The Realm of the Unknowable

I have a hard time intellectually ruling out the possibility that there is some sort of overriding force or entity beyond the realm of human perception which made existence possible. To think otherwise suggests that matter has existed permanently, devoid of any reason or first cause. This seems to contradict the principle of causality.

However, I entrely reject the concept of God as put forth by most other human beings. In fact, I reject any human claims as to the specific nature of the supernatural. I believe reason is our best and only tool for interpreting reality.

Am I atheist or agnostic? I claim to be the former, but my friends declare me the latter when we debate. Some help please?

Post 1

Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - 11:37pm

Hey Pete, I think you'll find your answer in epistemology. No one else can do that work for you. I can label your ideas but that won't help. You need to see it for yourself.

Post 2

Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 7:20am

Pete said:

I have a hard time intellectually ruling out the possibility that there is some sort of overriding force or entity beyond the realm of human perception which made existence possible.

I get that "feeling" every now and then (I don't mean that in an insulting way), but then I ask myself the standard question: "What, or Who, made possible the existence of the overriding force or entity?" The result is an infinite regress.

Some stop at the level of the "overriding force or entity", but there's no justification for that. And since there is no independent evidence for anything existing "beyond the realm of human perception", I stop at existence.

Thanks,
Glenn

Post 3

Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 6:29am

I have had a few definitions of Agnostic and most of them seem to be closely related but the best one that i have heard is this:

Agnostic - Is the belief that there may or may not be some higher power but there is no way of knowing.

I like that definition. I think that it leaves open all possibilities�so that if anything is presented as objective data towards there being a higher power then you can look into it but without the ability to know it does not pertain to real life.

It is like listening to a new view point but just because you listen to someone elses point of view doesn't mean you have to agree with them or that the facts are there.

Pc,
JML

Post 4

Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 8:28am

"To think otherwise suggests that matter has existed permanently, devoid of any reason or first cause."

If we stick to the claim that energy, whatever that is, cannot be created or destroyed then yes, stuff has been around forever. There are also hypotheses about the origin of our universe that use tiny statistical fluctuations at the fundamental level that started us out. So we may not have a first cause beyond a statistically random occurrence. Or perhaps there is a cause for those fluctuations and we do have an infinite regress. Either way I see no reason to include an overriding force in these dealings.

Post 5

Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 5:18pm

I guess the question that is begged is:

Why does existence exist?

Post 6

Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 8:01pm

Pete-

I would say you are an agnostic deist; a deist, in that you restrict the potential scope of any 'God' to a first cause and deny any supernaturality in nature; agnostic, because within this frame you claim ignorance.

Otherwise, why does it contradict the principle of causality to have a simply eternally continuous series of causes? Causality is the recognition that as aspect of identity in an entity its its reactions to other entities; precisely because causality is internal to an entity, its position in a causal web seems inevitable.

You seem to be coming from an intuition that epistemological rest is the natural state of an entity and that all of this causal motion about needs some kind of explanation. But as in physics, motion is both natural and properly a statement of relation to another entity; an entity is 'in motion' purely, though necessarily, because its relations to other entities are internal.

If we understand causality not as a set of external relations between atomic entities, but as internal relations implicit in an entity existing with a context of other entities, the 'problem' of first cause disappears. The necessity for a first mover only exists in the context of a schema of atomized existence envisioned sub specie aeternatis. We need to place the locus of causality in a radiately related entity, not between entities which inevitably start taking on metaphysical priority and posteriority (which logically leads to a transcendental God).

And if anyone knows physics which blows my metaphysical analogy out of the water, great forgiveness!... especially as I'm not sure to what degree it's an analogy.

my regards,

Jeanine Ring

Post 7

Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 8:46pm

Jeanine, your verbosity never ceases to amaze me. :-)

I think this thread is going to be very helpful for me to clear up some confusion and contradictory notions that I harbor in the areas of metaphysics and epistemology.

The concept of infinity boggles my mind (but in a good way), and that's what this largely boils down to. The collusion between physics and philosophy is so significant in this subject matter that it presents significant challenges for someone like myself who is a neophyte in both areas.

Post 8

Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 9:29pm

Pete-

Well, thank you... I think...

(

).

