]

Rejecting the possibility of the impossible is logical.

You have to demonstrate it’s impossible first. Not just assume it is.

 

[Questerr]

Science is a body of knowledge, not the beliefs of individual scientists. So in that way, it does exist independently.

So science would still exist if there were no humans? Where can I find science independent of humans in reality?

 

[devildavid]

And it’s possible that in the future we will find there is a non-physical reality. We can’t definitively say we never will any more than people 200 years ago were right when they definitively said we would never achieve space flight.

Why would that be possible and how would we even determine it is non physical and be able to distinguish it from the physical? And it has nothing to do with having enough time or advances in technology.

 

[devildavid]

You have to demonstrate it’s impossible first. Not just assume it is.

You need to demonstrate that it is possible first, not just assume that it is.

 

[Questerr]

Why would that be possible and how would we even determine it is non physical and be able to distinguish it from the physical? And it has nothing to do with having enough time or advances in technology.

I don’t know. Anymore than humans from 200 years ago could know how it would be possible to quantum entangle particles.

 

[Questerr]

You need to demonstrate that it is possible first, not just assume that it is.

Which is why the correct position is “I don’t know”.

 

[devildavid]

Which is why the correct position is “I don’t know”.

The corr3ctect position is that the non physical is impossible to ever observe or detect by the very fact that we are physical beings in a physical universe and can only detect physical things. There will never be a technology that can be developed to detect that which by definition cannot be detected.

 

[devildavid]

I don’t know. Anymore than humans from 200 years ago could know how it would be possible to quantum entangle particles.

If you don’t know, then you have no basis to claim that it is possible.

 

[reinaert]

Rejecting the possibility of the impossible is logical.

You haven't the capacity to determine the limits of the possible.

 

[devildavid]

You haven't the capacity to determine the limits of the possible.

Yes, I do. I know enough that saying everything is possible is a false statement.

 

[Questerr]

The corr3ctect position is that the non physical is impossible to ever observe or detect by the very fact that we are physical beings in a physical universe and can only detect physical things. There will never be a technology that can be developed to detect that which by definition cannot be detected.

It was impossible to quantum entangle particles 200 years ago. Would it have been correct to say “it is impossible to *ever* quantum entangle particles” then?

 

[Questerr]

If you don’t know, then you have no basis to claim that it is possible.

Except history proves your stance wrong. Humans have again and again achieved the “impossible”.

 

[BabaVoss]

A typical agnostic will claim that “there is the possibility of a God/gods/ID, but then add a qualifier such as “but the probability is extremely low” to show their lack of confidence in the actuality of such an entity. It reminds me of the old saying “you can’t be just a little bit pregnant”. In this case, once you acknowledge the “possibility”, no matter how slight, of a God/gods/ID, then you have assumed the mantle of “believer” every bit as much as a Tosca or a Daisy or the rest of them in here and elsewhere.
I ask the question: why should I believe in the possibility of such an outrageous concept as a God/gods/ID? Answer: as an atheist, I reject that. In addition to other reasons, almost every religionist/theist will eventually claim that because the universe and everything in it is just too complex to have come Into being on its own, then there “MUST” be a God as an explanation/“cause”. I have seen many agnostics such as DrewPaul at the present time also user that line of “reasoning”. That is a statement that has holes big enough to drive the proverbial Mack truck through, namely that said God/ID would have to be almost infinitely more complex than the universe to be able to just “create” such an almost infinitely complex entity in the first place. It boggles the mind think that “believers” such as religionists/theists and believers can actually buy into such a concept.

I think it must be more nuanced. I once heard this explanation of atheism and I have adopted it as my own;

If you ask what I believe, I must say that there are no gods.
If you ask what I can prove, I must allow for the possibility of gods.
I am an atheist because of what I do and don't believe.

 

[watsup]

It was impossible to quantum entangle particles 200 years ago. Would it have been correct to say “it is impossible to *ever* quantum entangle particles” then?

Again, mixing the real world of science with the world of imaginary entities means nothing at all. The discussion is about the imaginary entity, and if you have no evidence for it, just say so.

 

[Questerr]

Again, mixing the real world of science with the world of imaginary entities means nothing at all. The discussion is about the imaginary entity, and if you have no evidence for it, just say so.

Decades ago, quantum entanglement was an “imaginary entity”. Today it isn’t.

 

[watsup]

Decades ago, quantum entanglement was an “imaginary entity”. Today it isn’t.

