Does anyone here ever post in...

Never heard of it. Does that still describe you Frank?

This pretty much describes my position...which I think is an agnostic position. (An agnostic position, not THE agnostic polition.)

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of gods is impossible);
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST (that gods are needed to explain existence);
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

Cool.

Interesting now how do you define god or gods that might exist in this universe or interact with this Universe at least.

Are these gods all knowing and all powerful with the power to change any natural laws at their whims?

Are they similar to the Christians three in one god head that have a deep interest in humans out of one hell of a large universe?

If you would be so kind to define your meaning of a god or gods I think it would be interesting.

Lemme give this a stab. Beat the piss out of me on it...kick at every defect you see.

What I mean when I use the words “God” or “gods.”

Predicates:

It is my opinion that what we humans call “the universe” may well not be everything that exists. All these hundreds of billions of galaxies each containing hundreds of billions of stars…may be just a tiny part of something incomprehensibly larger.

Secondly, even here is this thing we humans call “the universe” there may well exist entities that are not discernable to human senses in any way.

Thirdly, I posit that anything that exists (whether we humans know or do not know it exists) is a part of nature. IT EXISTS. The notion of supernatural (meaning outside of what exists) makes no sense to me.

Okay…with those predicates in mind…when I use the words “God” or “gods” I am talking about any entity (or entities), whatever its make-up or characteristics, that pre-existed this thing we humans call “the universe” and was the cause of its creation or instrumental in its creation in some meaningful way.

The notion, we need to revere, honor, and worship any God or gods that do exist does not enter the picture. (I am not saying such a GOD could not exist.) The need for omnipotence or continued involvement in not involved in what I mean. (I am not saying that could not be the case.)

Here's another description of what I mean by God or gods. I used in another forum...and just came across it.


What do I mean when I use the word “god” in questions like “Do you think it more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one?”

I mean an entity of agency…something that existed BEFORE this thing we humans call the universe came into being…and which caused or helped to cause it to “come into being.”

I am NOT talking about anything “supernatural.” Anything that exists…is, by definition, a part of existence. If ghosts or spirit beings exist, but we humans cannot sense them in any way…they are part of what exists and are a part of nature.

I suspect there may be LOTS of things that do exist…that humans are incapable of detecting in any way. We are, after all, just the currently dominant species on a nondescript hunk of rock circling a nondescript star in a nondescript galaxy among thousands of billions of galaxies.


What I mean when I use the words “God” or “gods.”

Dark matter exists according g to scientists but no one can identify it or say where it is exactly. There seems to ne more things we don't know than things we do know. I think scepticism is a better attitude than beliebeing something because someone in power tells you a thing is true.

Undoubtedly lots that we do not know. And I agree, skepticism is chief.

But of all the things that most people fear...the most fearsome of all appears to be the words, "I do not know."

Never have.

A quick look at the recent posts, offered a wide range of topics. Very little about agnostics, humanists and atheists or free thinkers.

Maybe I showed up on the wrong day...

Dear lord. Why in the frack would I want to? Just thinking about it has my organs starting to shut down from sheer boredom.

I do not know if fairies exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect fairies CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of fairies is impossible);
I see no reason to suspect that fairies MUST EXIST (that fairies are needed to explain existence);
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

I'm agoblin.

If you mean fairies that are undetectable to human senses...I have no problem with that. Of course I would not make a guess about that.

Are you saying that you do know there are no fairies (or any other kinds of entities) that are undetectable to human senses?

If so, why do you think that?

If you mean the fairies of fairy tale books, I see plenty of evidence to suspect they do not exist just as I see plenty that The Red Queen from Alice in Wonderland does not exist...and WOULD be willing to guess they do not.

Wouldn't you?

Was there a point you were trying to make?

Lastly, you say you are "agoblin."

What is it that you are goblin?

Hey Sturgis. You mighta shown up on the wrong day. Lots going on there...and all sorts of subjects. And plenty about agnostics and atheists.

Set up is horrible though...no actual threads. No continuity to any of the discussions.

Just wanted to ask a question of anyone who actually posts there.

I am assuming that means NO.

dark matter is just a name for unaccounted for GRAVITY. So there is evidence. Its just a dumass name.

@Frank Apisa,

Now that this discussion has posited the existence of multiple gods, fairies, “goblins” and the like, perhaps a different perspective is appropriate...
You asked if anyone ever posts in Agnostic.com. Though I haven’t posted there I have posted multiple times over many years at new.exchristian.net, if that is sufficient. Be it known, however, that I do not post as an agnostic or non-Christian but instead as a devout Christian. Many there like the discussions since I present contrary viewpoints which some appreciate. Problem is, there are so many angry people there it is difficult to discuss things at length. Many are honest in their curiosity or in their non-belief but many are not. For example, many say they believe in science and not god; therefore, scientific evidence should sway their opinions but most often it does not. Therefore, such a belief is based on opinion and not science or evidence. If you want to find my postings look for the name NEOCOGNITRON.

