Question for the agnostics

I’m intentionally dropping this thread here instead of the religion sub—mostly to steer clear of theological debates and keep things strictly focused on the metaphysical side through a logical lens. Let's skip the whole Bible discussion and religious text commentary.

I'm curious how folks who lean toward agnosticism explain this one.
Look, a human exists. There are endless possibilities. You can experience life—walking, doing, loving, feeling—basically testing out all sorts of experiences during your time here. Let's just call them "gifts" (doesn't matter if you believe in God or not; call them gifts from whoever you want right now).

An agnostic believes in *something*, they just aren't sure what. A lot of them claim to believe in a higher power, but they don't necessarily believe God is a living being. They see it as some kind of energy. And since energy isn't a sentient being, it can't make decisions, intervene, or anything like that. So, that pretty much rules out the idea of a personal God—a God who actually steps in and meddles in human affairs. The religious take (at least in mainstream American traditions like Christianity) views God as both a higher force *and* a personal being.

So, my question for the agnostics is this: if a person has the capacity to experience all these things, and an agnostic attributes those blessings to a higher power, does it make sense to suggest that this higher power/God is incapable of experiencing those same gifts (in whatever form, doesn't even matter which) that they bestowed upon a lower being (a human)?

In other words, is it logically sound to think that something as incredible as the gift of life is something only "lower" beings—animals, humans, plants—can experience? Is it possible that for a higher power/God, experiencing these things, even in a spiritual or otherworldly way, is impossible? It's like the Being Above gives a gift to the being below, yet that very gift remains unreachable to the Source itself. As someone who believes in God as a living being rather than just raw energy, that doesn't sit right with me—but I'm genuinely interested in the logic used by those who don't believe in a living God.

Just looking for the logic here. No need to pull out a holy book for the answer, which is why I'm posting this here. Cheers.

You’ve basically constructed this entire elaborate narrative based on a bunch of assumptions, and now you're looking at it and wondering why the whole thing feels totally illogical? 😬

Look, an agnostic doesn't spend their time obsessing over higher powers. They just live their lives—using the faculties they were born with and sharpening them along the way—completely unburdened by spirituality. Honestly, most agnostics only even remember they identify that way if someone actually asks.

I don't quite get why you're calling those features "gifts." It feels like you just got tangled up in this weird web of your own making—assuming that agnostics believe in some higher power that bestowed these "gifts" upon them, and then acting surprised when you realize it seems illogical that this supposed higher power wouldn't use its own gift.

Like I said before, we don't really bother ourselves with all that esoteric stuff; we just focus on living a good life and making the most of the possibilities right in front of us.

a - they don't offer explanations, which is why they lean toward agnosticism rather than being atheists or believers

b - the sheer complexity of existence isn't exactly a slam dunk proof of God.

Go find the proof.

Gregory Carter67 said:I’m intentionally dropping this thread here instead of the religion sub—mostly to steer clear of theological debates and keep things strictly focused on the metaphysical side through a logical lens. Let's skip the whole Bible discussion and religious text commentary.

I'm curious how folks who lean toward agnosticism explain this one.
Look, a human exists. There are endless possibilities. You can experience life—walking, doing, loving, feeling—basically testing out all sorts of experiences during your time here. Let's just call them "gifts" (doesn't matter if you believe in God or not; call them gifts from whoever you want right now).

An agnostic believes in *something*, they just aren't sure what. A lot of them claim to believe in a higher power, but they don't necessarily believe God is a living being. They see it as some kind of energy. And since energy isn't a sentient being, it can't make decisions, intervene, or anything like that. So, that pretty much rules out the idea of a personal God—a God who actually steps in and meddles in human affairs. The religious take (at least in mainstream American traditions like Christianity) views God as both a higher force *and* a personal being.

So, my question for the agnostics is this: if a person has the capacity to experience all these things, and an agnostic attributes those blessings to a higher power, does it make sense to suggest that this higher power/God is incapable of experiencing those same gifts (in whatever form, doesn't even matter which) that they bestowed upon a lower being (a human)?

In other words, is it logically sound to think that something as incredible as the gift of life is something only "lower" beings—animals, humans, plants—can experience? Is it possible that for a higher power/God, experiencing these things, even in a spiritual or otherworldly way, is impossible? It's like the Being Above gives a gift to the being below, yet that very gift remains unreachable to the Source itself. As someone who believes in God as a living being rather than just raw energy, that doesn't sit right with me—but I'm genuinely interested in the logic used by those who don't believe in a living God.

