Agnostics “R” Us...

Well, there is M-theory, a unified version of superstring theory which suggests there may be up to 11 dimensions. Within our 3-dimensional space, we process time linearly, only forward. It’s been speculated that everything outside our dimensions, time doesn’t really exist, well not in the same way that it does in our familiar three-dimensional space, and may be a more fundamental aspect of the universe. Theoretically speaking, if a 5th dimensional being were to look at us, they would be able to see us on different timeframes of existence (within structures like a tesseract) all at the same time. The past, present, and future would exist simultaneously from a 5th dimensional perspective. One of the leading physics models of String theory suggests that our universe operates with at least 10 dimensions.

It’s all really complicated because there’s just no way we can perceive or see higher dimensions, but one thing is certain, we are all prisoners in the third dimension and of time.

I do like how Carl Sagan simplifies the concept of higher dimensions in this video. The man was marvelous.

Cosmos - Carl Sagan - 4th Dimension

 

OK - as you say, it is speculation.

Interesting - but no reason to believe in any of it.

 

We need more data from black holes, specifically from the interior of black holes. We need to be able to see inside a black hole if we want unravel the mysteries of the universe and put an end to this God question.

The singularity, a very small infinite dense point (with zero volume) that’s at the center of black holes throws our current understanding of physics out the window. The laws of physics no longer applies there. We have no idea how the singularity operates within the framework of Einstein’s general relativity. I truly believe whatever goes on there holds the missing piece of the puzzle that will open the doors and turn our world upside down, helping us understand the nature of the universe in far greater light.

But it’s impossible... because no object can ever escape a black hole once it crosses the event horizon because gravity is just so damn strong, where not even light can even escape it. Any signal or space probe sent there will be lost forever and distorted by intense gravitational forces, so there’s no real way to collect data. Such an extreme environment. All we have are theories…

Well, it looks like it’s the end of the road for us, humans...

I’ll just enjoy these black hole simulations instead.

 

The universe is unimaginably complex and infinite in both directions. Compared to the vastness and complexity of this massive structure, humans are way too simple and undeveloped to comprehend all of its "laws", physics or otherwise. It is because of this that I believe that any God that may exists has been created in our image for easy consumption, not the other way around. No way that any entity responsible for all of this is an old gray haired guy that looks like my grandfather with 10 rules (15 according to Brooks). Any entity responsible for all of this would likely also be beyond our comprehension. It is through our infinite self-importance that we have these overly simple models.

Of the 4 billion species that are assumed to have existed on this planet since the beginning, 99% are extinct. There may not be enough time for us to develop a significantly more comprehensive understanding of the universe. The next mass extinction event will re-arrange everything for the 6th or so time - biblical or otherwise.

 

I agree @GeorgeLG. Humans are simply too arrogant to even understand their limitations. And that leads to their simplistic minds, all the while when we think we are sophisticated (lol). It is reflected in so many ways. Like we think little of our ancestors, or different cultures and their knowledge (oh, "people in Middle Ages were stupid", "Native Americans were savages", etc).

We are so "sophisticated" and "advanced' we cannot understand, diagnose, much less treat or cure that cursed thing that brought us to this very forum.

We create tools of mass destruction (and mass indoctrination) such as TV, social media, mobile phones. We engage in relentless consumption of useless goods. We play God with ideologies like transgenderism, destroying countless, mostly young people in the process. We poison our bodies with questionable medicine in the pursuit of profit (this applies to the previous item, as well). We destroy and pollute the planet (including noise pollution). There is no doubt we will be extinct soon. The question is will the extinction come from outside or will be self-inflicted? If I were to bet, seeing how pathetically stupid we are, it will be the latter. It's a miracle a nuclear armageddon has not happened. But with senile idiots with their hands on the proverbial button, we are closer than ever.

