Can we agree on this?

[darth stoner]

The same happens with us. We are here upon the earth only some millions of years (at most). How can us be so sure of things that happened much before we're here? How can anybody prove, in an unquestionable way, that the world was not created just a little time before?

Once, one friend of mine that was given to this phylosophies, and who showed me this argument, went even further: we cannot prove that even yesterday really happened. The universe could have been created today, and we could have been created today too, but our minds filled with memories to simulate that we were here before, and that we had a past.

Nobody will say for sure that the earth was created precisely 4.56 billion years, 3 months, 12 days, 8 hours, 50 minutes, 23 seconds (...) ago. What can be given is rough estimates, as accurate as possible. And in geological time, being off for 500,000 years isn't bad, for instance.

Your friend is correct, but if you wave out all logic and say "yeah, anything could have happened, let's disregard everything we know, even tho everything we know points in this direction", then you're letting go logic, and there is no further discussion possible.


That is the same as saying this could be a simulated universe and that some really advanced alien civilization is simulating our reality. Yup, possible, but how does that help us better understanding our universe ? If you try to answer the big question with that, then you've created a bigger problem -- how did the advanced alien's civilization universe came to be ?

[Oneironaut]

Not sure if this has been said before, but you are agnositc, same as I am. Agnostic's feel they do not have enough information on the matter to make a decision one way or another. Athiest feel they have enough information to declare that there isn't a god.

Just clearing that up, because there is a distinct difference between agnositc and athiest.

They are not mutually exclusive terms. I am an agnostic atheist. I don't know for sure that there is no God (just as I don't know any fact for sure; I'm always open to new evidence that could change my mind), so technically that makes me an agnostic. I also happen to not hold a positive belief in a God, which makes me an atheist.

It is a common misconception that atheism means you have 100% proof there is no God. That certainly isn't the case. Most atheists that I know are more rational than that, and will admit that when you look at any idea from a scientific perspective you can't claim to have absolute proof of anything. But just because you don't have absolute proof doesn't mean you can't reach tentative conclusions that you're pretty damn sure about. I can't prove 100% that unicorns don't exist, so technically I'm a unicorn agnostic, but I am still a unicorn atheist because I don't hold a positive belief in unicorns.

"Gnosticism" and "agnosticism" refer to whether or not one claims to know for sure the existence/non-existence of God, whereas "theism" and "atheism" refer to whether or not one holds a belief in a God. There are agnostic atheists, gnostic atheists, agnostic theists and gnostic theists. You too are an agnostic atheist, if I understand your position correctly, since you do not hold a belief in a God and do not claim absolute knowledge one way or the other.

If we disagree anywhere, it's on the relative probabilities of the two statements "God exists" and "God does not exist". I personally don't think the two are equally likely to be true. I think it's overwhelmingly likely that the first statement is false.

[darth stoner]

Weak and strong atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[JaggedEdge]

They are not mutually exclusive terms. I am an agnostic atheist. I don't know for sure that there is no God (just as I don't know any fact for sure; I'm always open to new evidence that could change my mind), so technically that makes me an agnostic. I also happen to not hold a positive belief in a God, which makes me an atheist.

It is a common misconception that atheism means you have 100% proof there is no God. That certainly isn't the case. Most atheists that I know are more rational than that, and will admit that when you look at any idea from a scientific perspective you can't claim to have absolute proof of anything. But just because you don't have absolute proof doesn't mean you can't reach tentative conclusions that you're pretty damn sure about. I can't prove 100% that unicorns don't exist, so technically I'm a unicorn agnostic, but I am still a unicorn atheist because I don't hold a positive belief in unicorns.

"Gnosticism" and "agnosticism" refer to whether or not one claims to know for sure the existence/non-existence of God, whereas "theism" and "atheism" refer to whether or not one holds a belief in a God. There are agnostic atheists, gnostic atheists, agnostic theists and gnostic theists. You too are an agnostic atheist, if I understand your position correctly, since you do not hold a belief in a God and do not claim absolute knowledge one way or the other.