Just looking for the logic here. No need to pull out a holy book for the answer, which is why I'm posting this here. Cheers.

On one hand, everything is God, and we are all part of God, so maybe He experiences these things through us—that's almost our purpose, I suppose. Also, we aren't really lower beings; we are creative beings, and those possibilities might extend beyond the universe itself.
There is also some information suggesting that God the Father and the Mother Goddess are currently incarnated here on Earth. They have arrived for the grand finale. God will provide the signal to begin and officially cut the ribbon.
In this context, God first presents Himself as a single, collective consciousness that constitutes everything in existence—and which is constituted by everything in existence—or, perhaps in a more limited sense, as a unique being or soul. I don't quite have enough information on that specific point to clear up any confusion.

Agnosticism is basically the idea that the truth behind certain claims—specifically whether a deity exists or doesn't—along with other religious or metaphysical stuff, is unknown and, based on what we know right now, unknowable. You can define agnosticism a few different ways. Sometimes it’s used to describe a sense of doubt or a skeptical approach. For some, it’s more about the gap between belief and actual knowledge rather than a stance on a specific doctrine. An agnostic isn't necessarily saying they believe in God or don't believe in God; they just aren't claiming either. In a narrower sense, it's the view that humanity simply lacks the data or the capacity to rationally prove or disprove the existence of a higher power.

Just semantic gymnastics.
Throw the phrase "gift of life" into the mix and suddenly you're talking about a "giver."
It's the same old logic: "we are creatures," therefore "someone must have created us."
Claiming that's sound logic is a stretch.

Does God exist?
I don't know (honestly, maybe the question itself is fundamentally unanswerable?).
Do you?

casualtiger2 said:Agnosticism is basically the idea that the truth behind certain claims—specifically whether a deity exists or doesn't—along with other religious or metaphysical stuff, is unknown and, based on what we know right now, unknowable. You can define agnosticism a few different ways. Sometimes it’s used to describe a sense of doubt or a skeptical approach. For some, it’s more about the gap between belief and actual knowledge rather than a stance on a specific doctrine. An agnostic isn't necessarily saying they believe in God or don't believe in God; they just aren't claiming either. In a narrower sense, it's the view that humanity simply lacks the data or the capacity to rationally prove or disprove the existence of a higher power.

Just semantic gymnastics.
Throw the phrase "gift of life" into the mix and suddenly you're talking about a "giver."
It's the same old logic: "we are creatures," therefore "someone must have created us."
Claiming that's sound logic is a stretch.

Does God exist?
I don't know (honestly, maybe the question itself is fundamentally unanswerable?).
Do you?

Or, if I'm being honest and translating the actual vibe of the original meaning:

"Clueless."

Gregory Carter67 said:I’m intentionally dropping this thread here instead of the religion sub—mostly to steer clear of theological debates and keep things strictly focused on the metaphysical side through a logical lens. Let's skip the whole Bible discussion and religious text commentary.

I'm curious how folks who lean toward agnosticism explain this one.
Look, a human exists. There are endless possibilities. You can experience life—walking, doing, loving, feeling—basically testing out all sorts of experiences during your time here. Let's just call them "gifts" (doesn't matter if you believe in God or not; call them gifts from whoever you want right now).

An agnostic believes in *something*, they just aren't sure what. A lot of them claim to believe in a higher power, but they don't necessarily believe God is a living being. They see it as some kind of energy. And since energy isn't a sentient being, it can't make decisions, intervene, or anything like that. So, that pretty much rules out the idea of a personal God—a God who actually steps in and meddles in human affairs. The religious take (at least in mainstream American traditions like Christianity) views God as both a higher force *and* a personal being.

So, my question for the agnostics is this: if a person has the capacity to experience all these things, and an agnostic attributes those blessings to a higher power, does it make sense to suggest that this higher power/God is incapable of experiencing those same gifts (in whatever form, doesn't even matter which) that they bestowed upon a lower being (a human)?

In other words, is it logically sound to think that something as incredible as the gift of life is something only "lower" beings—animals, humans, plants—can experience? Is it possible that for a higher power/God, experiencing these things, even in a spiritual or otherworldly way, is impossible? It's like the Being Above gives a gift to the being below, yet that very gift remains unreachable to the Source itself. As someone who believes in God as a living being rather than just raw energy, that doesn't sit right with me—but I'm genuinely interested in the logic used by those who don't believe in a living God.