From your post you declare that “[you] do not know if gods exist” and that you “…see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST”, supposing therefore that perhaps “…gods MUST EXIST (that gods are needed to explain existence).” This seems a very honest way to frame your position. I appreciate it. You then state that “[you] do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction... so [you] don't.” …so you don’t what: Have an opinion? or don’t accept the existence of God in a 50/50 gamble?

I myself have no such quandary as I see plenty of evidence from which to believe. To show this I present information I discussed on the new.exchristian.net website and hope you too appreciate the discussion. As mentioned, plenty of evidence exists regarding the truth of the bible. I am curious how you, an agnostic, might counter the arguments or otherwise view them.

I find the bible’s claims are proven mathematically, geographically, geologically, archeologically, exegetically, etc. To be clear, the reliability of scripture regarding things which can be proven shows that scripture can also be trusted regarding things that cannot be proven (as stated often in the writings of the apostle Paul). All of this evidence has well researched proofs upon which I cannot expound upon here.

• STATISTICAL ANOMALIES: The statistical probability of so many of the 200 to 400 predictions made over an 800 year period and recorded in the bible (scholars differ on how they are counted) being proven true is a statistical zero-percent chance; so the fact that so many prophecies have come true suggests an other-worldly rather than earthly origin.
• STATISTICAL PRECISION: The odds of a single person, group or civilization arising and fulfilling even 10 explicit predictions made by a writer several generations removed is again a statistical zero-percent chance. Further reducing this probability is the chance that all such prophecies would all arise in line with and relating to a single people – the Jews. The odds of such precision in prophesies via chance is statistically zero, further suggesting an other-worldly rather than earthly origin for these prophesies.
• GEOGRAPHICALLY: Interestingly, structures like those at Stonehenge and the pyramids around the world built for ancient mystical rituals provide further evidence of the bible’s authenticity. Finding such structures scattered across different continents and nations all pointing directly toward specific constellations or toward one another (though archeologists don’t know how these cultures on different continents could have even known about each other they used the same design patterns, tools and technologies) their positions and offsets show only minor movement in the Earth’s crust over the many thousands of years since those cultures are claimed to have been built. This suggests either: (A) that such cultures aren’t nearly as old as claimed or (B) that the Earth’s crust moves in sudden and violent moments (as most creationists interpreting the bible have long claimed) rather than slowly as most evolutionists have long claimed. Again, this evidence supports the biblical narrative. I intentionally ignore listing the names of these cultures for brevity and because I am lazy.
• BIOLOGICALLY: The fact that each successive generation loses rather than gains genetic information is evidence contrary to evolutionist theories since it proves that we as a species are devolving rather than evolving. For example, early wolf species had the genetic material to produce every canine breed known but no derived breed is capable of producing the original wolf variants as offspring. This is because of a loss in the genetic code with each generation; a condition from which even humans suffer. This fact supports the creationist claim that mankind started as a “finished” (fully formed) work which was broken when it fell from grace.
• COSMOLOGICALLY: Given the rate the moon is moving away from the Earth and calculating its previous historic position, the moon would have been connected with the Earth about 12,000-14,000 years ago. This means the moon either (A) had to have been a mass that was torn from the Earth by a larger gravitational body passing by or (B) the moon itself was passing by and was caught by the Earth’s gravity about 14,000 years ago. Problems exist with both explanations. In either case, the timeline coincides far more closely with the creationist view of time, nearly overlapping the Noah’s flood event, but evolutionists have no such explanation. For them, both the moon and Earth have supposedly been traveling together for millions of years. Other theories exist but have less supporting evidence. Also, in case you are wondering, an old-Earth theory would not invalidate the bible’s claim. It would only alter the understanding of the multifaceted use of the word “days” the bible uses. I am not committed to the young-Earth theory since I am a believer in evidence and simply find more evidence for it. Instead, I am a true believer in science and real evidence and find it supports belief in God.
• GEOLOGICALLY: The ratio of the number of pieces of evidence that suggest a young earth versus an old earth (both geological and otherwise) is somewhere around 10:1 (10 pieces of evidence that suggest a young earth for each 1 piece that suggests an old earth); still, I find most non-believers tout their faith in science and proof but reject this evidence without providing counter arguments.
• GEOLOGICALLY: Hydrogen dating of artifacts has been found to far surpass the reproducibility and verifiable precision sorely lacking with carbon-14 dating; still, most refuse to accept the serious flaws in the carbon dating process. More recently, hydrogen dating of sediment cores from the Dead Sea revealed that the water body may have completely dried up in the past. It also shows “records of droughts and earthquakes that could be interpreted as supporting accounts in the Bible.” Though hydrogen dating is relatively new it has already been used to identify many archeological/geological narratives that correspond to (support) biblical narratives – again showing the bible to be trustworthy such that it is also trustworthy regarding things that cannot be proven. NOTE: It is not the fact that hydrogen dating corroborates the biblical narrative that proves its accuracy; it is the fact that it can be scientifically proven accurate that matters.
• GEOLOGICALLY: The Sphinx, Engineer’s Canyon and the Grand Canyon (a few examples) provide ample evidence that such formations were affected/created during very quick catastrophic change flooding events rather than over millions of years, and that a great many other markers would exist if such events had transpired over many years. Such long-term markers are missing within geological strata yet many non-believers refuse to acknowledge this. The lack of striations within layers suggests layers had no time to be damaged by rains and time. The lack of teeth marks and the existence of fully in-tact skeletons found worldwide, often buried with other un-mauled skeletons suggests a worldwide catastrophic flood event.
• ARCHEOLOGICALLY: Within the thousands of parchments that prove the origin of the letters that make up the bible are thousands of details that identify the locations of peoples, places and things. Each verifiable detail found true provides evidence that the non-verifiable details are also true. EX: For years it was thought that the seven churches defined in Revelation 1 were analogies or representations of something else because archeologists had never found evidence of such cities/churches. However, once the first was discovered the other six were found shortly thereafter.
• EXEGETICALLY: The exegetical interpretation of scripture is the study of the original language and intent of its authors; the opposite term is eisegesis which is the interpretation of a term or passage based on a subjective, non-analytical reading. The word eisegesis literally means “to lead into,” which means the interpreter injects his own ideas into the text, making it mean whatever he wants. Honest scholars have always tried to use exegesis methods to correctly identify the history, meaning and purpose of writings and artifacts, and this practice has been proving the trustworthiness of the bible on a daily basis as they continue to translate ancient writings such as the Qumran Cave scrolls and other archeological finds. The amount of evidence collected using this method is astounding but the quantity of evidence will not change the mind of someone determined not to believe.