Quantum was never an imaginary entity. Science simply had not yet come across the evidence to recognize it. There will be future evidence which will uncover new discoveries within our natural world of which we have no clue yet. That has nothing at all to do with an imaginary entity that is supposedly so ultra-powerful that it could simply “create” this almost infinitely complex universe. If you want to believe that such a outrageously ridiculous entity could actually exist, that is up to you, but I don’t. I’m an atheist. Proposing such entities has nothing to do with the realities of science and the natural world.

 

[Questerr]

Quantum was never an imaginary entity. Science simply had not yet come across the evidence to recognize it. There will be future evidence which will uncover new discoveries within our natural world of which we have no clue yet. That has nothing at all to do with an imaginary entity that is supposedly so ultra-powerful that it could simply “create” this almost infinitely complex universe. If you want to believe that such a outrageously ridiculous entity could actually exist, that is up to you, but I don’t. I’m an atheist. Proposing such entities has nothing to do with the realities of science and the natural world.

Once again, I don’t believe any such entity exists. But I don’t claim that it’s impossible for such an entity to exist or that we will never be able to find evidence for one.

 

[Visbek]

Why does physicalism seem like such a natural alternative to dualism?

Since when?

I think one main reason is because (again as pointed out by Dawkins) we are "natural born dualists"...

I seriously doubt that's the case. Traditional African societies, for example, generally weren't and aren't dualist; they saw no difference whatsoever between what we consider natural and supernatural explanations for events, and did not separate the world into two types of substances.

Dualism is socially conditioned, not an inherent cognitive feature. It only seems "natural born" if you grow up in a society where that concept dominates.

Folk like DevilDavid insist that everything that is or possibly could be discovered must be material stuff - 'physical' stuff in a philosophical sense, as he's shown in previous interactions - but it's more valid (for what that's worth) to insist that everything that is or possibly could be discovered is mental stuff.

Yeah, well. The problem is that you need some sort of brain in order to have mental stuff....

 

[Visbek]

First of all, there is science-based evidence for both quantum and string theory, so at this point it is up to the scientists to follow present and future evidence to try to find the scientific “truth” of the matter.

Yeah, not so much.

There is a lot of solid evidence in favor of quantum mechanics. However, there is no evidence for string theory, m-theory, loop quantum gravity, or numerous other attempts to reconcile QM and gravity. Some physicists were so upset over the funding and attention given to string theory that they attacked it as being unfalsifiable, and therefore "not science." E.g. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-string-theory-science/

Even when talking about QM, there isn't a strong consensus yet on which interpretation is correct. Copenhagen is (afaik) the most popular, with Everett's many-worlds theory, Bohm's deterministic views, and others also holding some sway.

What information would you need to “make a specific decision” and from whence and how would that evidence be obtained?

I'm nowhere near adept enough at high-energy physics to provide a specific answer to that question. What I do know is that because gravity is exceptionally weak, and because we're likely dealing with the behavior of subatomic particles at or smaller than Planck scale, it may be impossible for human beings to run experiments which explain exactly how QM and gravity function together.

At best, we might be able to see which theory is more consistent with, say, obscure cosmological data. But at this time, there is nothing humans can do which will provide a definitive answer, and that could be a permanent limitation.

We should note this is not the only such dilemma humans face. We could be here all day with examples where the data we'd want in order to be certain simply isn't available. E.g. we currently don't have a machine that can detect the mental intentions of an organism; we can only guess. We will never know why Beethoven went deaf, or the name of the first human, or who invented bread. Some of these unknowns are important, some aren't, but... It really shouldn't be all that revolutionary to point out that uncertainty is simply a part of life.

Supposing is fine, but for an atheist, there needs to be more.

Uhhh... We're talking about agnostics, not atheists.

 

[ElChupacabra]

Fair enough, I guess. As I said, I just consider the claim of a God/Creator/ID to be so completely outrageous that I see no need to seriously entertain it.

How come? We're entering a time in our history where we're attempting to replicate human intelligence and potentially bring about a different type of sentience. I'd say now more than ever, the concept isn't entirely outrageous. Where I do agree with your sentiment is that any one religion is the definitive version of the "god" concept, but what these religions point to is a common theme among human beings as a whole in regards to the unknowable.

 

[watsup]

Once again, I don’t believe any such entity exists. But I don’t claim that it’s impossible for such an entity to exist or that we will never be able to find evidence for one.

Claim or don’t claim whatever you want. Again, I see no reason to do anything but reject such an outrageous concept as some entity that has the ultra-power to just “create” an entire universe. That is why I am an atheist..