Just looking for the logic here. No need to pull out a holy book for the answer, which is why I'm posting this here. Cheers.

Look, not only is that completely wrong about what agnosticism actually means, but what you're describing is basically just a specific flavor of theism: ietism. It's a type of belief that isn't exactly mainstream, even though there are plenty of people out there who fit that description perfectly.

hollowpuma762 said:Or, if I'm being honest and translating the actual vibe of the original meaning:

"Clueless."

You wrote that like it’s some kind of insult or a bad thing. Honestly, when you're talking about stuff that isn't common knowledge—or things we can't even prove exist in the first place—we're all "ignorant." Period. The only people who actually have a problem with it are the ones walking around thinking they've got all the answers when they really don't. Those are the true deluded ones, the so-called 'gnostics.'

Gregory Carter67 said:I’m intentionally dropping this thread here instead of the religion sub—mostly to steer clear of theological debates and keep things strictly focused on the metaphysical side through a logical lens. Let's skip the whole Bible discussion and religious text commentary.

I'm curious how folks who lean toward agnosticism explain this one.
Look, a human exists. There are endless possibilities. You can experience life—walking, doing, loving, feeling—basically testing out all sorts of experiences during your time here. Let's just call them "gifts" (doesn't matter if you believe in God or not; call them gifts from whoever you want right now).

An agnostic believes in *something*, they just aren't sure what. A lot of them claim to believe in a higher power, but they don't necessarily believe God is a living being. They see it as some kind of energy. And since energy isn't a sentient being, it can't make decisions, intervene, or anything like that. So, that pretty much rules out the idea of a personal God—a God who actually steps in and meddles in human affairs. The religious take (at least in mainstream American traditions like Christianity) views God as both a higher force *and* a personal being.

So, my question for the agnostics is this: if a person has the capacity to experience all these things, and an agnostic attributes those blessings to a higher power, does it make sense to suggest that this higher power/God is incapable of experiencing those same gifts (in whatever form, doesn't even matter which) that they bestowed upon a lower being (a human)?

In other words, is it logically sound to think that something as incredible as the gift of life is something only "lower" beings—animals, humans, plants—can experience? Is it possible that for a higher power/God, experiencing these things, even in a spiritual or otherworldly way, is impossible? It's like the Being Above gives a gift to the being below, yet that very gift remains unreachable to the Source itself. As someone who believes in God as a living being rather than just raw energy, that doesn't sit right with me—but I'm genuinely interested in the logic used by those who don't believe in a living God.

Just looking for the logic here. No need to pull out a holy book for the answer, which is why I'm posting this here. Cheers.

Since you’re looking at this through the lens of a believer while asking a question like this, it makes sense that you're struggling to wrap your head around someone seeing things differently than you do. You assume there's some divine exchange happening, but what if there isn't?
God is God. That's just how it works. He's fundamentally different from an earthly physical being.
There aren't "gifts" involved—not physical ones, not emotional ones, nothing.
And there’s zero need for any kind of cosmic payback.
People just think differently. Period.

darkraven said:You wrote that like it’s some kind of insult or a bad thing. Honestly, when you're talking about stuff that isn't common knowledge—or things we can't even prove exist in the first place—we're all "ignorant." Period. The only people who actually have a problem with it are the ones walking around thinking they've got all the answers when they really don't. Those are the true deluded ones, the so-called 'gnostics.'

No.

You’re just commenting on an impression.

darkraven said:You wrote that like it’s some kind of insult or a bad thing. Honestly, when you're talking about stuff that isn't common knowledge—or things we can't even prove exist in the first place—we're all "ignorant." Period. The only people who actually have a problem with it are the ones walking around thinking they've got all the answers when they really don't. Those are the true deluded ones, the so-called 'gnostics.'

Look, most people aren't born knowing everything.

Once they realize they don't know, they can actually learn. But some people? They just settle for ignorance.
It's easier to take the path of least resistance. It feels better, especially when it helps you blend into the crowd.

When someone is absolutely CONVINCED that something "can't" be done, then there isn't even a second option for them. Period.

darkraven said:You wrote that like it’s some kind of insult or a bad thing. Honestly, when you're talking about stuff that isn't common knowledge—or things we can't even prove exist in the first place—we're all "ignorant." Period. The only people who actually have a problem with it are the ones walking around thinking they've got all the answers when they really don't. Those are the true deluded ones, the so-called 'gnostics.'