 

For those who say a supernatural or some celestial entity guided/oversaw evolution need to realize the cold hard reality that over 99% species that have ever lived on Earth are now completely extinct. Why anyone would want to credit an omnipotent supernatural force/figure for the relentless trial and error process of biological evolution which has led to the extinction of many plant and animal species over Earth's 4.5 billion years is beyond me. I don’t see it as mark of good design in any way.

 

Why you wonder? Well because God works in mysterious ways that us humans can't comprehend what God is up to was what I was taught in Catholic school as a child. I bought the whole enchilada until I reached the age of abstract reasoning which begins at age 12 or so and it took me a few decades to get free of that grip. Childhood brainwashing is a powerful thing. That is my explanation of why.

 

All of this will become moot when we join the 99%, a statistical inevitability.

 

Yes, this is why they start when we're young. I'm a recovering Cathiholic myself, but have no problems w/ it. Catholics are often genuinely kind and caring people. If you're ever in trouble, that's where you should start to look for help. They stress forgiveness and grace rather than condemnation and burning you in hell.

It took me a while to get beyond my conditioning too, but it's worked out pretty well.

As for science, one may as well as put their faith in religion as that. Science is always going, oops, we were wrong, now THIS is what we believe is happening. That's why I don't worry about the earth's extinction or any of that. Like the money people say, past performance is no guarantee of future performance. Science can no more see into the future than a soothsayer can because things are always changing, and not always in a linear manner. Parameters change.

History is full of wrong scientific extrapolations. Science experiments are always rigorously controlled, but life isn't like that. Things change so quickly, all we can do is try to be in the moment and not put our past learning and future expectations onto what is right in front of us. And tomorrow, it will probably all be different.

 

Quite impressive that you reached the age of reason at such a young age. I was 18 when I finally began to question God, religion, and scripture.

Early exposure to religion can shape one’s beliefs and limit critical thinking during childhood. Looking back, I can see that my developing mind was constrained by certain boundaries.

 

Your messed up, twisted Catholic religion is shoved down your throat while you are still in your mother's womb.

 

I think we are on the same page. I did not have good abstract reasoning at 12... it was only dawning then. It took me decades to sort through everything both emotionally and rationally. I was well into my forties before I got close to getting free of the fear of eternal damnation and reached the place of Agnostic Atheist in the matter.

See what I mean below copied from Wikipedia:

Agnostic atheism or atheistic agnosticism is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and are agnostic because they claim that the existence of a divine entity or entities is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.

The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who believes that one or more deities exist but claims that the existence or nonexistence of such is unknown or cannot be known

Also this from Anthropic's AI bot Claude:

Here's an overview of when abstract reasoning abilities are believed to emerge according to major developmental psychology theories:

Piaget's Theory:

• Formal operational stage - From approximately age 11 and onwards.
• Marks the development of abstract thought and conceptual reasoning skills.
• Involves the ability to think about abstract concepts, use logical thought, and reason hypothetically.

Information Processing Theory:

• Abstract reasoning skills gradually develop through adolescence.
• Early adolescence sees growth of selective and flexible thinking.
• Full abstract reasoning capabilities emerge in mid-to-late adolescence.

Neo-Piagetian Theories:

• Vary slightly from Piaget’s proposed ages.
• Suggest capacity for abstract logical thinking may not develop fully until late adolescence.
• Attribute more advanced abstraction abilities to early adulthood once higher executive functions mature.

Overall, most major theories concur abstract reasoning faculties begin developing in early adolescence and continue enhancing through the late teens and into young adulthood as the brain reaches full maturity. However, foundations are laid earlier in childhood.

Now my wife says she began questioning Methodism and Christianity when she was in grade school so she caught on really early. But then she was in public school and her father taught Physics at a local collage.

 

When I was younger, I thought something was wrong with me. Surrounded by religious families, dragged off to church by relatives, forced to pray by believers but yet nothing. I was raised in an agnostic family so nothing there and my repeated exposure did nothing, no connection, none of it made any sense. I couldn’t understand why I was so different. College helped with perspective about the general population but also had more questions as I got exposed to so many different beliefs and really understood suffering. I became comfortable with my view of this and then fascinated with the “God effect”.

