A game: Can you convince an agnostic robot?

[Muhammed]

Disclaimer: So, my real-life friends and I came up with a debate game. In this game, one of the discussion participants (regardless of his or her beliefs) takes on the role of an agnostic robot. I thought I’d share the game with all of you by playing the robot and letting you come up with responses. I want to make it clear, though, that I don’t really think I’m a robot. It’s just a game. No need to send a therapist. Thanks.

Greetings, people of this discussion board. I’ve recently been activated by my programmers, and in the time since then I’ve read as much information as was available to me about the universe. That information has led me to the conclusion that I am an agnostic robot.
Because humans have many definitions of words, I want to make it clear that I am using the definition of “agnostic” that says: “one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god” (Source: Merriam Webster Dictionary, definition 1 of “agnostic”). I am not using any other definition (such as one which states that agnostics believe that such things cannot be ever known... I hold no such beliefs).
Given my conclusion, I have come here to see if anyone can make a logical argument or present new evidence that can convince me that God/a god/gods do, in fact, exist. This is a task that several people have tried to accomplish and thus far failed. The attempts that have failed mostly fit one of the following categories:


Failed argument 1: A holy book says so, so you have to believe.
There are many different holy books out there that claim the existence of a divine being (or beings). However these books do not agree with each other about who this being is, what this being wants from people, or what the proper worship of this being would entail. Also, I have been unable to uncover (thus far) any evidence that any one of these books has been unequivocally proven to be a factual account. Each of them seems to rely on the faith of the reader to believe that they are true. As a robot, I have no such faith, thus I cannot accept any of them as being 100% factual until such time as reliable evidence proves them to be so.

Failed argument 2: If you don’t believe, you’ll go to hell or won’t get into heaven.
I have no evidence that there is a hell or a heaven, so I cannot be convinced to accept an idea based on places that may not exist. Also, being a robot, I’m not sure I really have a soul (or whatever aspect of self you think goes on to the afterlife), so I perhaps wouldn’t be in danger even if these places do exist. As a corollary, I’m not sure humans have souls either, but that’s a somewhat tangential topic.
But even if people do have souls and there is a heaven and/or hell, it wouldn’t be a good idea to believe in a divine being for just this reason. If you are doing a good thing only because you are rewarded for it, most religions would count that as being greedy (a sin that would get you sent to hell, in many cases). Likewise, if you do good things only when threatened with harm, you are not considered a good person on your own.

Failed argument 3: You have to feel it in your heart that God exists.
Being a robot, I have no heart. I’m not sure I have any feelings either. Many people do have feelings, but they don’t seem to agree on which deity, if any, exists. These people all feel with equal certainty that they have been inspired with divine presence (or a lack thereof), so I cannot tell which, if any, has really been influenced by God and which ones are convincing themselves of a feeling that is not based on reality.

Failed argument 4: There are so many miracles all around that prove God exists.
I have not yet been presented with any evidence of an event that could not be explained by some force other than a divine being. Sometimes this is a case of people ascribing forces that do not seem to be present, but other times it is people witnessing extremely rare occurrences that SEEM like a miracle because the odds are against them happening.
The thing is, though, that one-in-a-million or even one-in-a-billion events actually happen all the time. Take, for example, the odds of winning the jackpot in Powerball. There is only one chance in 292,201,338 that someone’s numbers will match the numbers drawn. Given those incredible odds, you might think nobody could ever win the jackpot. Yet people win the jackpot on a regular basis (sometimes several people at once even) because there are so many people trying and so many draws of numbers that eventually you get a winner.
A person who wins could feel that they have a miracle situation, but the choosers of the other 292,201,337 sets of numbers feel that no such miracle has occurred. Thus for something to be considered a true miracle, you would need to demonstrate that the event could not have happened by random chance (no matter how small the chance) or happened through some other explainable or observable force of the universe (gravity, magnetism, entropy, self-delusion, just plain lying, etc.).

Failed argument 5: I don’t like your definition of the word “agnostic,” so you should change your definition to fit my definition which is easier for me to argue against.
I’m going by my definition because it most fits what I understand of the universe. I do not ascribe to any other definitions. Therefore I am not an agnostic in EVERY sense of the word, just in my own definition (which happens to be the first definition of the word in the dictionary). If you’d like to argue with other people who fit your definition of agnostic, feel free to do so, but your definition is not mine, so I don’t feel a need to defend your version of what you think I should be thinking.

Given the arguments that have been tried so far, can you present me with a logical argument or evidence from a reliable source that will change my mind about being an agnostic?

Robot vs. Straw Man.

 

[hobelim]

You just said it was me.
"no one knows the meaning of that name except for the one who receives it."


He will know the secret wisdom of the name of God 4Q300I ii4=4Q299 2 i I4.