This and much more evidence shows the fidelity of scripture; proving itself a reliable guide for archeologists, geologists, biologists and scientists of all stripes since the advent of life (well before science), and thus reliable for those things that cannot be verified or definitively known in this life. So, if you honestly wish to know whether places like heaven and hell exist when you cannot empirically prove their existence, then you must find a source that is trustworthy in those things that can be verified. Only then can you hold on to faith (with evidence) that those non-verifiable details are also true. This is not blind faith – it is an evidence-based faith.

If you are truly on the fence about whether God exists my suggestion is that you simply make the conscious decision to believe. There will always be doubt but evidence contrary to the bible narrative is minuscule and one must already to take a leap of faith to believe otherwise since no single piece of evidence will be absolutely convincing one way or another. I encourage you to choose to believe because there is earthly evidence beyond the evidence that can be measured scientifically. It is the contentment with life and the ugly things that occur during life that really prove the truths in the bible. In it the truths about how concepts such as wisdom, hope, love, compassion, charity and similar spirits invade and benefit our lives that are the true earthly proofs of His presence. But only those who choose to honestly believe will ever experience those blessings and evidence.

Blessings always!

Neocognitron

Id love to see anything about H3 dating (or anything about the stable isotope dating . Especially literature with raw data available) . In anticipation of larning something new I thanks you

Ive revised my position since our years old yelling and cursing sessions. Heres what I say about ME , now

1. I do not know whether a god exists-so, in fact Im admittedly agnostic about it

2. I think we have enough circumstantial evidence to suggest that god or gods or an Intelligent "designer" dont exist so My beliefs are as an Atheist.

3. However, the laws of conservation of energy suggest that termination of life is the occupation of an entropic energy plane, perhaps heat, perhaps dark energy. I dont think consciousness goes along so Im still atheistic to Theistic science

Thanks, FM. I'm still the agnostic, but I try not to use the word unless almost forced to. I just present my position as:

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of gods is impossible);
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST (that gods are needed to explain existence);
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.


Just a personal choice of mine. Everyone has the right to a personal choice...and I respect yours. Glad we are not acting out some of that **** that came into our conversations so often back then. Damn.

Stay safe. I'm assuming you are not flying into Tulsa to attend Trump's rally!