I grew up to be an electrical engineer and excelled in math and science, the critical thinker poster child. My attention turned to why this phenomenon exists, why are people drawn to this, why they are emotional thinkers and so on. Now I find the whole thing fascinating, a window into the mind of the masses. I eventually married a Christian woman and we had a fantastic 23 years together based on mutual respect and tolerance. I delivered her eulogy in her church with no mention of God from me, her pastor handled those duties. After she passed away, I found that with her deeply religious extended family, the peaceful coexistence of different ideologies was a rare thing and I have had to pull back from most of them.

In the end I find the whole thing and how most people process things fascinating. Life can be tough, the human condition can be challenging. These concepts appeal to so many people in part I believe because it helps them make sense of a complicated and sometimes scary world.

 

Sounds like a confusing situation to be sure to get mixed messages from the adults.

I was really, really bad at math beyond grade school. Failed Algebra one 2x in High School (I am in the USA). Managed to get through it and Geometry as well by being placed in the "slow class" that was designed for underperformers. I don't know what my poor math thing is about.

So I steered clear of science all the way through a Graduate Degree in counseling psychology. Sort of became a secular priest if you will, he says with a smile, hearing confessions and granting absolutions. I was very interested in what was the nature of human being, philosophical questions like free will (in the limited free will camp leaning to no free will... more limited than we want to admit) and the execution of psychotherapy approaches mostly in the Cognitive Behavior Therapy family to effect positive change.

I definitely am intellectually driven as opposed to emotionally driven type. My wife is the opposite, strongly driven by her emotions by her own admission. She is not Christian but probably in what I would call the Agnostic with some reservations camp. At 76 not looking forward to either of us checking out and that is the reality of aging. If the reincarnation folks are right (could be), then I am not sure I want to come back in spite of leading a life of relative luxury in the USA compared to probably at least 95%+ of human kind outside of Europe and the USA.

The God Effect was new to Anthropic's Claude (AI); he thanked me for giving him a reference. Others might find the following interesting if they were not familiar with the reference:

You're absolutely right, my apologies. Upon looking into it further, "The God Effect" is a popular science book by Brian Clegg that does use the term to refer to quantum entanglement. I was mistaken in thinking it was not a phrase used in physics discussions. Thank you for catching that and helping me correct my misunderstanding. A quick summary:

• The book "The God Effect" by Brian Clegg does specifically use the phrase "God effect" as another term for quantum entanglement, derived from the "spooky action at a distance" description originally by Einstein.
• So in physics pop science literature, the "God effect" is used as a moniker for entanglement, referring to the seemingly mystical connection between particles.
• However, it remains just an attention-grabbing metaphor - the book itself emphasizes the phenomenon is explained entirely by physics without need for supernatural interpretations.
• Entanglement is puzzling but does not enable psychic communication or paranormal activities as sometimes claimed.
• The "God Effect" is just catchy shorthand to convey the astonishment surrounding this behavior that defies classical intuition but aligns with quantum theory.

Thank you again for the clarification and reference. I appreciate you taking the time to ensure I understand the proper use and origin of the phrase "God Effect" as it relates to discussions of quantum entanglement. Learning moments like this help improve my knowledge.

 

Yes. This is because science, unlike religion, learns from past mistakes and conducts further experiments to get closer to the truth.

 

Yes, there are good people who are believers to be very sure. In the Orlando, Florida area where I live one of the three hospital systems is owned by the Seventh Day Adventist Christians. It is a super hospital system. I would much rather be in it with their people than the other two options. I even had one doctor I was seeing tell me he would be praying for my healing and I said thank you to him.