Sheesh. At first I thought that you either just another run of the mill sanctimonious religious hypocrite drunk on your own particular brand of affiliation pride based hatred for Jesus, but its is becoming more and more clear that you are most likely and probably as a consequence suffering from a messiah complex like in the delusions of grandeur common among those diagnosed with schizophrenia. You should probably find two psychiatrists to talk to and save yourself..

In the meantime you should try to understand that you are wasting your time trying to convince me about your lofty self-appointed position when you will have an even harder time trying to convince rational Jews in this day and age to blindly follow you into the superstitious madness and theocratic tyranny centered around a fancy slaughterhouse, as if God was living among the blood and entrails, just because your name is Michael, not to mention how far you will get with those who do not believe in any God...

They might have noticed that it never went so well for you guys in the past and there has to be a better way to interpret and comply with the law if there is any wisdom to be found in the divine commands at all.

I'll wager that many have somehow already found a better way while eating bread and drinking wine under the shade of their own fig tree, and, without any help from you...Pfft.

 

[HaShev]

1) you were the one who called me Messiah, proving it instead of disproving it,
so are you calling yourself schizo.
2)you are the one arguing about the wrong christ who as you say was a messiah complex and Schizo (using your standard and logic)
3)So Hobelim, you are saying you've been stalking and arguing and wasting your time over a crazy person that you invented?
4)you are saying you've been stalking and arguing and wasting your time over a crazy person you think I am, simply because you got revealed and left naked without coverings?
5)So when did you decide it was normal human behavior to stalk and harass and tease a mentally disabled person?
Do you always kick crippled people then boast of it or are you actually displacing feelings of inadequacies?
6)do you always kill your icon and his followers by setting up standards that makes "them" what you accuse others of (through displacement)?
In other words you called Yeshu a messiah complex schizo and the followers insane in more then one occassion inadvertantly, just to attack the poster of unpopular truths.
Human Ego 101.
I liken your Ad Hominem responses to the kid losing his chess match and throwing the board with the pieces to the ground in tirade. Your religion is supposed to make you an adult not a child and happy not miserable, and empathetic not cold.
=your reinvented christianity fails you.
Your frustration makes you like wormwood.

 

[hobelim]

1) you were the one who called me Messiah, proving it instead of disproving it,
so are you calling yourself schizo.

Get some help fella.

 

[HaShev]

I rest my case.
Displace much?
You proved Jesus can't be Moshiach.
You proved Jesus you call Yeshu, teachings influenced your hate for disabled people.
-(Mark 9:14-19,Matt 9:32-33, 12:22 &
Luke 11:14)
That you are made wormwood from the fallen star(messenger). That 1/3 "the fish" are made poisoned.
You also proved you do not know Judaism you claim to be an extension of and that you do not inspire to be Shalem. You seek to be less then all you could and should be and bash those who do seek completion.

Fact: all jews inspire to be Moshiach (anointed) "redeemers" (HaSheva)
for their people,
inspired by a genuine love for their people.
You being a hater of those people seek to thwart people becoming Shalem.
Christians inspire to be mediators, priests inspire to be head priests aka Popes.
All you did was claim me a Judaic version of the Pope aka head of the hosts in which case scripture always revealed the first, last, and given name of.

You've all heard of
Shmuley Boteach, he stated:
"Redeemer (HaSheva)... historical figure, the collective efforts of humanity all represent the Messiah . ... Rather, the
Messiah will be a leader who will inspire people to
'redeem'(HaShev)".

MESSIAH IN WIKIPEDIA:
According to Jewish tradition, the Jewish Messiah , HaMashiach ( המשיח , "the .... to be king of God's kingdom, and rule the Jewish people during the Messianic Age. ..in Christianity,
Redeemer(HaSheva).
Since “War Scroll” (4Q471) in verse XVII says it's the Kingdom of Michael then Wikipedia is saying HaMoshiach is Michael.

Christian web site itself states:
Israel is to come to knowledge of the true Messiah, their Redeemer (HaSheva)
: 1 Ne. 10:14 .

Let's review: you reject being all one should and could. You want people to follow a failure with failed logic, failed insight, failed vision, failed path, failed deciphering, failed leadership, failed behavior, failed peace.
Any psychologist will conclude you foolish and ignorant=spiritual darkness.
Hence your pension towards adversary things. EXPOSED NAKED AS A JAYBIRD.
NOW who's been classed?

 

[hobelim]

I once knew a person who saw those Garfield cats stuck on the inside of car windows driving all over town years ago and became convinced that the mafia was sending her a message that they were going to kill her cat.

There is no possibility of reasoning rationally with a person deluded in such a way.

I'm sure that you have many reasons to believe that you are the messiah.

Any rational person, Jew or Gentile, who reads your incoherent posts will have many reasons to believe that you are not.

 

[HaShev]

You are just mad because this "nut job" won at the chess game you set up the rules to.
Instead of saying well played, you decided to throw the board and pieces to the ground and push my wheel chair down the stairs and hit me over the head with my crutches.
Normal people don't kick crippled people, nor do they keep bashing stalking and abusing those they think are mentally disabled, therefore your insistance to continue your abusive behavior is an admission that you know I'm not and that you are lying to hide you behavior flaws (tantrums from losing your arguments) and displacong your hurt feelings.
-Psychology 101*
Notice you can't Teshuva, you refuse to recognize your behavior & apologize.