If we disagree anywhere, it's on the relative probabilities of the two statements "God exists" and "God does not exist". I personally don't think the two are equally likely to be true. I think it's overwhelmingly likely that the first statement is false.

It sounds like you have it down better than I do. And yeah, based on what you said and a slight memory of something I once read, I would consider myself agnostic atheist.

Yup, the more I think about it, I don't think I can argue that.

[Oneironaut]

What we call "proofs" the earth really have billions of years is not a so strong proof.

For example, lets imagine someone goes to a theater, but arrives late, so the person watches the movie from the middle, instead from the beggining. Im supposing the person is alone in the theater (i know its sad, its just for the argument's sake). My question is, how this person can be absolutely sure the movie really started from the beginning? It could have started, from the middle, only moments before this person arrive to the theater. So, this person just could not tell the difference.

The same happens with us. We are here upon the earth only some millions of years (at most). How can us be so sure of things that happened much before we're here? How can anybody prove, in an unquestionable way, that the world was not created just a little time before?

Once, one friend of mine that was given to this phylosophies, and who showed me this argument, went even further: we cannot prove that even yesterday really happened. The universe could have been created today, and we could have been created today too, but our minds filled with memories to simulate that we were here before, and that we had a past.

I struggled a lot against him, but in the end i had to agree. Really we cant prove or disprove it. Since that day i stopped to take so much things for granted. We think we know much more than we really know. But now im aware of it.

There are lots of crazy things like that that you can't technically disprove. Solipsism, for example: the idea that the entire universe is just a figment of your imagination or a dream that you can't wake up from. Or the idea that you are trapped in a computer simulation like in The Matrix. Or the idea that every single person except for you is actually a robot. Or the idea that Australia doesn't really exist and there is a grand conspiracy to make you think there is actually a place called Australia.

[mrdevious]

Or the idea that Australia doesn't really exist and there is a grand conspiracy to make you think there is actually a place called Australia.

Hey, I actually heard about that one! There's a website that claims the Earth is actually flat, and the edges fall off into oblivion or something. Accoring to them it's a conspiracy by the world governments, and they've fed us fake maps of the Earth. Ohio and australia, for some reason, don't actually exist. Though I'm not sure how they convince the millions of East Asian imigrants who try to illegaly emigrate over there by boat lol. :wtf:

[mamma puffpuff420]

Life is all about faith. You have to put faith into almost everything you know and do. A lot of things you subconsciously have faith in, which is why i'm sure most of you are not paranoid schizo's. Anyways yes, faith, I can respect whatever faith you have even though I might disagree, because I don't know any better than you.

i like ur post matt the funk
it is 1 of the most sencible 1 i have heard
the only thing i would omit is the word..almost
we have 2 put our faith in everything we do

[Oneironaut]

I don't see a good reason to rely on faith for anything. What good is it, really? I prefer facts and educated guesses. I like to have good explainable reasons for believing what I believe, and cannot fathom why anyone would consider it a virtue to not have good explainable reasons for believing what they believe. If I don't know something, I'm comfortable admitting I don't know and not inventing answers.

Could you please define "faith" for me in a way that makes it a positive attribute to have? Because gullibility doesn't seem to be a very good thing to have, nor does dogmatism.

[darth stoner]

Faith is something that made our ancestors believe there was a Sun God, a Moon Goddess, a Rain God, purely because they couldn't explain what they saw.

Faith is believing in something without any hard evidence whatsoever. And it only sounds good to religious persons as they've been indocrinated with certain beliefs, that lead them to believe faith is good.

And about the respect other people's faith thing.. that needs to change, no one would respect you if you said you really believe in Zeus or Thor. Why should we give preference to the judeo-christian god ? Just because most of us were raised in catholic/christian countries ?

Any christian/catholic people in this forum would have been muslims instead if they were born say in Iran. Why? Because it's illegal to not believe there, they'll actually kill you for it (the whole infidel thing). You happen to believe in the judeo-christian god merely because you were born in ${COUNTRY}.

[darth stoner]

And by the way, why are we discussing religion in the spirituality section?