When I was agnostic (through most of college) I would argue in a similar way to how Rum is arguing. Based on your criteria and his post would you agree he is agnostic?
What evidence do you have that @Rumraket is claiming not to be agnostic? It would seem, at first glance (and given his title annotation of “Atheist Molecular Biology Technician”) that he is merely articulating the position of Agnostic Atheism.
No. It is not my place to tell others what they are.
How would you establish this?
By noting the many, many cases of people (and animals) suffering or dying because no-one knows about their plight.
And this is where we are fed some some other theory of “benevolence” where allowing people to suffer yet having the power and capacity to stop it is still benevolence.
You wouldn’t be as happy as you could be after you die if I didn’t allow your current suffering. Trust me bro.
Been there, seen that. Also the ‘have to allow free will’ garbage even though it frequently doesn’t apply.
A question for believers, what would a Universe without God look like, and in what way would it differ from a Universe with God where he is hiding himself?
@faded_Glory IMO there wouldn’t be living things.
Why would there be in a universe created by a God, and what justification can you provide for that belief?
There is a short interview in today’s Guardian with German physicist Sabine Hossenfelder that relates to these topics:
She says that the Multiverse isn’t a scientific idea, she calls it ‘ascientific’, because you can neither prove it true nor false : “you can believe this if you want to, it’s not in conflict with anything we know.” (which reminds me of something related to Peaceful Science ) Then she says that the God hypothesis is different because it is not a math thing.
I like this. Why advocate ideas that are unprovable?
You should know (and Hossenfelder should know too) that science doesn’t do proof. As I understand it, some physical theories imply a multiverse. If so, evidence favoring those theories is also evidence for the existence of a multiverse. No need for direct observation of other universes.
Ok I probably should have said ‘unfalsifiable’ instead of ‘unprovable’ which is technically more correct but doesn’t change the point.
It certainly doesn’t address the point. Try reading again. You should also know that “falsifiable” has the same problem as “provable”. A better view of science would be a statistical or probabilistic one rather than this binary, yes/no model you seem to be imagining.
Are you asking me to explain God’s reasons? I think you should ask him when you meet him.
It’s just my opinion that the existence of life like us in this universe required divine intervention. If there wasn’t a God, there wouldn’t be humans.
Yes I know all that but we are talking about a very short interview in the Guardian, not a treatise about philosophy of science.
Words and meaning matter. If your words don’t mean anything, why bother saying it? Did you actually read the part where I explained the point?
Having a bad hair day John?
I’m asking you to explain why you believe a God would create a universe with life, and I want you to provide justification for that belief.
It’s rhetorical of course. A trap, a gotcha question to make it obvious to everyone that you can offer no such justification other than baseless faith. So…
I react badly to vacuous platitudes and lame excuses. Sorry.