Now on the Catholics being into "stress forgiveness and grace rather than condemnation and burning you in hell" that may be so for most now. That said, back when I was a child in Catholic school, it was pre-Vatican I and Vatican II days. Before all the changes. I grew up in the old Catholic Church that taught it was the one true religion and if you were not a Catholic you were going to burn in hell forever. That was made very clear. This was the 1950s in the USA.

I don't put any "faith" in science. I do think (notice think not feel or believe) the scientific method is at least so far the best option for getting to the best course of action and/or belief at the time or at least progress to what would be the best course of action and/or belief. Sure it is imperfect with fraud etc. and it is the best tool we have so far. It might do us in (see artificial intelligence) at some point but that is the nature of the universe... change.

 

The Bible and the teachings of Christianity are by design, fixed. Assumed to be the inerrant word of God and therefore not subject to revision. When things like dinosaur bones and carbon dating come along, the science denial commences. After a rousing debate about climate change, it's just the weather of course. I read an interesting article recently that concluded that Liberals are more flexible, and tolerant of complexity and novelty, whereas Conservatives are more rigid, are more resistant to change, and prefer clear answers. This is my experience as well.

One of the things that I always found interesting is that the Bible is a collection of books that were selected by a group of dudes 300+ years after Christ. So the original writings were "inspired" but then the content selected was screened and voted on by a bunch of other dudes that I guess needed to also be inspired and infallible. Some of the books rejected had been commonly read in churches for years. How are the dudes at Nicaea more infallible than the previous selectors, some of whom lived closer to the time of Christ. That and all the other religions both past and present. There are a lot to pick from and some of those other dudes are pretty convinced that their version is correct, so much so that they are willing to die for it. That's pretty committed. Then there is the whole Old vs. New Testament singularity/idolatry thing. Only one right, all right, more than one God, no God, everything is God, ...

For me it's live and let live, tolerance is important and I don't have all the answers. That said, this whole subject has been fascinating to me for decades.

 

I see there is a documentary movie “After Death” playing in theaters now. It is produced by Angel Studios. They also produced “Sound of Freedom”.

 

Well, interesting to note on "Rotten Tomatoes" that the critics give it 46% and the audience give it 86%. If you want to entertain yourself, the critics and audience reviews are here.

 

It’s been a such long time since I delved into these gems. Been revisiting specific sections in each one this past week.

The God Delusion - I had to dust this one off my shelf for you, @tpj!

The latter half of the book is probably my favorite section, particularly when Richard Dawkins delves into the subject of morality. Dawkins does a good job quelling the repetitive claims made by believers and theists (even to this day) that there can be no moral framework without scripture and God, that morality can only be derived from religious teachings. Nonsense. Altruism is an observed trait in the natural world among other animals. Dawkins explains how the process of evolution selects for altruistic genes, which leads to the development of natural empathy in people. This Darwinian explanation is just another fatal blow to the ‘God hypothesis’.

I like the part where Dawkins states morality isn't created by the Bible. Instead, our moral development shapes which parts of the Bible Christians choose to follow and which they now disregard.

God Is Not Great - Okay, so right from the start I will say this is not a fair minded book and Christopher Hitchens is quite forthright about it. There’s literally nothing positive about religion in this book lol, so if you are looking for a some kind of fair assessment, you’re going to have to look elsewhere. For those who oppose his views, his candid and unwavering honesty will rub you the wrong way, no question. For the record, I don’t think religion poisons everything. There have been many instances of religious believers engaging in acts of charity and doing lots of good work.

So I reread chapter 9 which delves into the religion of Islam. Among the three Abrahamic faiths, Hitchens thinks Islam is the most negative form that religion takes on. His reason being — it’s explicitly stated in their holy book, the Q’uran that it is the last and final one. It’s considered to be God’s ultimate word and there can’t be anymore revelations after that. Hitchens views that as a temptation to violence and intolerance. When you observe the current situation in the Middle East, there is definitely some truth to it with some of those nations that operate under Sharia law. Then there are also Islamic extremists, who engage in jihad aka “holy war’.