As for boggling the mind... in a good way. LOL! I think I understand. I'm kinda working out my thoughts on thea/ological subjects myself at the moment, and I'm having terrible trouble on causality myself... not causality and infinity... but causality and volition. I have no use for sociobiology and such, but I find very good reasons for a nonspurious sense of causal, physical determinism... the Enlightenment kind, of the stoic and Averroistic logical determinisms. Unfortunately, I think Rand's defense of free will is unassailable, which rather leaves me painted into a corner (oh dear... I'm afraid I rather like the idea of being painted into a corner).

I've heard several people say they think modern physics answers this problem... but I hope by some method other than using Heisenbergian uncertainty as a modern Epicurean 'swerve', which was a stupid argument and remains one. But I just don't know any physics past Einstein, and don't know that well.

Are there any physicists in this house?

Jeanine Ring

Post 9

Thursday, October 21, 2004 - 5:48am

Agnostic - Is the belief that there may or may not be some higher power but there is no way of knowing.

I think a better definition, with respect to theology, would be �the belief that there may or may not be some higher power, but we don't know yet.� An unassailable disproof is probably not likely, but there are definitely conceivable events which would make the positive fairly clear�if the voice of some god were to suddenly boom out of the sky, that would definitely be a way of knowing.

Incidentally, Thomas Henry Huxley originally defined agnosticism thusly:

Agnosticism is properly described as a creed in so far as it expresses absolute faith in the validity of a principle which is as much ethical as intellectual. This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts; and, in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism.

That which agnostics deny and repudiate as immoral is that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without logically satisfactory evidence; and that reprobation ought to attach to the profession of disbelief in such inadequately supported prepositions. The justification of the agnostic principle lies in the success which follows upon its application, in natural or in civil history; and in the fact that, so far as these topics are concerned, no sane man thinks of denying its validity.

Post 10

Thursday, October 21, 2004 - 11:41am

Hi Pete,

As I understand the terms, agnosticism deals with whether we can know; atheism deals with what we're convinced of. It seems that you are not convinced that a god (as popularly defined) exists, so I'd say you're an atheist. I don't know if you are convinced that it's impossible to determine whether a god exists, so I'm not sure whether you're agnostic.

In addition, here're some more fun terms you might want to consider. If you consider the existence of a god possible, then you're a weak atheist (not pejorative). If you consider it impossible, you're a strong atheist.

Next, I would disagree with Jeanine's suggestion that you're a deist. That term, as I understand it, suggests that you are convinced that a god exists (or existed) but that the god has abandoned the universe. Because you seem unconvinced that a god exists, I think it's hasty to say that you're a deist. But you might hold similar views to deists. Deists are convinced of a first cause, that it was natural, and that it was god. Many theists also are further convinced of arguments concerning intelligent design.

Last, I'd be happy to talk about causality if someone wants to start a new thread on the subject.

Jordan

Post 11

Thursday, October 21, 2004 - 4:24pm

Pete, I've experienced a similar sort of feeling, a wonder at the agelessness of the universe, a sense of something out of nothing, and the simple but flummoxing concept of infinity.

At one point, I think I decided that (1) God is by no means responsible for the universe. (2) The concept of infinity, existence of consciousnesses to grasp this, and the manifestation of it in nature, physics (and for me, mathematics) is good enough; I sort of consider this as god, almost. Keep in mind not god as in some intelligence, but the fact that there is room enough in the universe for something infinite is very special and wondrous; I am thankful for it, but not burdened... (3) I was once convinced of physics as intelligence. I can quote the book Physics as Intelligence (I think by Mr. Stephen Wolfram): ��perhaps intelligence could exist at a very small scale and in effect have spread throughout the universe, building as an artifact everything we see.�

Well, I've discarded #3, but it was, at the time, a very interesting hypothesis. I think it still holds some merit, but only as regarding insight into the nature of the permanence of physics.

and for Jeanine and perhaps Pete, do you know about the strong force and open versus closed universes? I could rattle on about these, but I think I wouldn't want to be redundant. Or perhaps someone else would like to explain them. either way.

A friend of mine recounted a theory that claims the universe does, in fact, have a border, a sort of fourth-dimensional edge. Would that destroy anyone's image of a sort of infinity-land?

What is Snoop-Dogg's favorite weather?
.....drizzle

Post 12

Thursday, October 21, 2004 - 11:03pm

and for Jeanine and perhaps Pete, do you know about the strong force and open versus closed universes? I could rattle on about these, but I think I wouldn't want to be redundant. Or perhaps someone else would like to explain them. either way.