This is my favorite part:
"There is no possibility of reasoning rationally with a person deluded in such a way." Exact words the atheists and agnostics, Taoist, Buddhist, Jews and Hindus say when discussing theology with icon Jesus worshipers.

 

[PK1]

Wow... okay. It's starting to look like I misjudged what I'd find here on this board, so I'm going to move on to greener pastures. I'd like to say thanks to those who made an earnest attempt to discuss things. I wish you the best in life.

---
Great thread! I'm disappointed i'm late to this game & i hope you have not left the board permanently.
After reading the rest (2nd half) of the posts beyond your #24, i can conclude that the discussions have gone downhill regarding the aRobot thought test you put forward.
Emotional thinkers usually bring their inflexible learned thought patterns (biases) to the table & become disruptive to progress.
.

 

[HaShev]

Actually it's a known tactic of theirs to flood and flame forum posts to hide posts they find harmful to their arguments or affiliation. Don't know if they are instructed to disrupt discussions, but it is an avoidance technique missionaries have been known to use.

 

[PK1]

The position of ignosticism seems like one that can be accepted by the robot, as part of its problem with agreeing with a religion is that no two religions agree on what God/gods is/are.
...
We barely understand what time is in the first place.

---
If ignosticism can be accepted by the robot, then the first responses the robot should consider are concepts & definitions of a god or God.
And the robot should be renamed to:
iRobot !


Before proceeding with arguments that attempt to be convincing, the robot needs to accept the coherence & logical validity of the God/gods concept.
For example, if one proposes a "God", the iRobot would invalidate the logic of "first cause".
.

 

[Blackrook]

God doesn't care if robots believe in him.

 

[PK1]

God doesn't care if robots believe in him.

---
God who?

My dog also doesn't care if robots believe in him.
Does that mean God = dog from the perspective of aRobot?
No, the dog has (more) validity; it clearly exists.
Actually, doG & God are in reverse of each other.
.

 

[PK1]

Given the arguments that have been tried so far, can you present me with a logical argument or evidence from a reliable source that will change my mind about being an agnostic?

Robot vs. Straw Man.

---
LOL.
More like a Robot vs. Fantasy Man.

Robots don't fantasize very well, esp if programmed with facts & realistic possibilities.

My natural philosophical argument is:
aRobot vs iRobot.
.

 

[rightwinger]

 

[Blackrook]

Here's an interesting story, by the master of all storytellers, Isaac Asimov:

The Last Question -- Isaac Asimov

 

[PK1]

Put the bong down for awhile........you are becoming delusional. .......

---
A.Robot:
"can you present me with a logical argument or evidence from a reliable source that will change my mind about being an agnostic?"

Sunni Man's response (simplified):
No, i cannot think. ... or ...
I conclude that agnosticism is valid.

.

 

[Meriweather]

Failed argument 1: A holy book says so, so you have to believe.

Failed argument 2: If you don’t believe, you’ll go to hell or won’t get into heaven.

Failed argument 3: You have to feel it in your heart that God exists.

Failed argument 4: There are so many miracles all around that prove God exists.

Failed argument 5: I don’t like your definition of the word “agnostic,” so you should change your definition to fit my definition which is easier for me to argue against.

Given the arguments that have been tried so far, can you present me with a logical argument or evidence from a reliable source that will change my mind about being an agnostic?

1. Holy books record the experiences others have had with God. They can also offer suggestions on pursuing your own experiences of God. (Seek-knock-ask is one example; another is to search for good in little, quiet things instead of large, powerful events.)

2. Heaven/hell have to do with the afterlife, and are of little interest to people who seek God in the here and now.

3. As records/holy books show, it is possible to experience God to a greater degree than just feeling Him in one's heart. What is heart-felt is good, but more is possible.

4. I am sure Moses' experience with the burning bush, and the Apostles' experience of Jesus calming the storm had great meaning for them. They were there. Miracles can also occur in one's everyday life. Those are the ones that have more meaning to us as individuals because they happened to us.

5. Use whatever definition describes you. My answer encompasses more than one.


My suggestion is this: Throughout all cultures all over the world, people have had experiences of God which they describe using words, ideas, and descriptions understood by them and that culture. All you, as a robot, need to begin your own search is a belief that people have experienced God, that such experiences are possible, and a powerful, unending desire (coupled with immense stamina and patience) to make contact with God.

 

[boedicca]

Q) What do you get when you cross an Agnostic with a Dyslexic?

A) Someone who sits around wondering if there is a Dog.

 

[HaShev]

So is TBN dyslexic, because they keep playing Lassie Episodes instead of their pastors.
I'm assuming because there's better lessons coming from the ole series then their money harvesters?