By the end of the chapter, he pretty much concludes that the Islamic religion was essentially created by Muhammad and his followers in which he borrowed a lot of ideas from other religious texts. Typical Hitchen’s move -.-

P.S. Unrelated to the thread topic at hand, but ‘Justice: What’s The Right Thing To Do?’ by Michael Sandel is such a captivating read. I recommend reading this to you all btw!

 

I recommend checking out the YouTuber, RationalityRules. Dude is really good at dissecting religion like a jenga tower, picking it apart until the whole thing comes tumbling down. Basically forcing the opponent to cave in on their own arguments.

Just finished watching his videos on Pascal’s wager. Pascal’s wager is such a feeble argument when it comes to rationalizing the belief in God, particularly, the fear of judgement.

All On God| Pascal’s Wager

A Monstrous Premise| Pascal’s Wager

The Wrong God| Pascal’s Wager

 

Well that was a lot for my mind to follow. These days I just don't want to think that much it seems. Smart young man to be sure. Entertaining as well.Thanks for posting it. I think among the upsides of dying is the possibility of getting to find out if there is some sort of afterlife or not. I certainly don't expect to find out anything. If I do, who knows if it will be a pleasant surprise or a bad news big downside. To me no one knows including those much smarter than I am. Thus for me, at this point in life (age 76) it is settled. No sense in thinking about something I can't know or control.

 

Howdie. Count me in your ranks.

I'd been a theist for nearly 30 years but always had questions. I was even sent home from Vacation Bible School at age 11 for pressing the teacher on how did Noah feed all the animals.

I finally started questioning things in the 90s while watching a series 'The Bible'. It was a documentary on The History Channel or whatever. It occurred to me that scientists, theists, and even clergy were using phrases like 'Well, of course today we know it is not true' far too often. I started looking into things for myself and am more than comfortable with the statement that I see no evidence to support the idea of a 'god'. This includes what we are learning about the timing and origins of religious texts.

 

I think everyone should read the book "Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal" by Christopher Moore.

 

This is all very simple stuff that people seem intent on blinding us w/ zero facts.

Is there any proof of a "higher intelligence"? No.

Is there any proof that some supernatural entity created anything, anywhere, at any time? No.

Is there any proof of life after death? No.

Can anyone offer proof of where the universe came from? No.

I think that just about covers it. This is science, meaning no proof is no proof. People have beliefs, that's all, and they're totally not able to offer any scientifically demonstrable proof.

Which begs the question, why would anyone believe anything w/o any proof it is true? No scientists in the world would operate like that. It's frankly the realm of religions, so let's just call it like it is. Fuzzy, woo, woo, religious stuff. I prefer to live in the here and now, which is called reality. That's REALLY where the fun magic stuff happens because it actually does happen. A pity so few people bother to live there. It's hard living in reality at first because we make things dualistic, as I just did above.

It's not that there is a god (universe, whatever) or that there isn't a god. It's that there is no, no god. That's the easiest way to put it, in a negative manner. In a world where there is no, no god, then god and no god do not exist. They cannot exist.

 

As an Agnostic Atheist (one who does not believe or think there is a way to 100% disprove or prove the existence of a deity or not a deity, yet still does not believe in a deity), I like how Chat GPT 4.0 writes about it here:

 

Good for you, brother. There are no supernatural beings. Read Jiddu Krishnamurti. He is a spiritual teacher. He had no wish to become anybody’s guru - he just wanted to point us in the direction of ‘truth.’

‘Everything we need in life can be found within us. Meditate - become physically still - emotionally still - if thoughts do come into our consciousness, just let them go - do not follow them into a narrative. Simply become an observer to your breathing.’

 

Wow! You took the words right out of my mouth.

 

Everything we need is inside us.
We can change.
We can wish to be better.
We can be better.
In finding ‘good’- we can find ‘God.’