A friend of mine recounted a theory that claims the universe does, in fact, have a border, a sort of fourth-dimensional edge. Would that destroy anyone's image of a sort of infinity-land?

Caned-

No, please, please, rattle on. I'd love to listen... and I have no idea what a closed or open universe might be, or what a universal 'border' might entail. I am sadly uninformed about physics, and would much appreciate the chance to learn. Please, go on... ignoramus-accessible web links are also appreciated.

my regards,

Jeanine Ring

(caned, able, and sluttishly willing.
... though I do prefer 'thud' floggers.)

Post 13

Saturday, October 23, 2004 - 11:11pm

Well, I'm no laureate or anything...
But open and closed universes refer to a sort of cyclical view of the universe.

Think of moments after the Big Bang, with pieces of star-stuff flying at lightspeed, and Will Smith diving neatly to safety nearby. Today, these pieces of starstuff are now galaxies and things, but they are still expanding outward from the energy of the Big Bang. Imagine if you drew points on a deflated balloon, then inflated it; the points would spread. In the same way, galaxies and other ethereal material are expanding away from the epicenter, and from each other.

At this point, the momentum from the explosion could maintain the expansion of the universe to forever. What is preventing this? Well, the gravity of the rest of the universe behind this matter. Keep in mind, all the time this universe is expanding, gravity is trying to pull everything back to its center. I have no idea what is going to happen to the universe, but I'm not sure I can care.

Either way, imagine if this expansion did continue. Matter would eventually be spread out evenly among infinite space, and nothing else would ever happen. This would be called an open universe.
Or, gravity will eventually win over this outward motion, and the universe will collapse back on itself, condensing back into another massively-dense thing out of which will come another Big Bang. This is called a closed universe, and is interesting to contemplate. Perhaps our universe has come out of one before. Perhaps this has been going on for eternity and Perhaps we should simply ask Dick Clark.
There exists a third possibility, that the outward motion will balance with the inward pull of gravity, and things will begin to rotate around a gravitational center, as planets around a sun.

And that's about it; one of the many theories trying to account for the 'something out of nothing' thing.
Now that you have conquered the universe with a thought, doesn't going to get something to eat seem a trivial and underserving task?! yeah!

The universal border theory (I don't know what it's actually called; it was just discussed in conversation) claims that when you journey to the edge of the universe, you approache an edge that once you attempt to cross, you only move backwards into space. or something.
As my MIT-student (major in theoretical physics!) friend was explaining this, I analogized, "like that space-battle videogame where you can go towards the edge, but once you cross it, you end up on the other side of the screen?" He said this was quite right, but in four dimensions, and instead of moving through space, one moves through something else. Supposedly through this last dimension. Right; sigh.

Sometimes, physics crosses a line into metaphysics that I cannot forgive or understand. I mean, I respect the understanding of the immediate world physics has brought us, but these sorts of conclusions seem to defy all concepts of Newtonian physics, and even existence and reason; it seems a contradiction to be able to accept both our world and hypotheses like this one. It seems to employ the same sort of thought-evasion that people utilize to justify Jesus being one and three, and the planet being able to freeze in its rotation, and rain for forty days, Jesus walking on water, etc.

Keep in mind that I am not comfortable in being uncomfortable with theoretical physics; after all, I am almost playing the role of the persecutors of the first discoverers. Consider this: my reasons are "well, it's too abstract," "This borders on pure fantasy," "this defies previously established concepts," "No one has any use or benefit from this," "These ideas are too new," "No one's ever done this before." Sound familiar? I think I sound like the early dissentors to Eintstein's relativity, and I am open to that (partly because of experimental data).
Well, despite my hate of being in such positions, I will leave such fanciful theorizing up to the physicists, and I will simply twiddle my thumbs and scream to fly to the stars as soon as they announce they can.

As for the strong force, any study of force is intriguing. I still don't have a concrete concept of what makes up things like light, and electromagnetism, and gravity; and then comes this strong force thing that necessitates a theory for strongforce-itons as responsible for gluing electrons to protons? 0_o

There just needs to be a whole 'nother internet just for physics; it's sooo big.

Post 14

Sunday, October 24, 2004 - 6:44am