The point is, YOU KNOW what something is, while everyone else is just guessing.

Maybe try actually looking up the definition of the term you're using before dropping gems like that.

Gregory Carter67 said:I’m intentionally dropping this thread here instead of the religion sub—mostly to steer clear of theological debates and keep things strictly focused on the metaphysical side through a logical lens. Let's skip the whole Bible discussion and religious text commentary.

I'm curious how folks who lean toward agnosticism explain this one.
Look, a human exists. There are endless possibilities. You can experience life—walking, doing, loving, feeling—basically testing out all sorts of experiences during your time here. Let's just call them "gifts" (doesn't matter if you believe in God or not; call them gifts from whoever you want right now).

An agnostic believes in *something*, they just aren't sure what. A lot of them claim to believe in a higher power, but they don't necessarily believe God is a living being. They see it as some kind of energy. And since energy isn't a sentient being, it can't make decisions, intervene, or anything like that. So, that pretty much rules out the idea of a personal God—a God who actually steps in and meddles in human affairs. The religious take (at least in mainstream American traditions like Christianity) views God as both a higher force *and* a personal being.

So, my question for the agnostics is this: if a person has the capacity to experience all these things, and an agnostic attributes those blessings to a higher power, does it make sense to suggest that this higher power/God is incapable of experiencing those same gifts (in whatever form, doesn't even matter which) that they bestowed upon a lower being (a human)?

In other words, is it logically sound to think that something as incredible as the gift of life is something only "lower" beings—animals, humans, plants—can experience? Is it possible that for a higher power/God, experiencing these things, even in a spiritual or otherworldly way, is impossible? It's like the Being Above gives a gift to the being below, yet that very gift remains unreachable to the Source itself. As someone who believes in God as a living being rather than just raw energy, that doesn't sit right with me—but I'm genuinely interested in the logic used by those who don't believe in a living God.

Just looking for the logic here. No need to pull out a holy book for the answer, which is why I'm posting this here. Cheers.

my cat could do all that too. and she’s never even stepped foot in a church.

Agnostics are those who don't believe in Jesus, yet they still go out and buy presents for Christmas.
Agnostics are people who don't believe in Catholic saints, but they will do absolutely anything on Valentine's Day to ensure a big bang in bed.

A little thought experiment for you.
Picture a powerful entity—invisible, totally undetectable by our human senses, but undeniably potent.
Something omnipresent, yet limited strictly to our solar system.
Now, imagine there are even more powerful beings operating at a galactic scale.
And even higher powers at the level of galaxy clusters.
And maybe, just maybe, an ultimate being that encompasses the entire universe.

How would you actually distinguish whether what you’ve read in your Bibles, or those moments you've felt during prayer...
was contact with the actual God of the universe, rather than just some local deity tied to our solar system?

Q

casualtiger2 said:A little thought experiment for you.
Picture a powerful entity—invisible, totally undetectable by our human senses, but undeniably potent.
Something omnipresent, yet limited strictly to our solar system.
Now, imagine there are even more powerful beings operating at a galactic scale.
And even higher powers at the level of galaxy clusters.
And maybe, just maybe, an ultimate being that encompasses the entire universe.

How would you actually distinguish whether what you’ve read in your Bibles, or those moments you've felt during prayer...
was contact with the actual God of the universe, rather than just some local deity tied to our solar system?

Neither holy books nor prayers are required; one simply needs to place absolute faith in science.
That is to say, science.
It has been proven from every angle that there was a moment, billions of years ago, when there was no time, no matter, no energy, and no space. There were no laws of nature; there wasn't even a "nothingness" to speak of.
And then, the Big Bang occurred, giving rise to time and space, which then gave birth to matter, energy, galaxies, Earth... and time began to flow.
The question remains, however: how can anyone prove that this single moment, where everything suddenly went "boom," simply started from nothing?
Is it not logical that prior to that, there existed a supernatural entity—since nature, space, and time did not yet exist—who caused all of this and determined how it would unfold?
Something cannot emerge from nothing; everything must have a cause, and the cause of all existence is precisely an entity that preceded nature and everything else, whom we call God.
You see, science has arrived at this so-called zero point, but it will never be able to move beyond it, because science functions based on the laws of nature, which did not exist before that point.
In essence, it has merely confirmed that sentence from the Bible: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
He existed before all things, and He is the cause of all things.
According to the Bible, and according to science...

