Zone1 Is There Really A Personal God?

[TruthNotBS]

I think you need to reconsider your belief that you are agnostic. You are making the arguments of an atheist.

It's important to clarify that being agnostic and making arguments that challenge theistic claims are not mutually exclusive. As an agnostic, I don't claim to know whether a god exists or not. My position is that there isn't sufficient evidence to affirm the existence of a god, which is why I remain unconvinced.

When I argue against theistic claims, I’m not asserting that a god doesn't exist; rather, I'm pointing out that the evidence provided so far is not compelling enough to warrant belief. This aligns with agnosticism, which holds that the truth of certain claims—such as the existence of a deity—remains unknown or unknowable.

In this sense, I may also align with agnostic atheism, where I don't believe in a god due to lack of evidence, but I also don't assert that no gods could exist. My stance remains open to the possibility of a god, but until there's more convincing evidence, I maintain a position of skepticism. This careful distinction allows me to remain agnostic while critically examining and debating theistic claims.

 

[ding]

Your argument is based on a series of philosophical assumptions that don't hold up under scrutiny. Let’s break them down:

1. Eternality and Change: The claim that only something unchanging can be eternal is a philosophical stance, not a scientific one. In physics, time and change are inherent properties of the universe, and there's no requirement that something must be unchanging to be eternal. For example, the laws of physics themselves might be considered "eternal" in the sense that they apply universally across time, even though the universe is constantly evolving.
2. Matter and Energy: Scientifically, matter and energy are conserved—they can change forms, but they are not created or destroyed. This principle of conservation means that in some sense, matter and energy could be considered "eternal" within the context of our universe. Your assertion that they can't be eternal is not supported by current scientific understanding.
3. Consciousness as the Eternal Source: You jump from the philosophical idea that something unchanging must be eternal to the conclusion that this something must be consciousness. This is a non-sequitur; it doesn't logically follow that consciousness is the only possible unchanging source. There is no empirical evidence to suggest that consciousness exists independently of physical processes or that it is eternal.
4. Information as "Mind Stuff": Information is indeed not a material thing, but that doesn't make it "mind stuff" or inherently linked to consciousness. Information, in a scientific context, is a measure of entropy or a way to describe the state of a system. It's a concept used to describe data and processes, not a substance or entity. The idea that information is mysterious "mind stuff" is a leap from the definition of information in physics or computer science to a metaphysical claim that lacks evidence.

Your argument hinges on philosophical interpretations that are speculative at best and not grounded in scientific evidence. The leap from abstract concepts like information to the conclusion that consciousness is the eternal source of reality is unsupported and doesn't stand up to logical or empirical scrutiny.

There's no evidence you will accept.

 

[ding]

It's important to clarify that being agnostic and making arguments that challenge theistic claims are not mutually exclusive. As an agnostic, I don't claim to know whether a god exists or not. My position is that there isn't sufficient evidence to affirm the existence of a god, which is why I remain unconvinced.

When I argue against theistic claims, I’m not asserting that a god doesn't exist; rather, I'm pointing out that the evidence provided so far is not compelling enough to warrant belief. This aligns with agnosticism, which holds that the truth of certain claims—such as the existence of a deity—remains unknown or unknowable.

In this sense, I may also align with agnostic atheism, where I don't believe in a god due to lack of evidence, but I also don't assert that no gods could exist. My stance remains open to the possibility of a god, but until there's more convincing evidence, I maintain a position of skepticism. This careful distinction allows me to remain agnostic while critically examining and debating theistic claims.

Who are you tying to convince? You most certainly have been arguing no God can exist.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Who are you tying to convince? You most certainly have been arguing no God can exist.

I'm not responding to your posts to convince you, but for the sake of others who are seeking the truth, but haven't come to any conclusions about God's existence as you have. I respond for their sake.

 

[ding]

I'm not responding to your posts to convince you, but for the sake of others who are seeking the truth, but haven't come to any conclusions about God's existence as you have. I respond for their sake.

I think that's more BS than truth.

 

[TruthNotBS]

There's no evidence you will accept.

I will accept evidence for a personal God, but so far everything you've presented is speculation.

 

[TruthNotBS]

I think that's more BS than truth.

That describes your posts perfectly.