Science has done a pretty decent job of mapping out what happened from the immediate moments after the Big Bang onward, but we’re still in the dark about what came before. To maintain some sense of continuity regarding fundamental natural laws, theorists have cooked up models like string theory or the multiverse. But let's be clear: those aren't proven physical facts; they're just mathematical possibilities.

At best, God is just one more possibility, though not one that holds much weight in serious mathematics, so most people don't really take the idea seriously.😁

The whole "I don't know what caused this, therefore it must be God" line is a weak argument, and historically speaking, it hasn't aged well.

In fact, almost everything modern physics understands was once attributed to God or some other supernatural force. As our understanding becomes more precise, the "supernatural" keeps getting pushed further into the margins. And so far, none of it has ever been proven.
So, purely based on probability, there’s a very slim chance that God will turn out to be the answer to whatever we don't understand right now.

rapidmason1 said:Neither holy books nor prayers are required; one simply needs to place absolute faith in science.
That is to say, science.
It has been proven from every angle that there was a moment, billions of years ago, when there was no time, no matter, no energy, and no space. There were no laws of nature; there wasn't even a "nothingness" to speak of.
And then, the Big Bang occurred, giving rise to time and space, which then gave birth to matter, energy, galaxies, Earth... and time began to flow.
The question remains, however: how can anyone prove that this single moment, where everything suddenly went "boom," simply started from nothing?
Is it not logical that prior to that, there existed a supernatural entity—since nature, space, and time did not yet exist—who caused all of this and determined how it would unfold?
Something cannot emerge from nothing; everything must have a cause, and the cause of all existence is precisely an entity that preceded nature and everything else, whom we call God.
You see, science has arrived at this so-called zero point, but it will never be able to move beyond it, because science functions based on the laws of nature, which did not exist before that point.
In essence, it has merely confirmed that sentence from the Bible: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
He existed before all things, and He is the cause of all things.
According to the Bible, and according to science...

Actually, it doesn't say "Word." It says Logos.

http://biblehub.com/text/john/1-1.htm

Calling it a "Word" is just an interpretation. One of many, anyway.

bluemason3 said:Science has done a pretty decent job of mapping out what happened from the immediate moments after the Big Bang onward, but we’re still in the dark about what came before. To maintain some sense of continuity regarding fundamental natural laws, theorists have cooked up models like string theory or the multiverse. But let's be clear: those aren't proven physical facts; they're just mathematical possibilities.

At best, God is just one more possibility, though not one that holds much weight in serious mathematics, so most people don't really take the idea seriously.😁

The whole "I don't know what caused this, therefore it must be God" line is a weak argument, and historically speaking, it hasn't aged well.

In fact, almost everything modern physics understands was once attributed to God or some other supernatural force. As our understanding becomes more precise, the "supernatural" keeps getting pushed further into the margins. And so far, none of it has ever been proven.
So, purely based on probability, there’s a very slim chance that God will turn out to be the answer to whatever we don't understand right now.

You can't know what happened before because there was nothing, not even that...
Comparing today's level of understanding to how people used to explain lightning—as if, I don't know, God was angry—is simply ridiculous...
Physics won't advance beyond that specific point, because physics is a natural science, and at that juncture, nature itself ceases to exist. There is no time and no space, and natural laws cease to be applicable because there is nothing for them to act upon...
Physics has proven this...
To ignore these facts and compare everything to the era when people didn't understand how rain falls and thus bowed to a rain god, is foolishness...
Therefore, accepting the claim that the cause and beginning of everything is a supernatural entity isn't a matter of faith, but rather a matter of logical, sound reasoning...
But, even for those who refuse to see it, there is an explanation...
The most famous physicist and scientist ever once stated quite clearly that there are only two things that are infinite, though he wasn't entirely sure about the universe...
The second thing—and this is pure nonsense—he undoubtedly stated was infinite...

It’s a pretty solid comparison. Physics doesn't claim nothing exists—if it did, we wouldn't be wasting time on things like string theory. Besides, people were claiming a century ago that physics had already hit its limit and there was nothing left to discover.

Most of those arguments are either built on shaky ground or just plain wrong.