All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 15, 2006 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
46:23
511 Agnosticism Part 2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good evening, everybody. It's Steph.
Hope you're doing most excellently.
It is 25 past 5 on November the 15th, 2006, which, when you're listening to this many hundreds of years in the future, will seem an unimaginably long time ago.
But trust me, we are vibrant and alive here, just as you are in the future.
So we're going to have a little bit more of a chat with our good friends, the Agnostics.
Who are making a valiant and, I hope, futile stand in the realm of this other dimension wherein God may exist.
And I think it's worth having just a little bit more of a chitchat about it because they've brought up some very interesting points which are not immediately evident to be false.
Good for them. I think that's wonderful.
And I did actually get a letter of mild apology from one of the agnostics who wrote to tell me that he was sorry.
But he is feeling that, you know, obstinate or he is feeling that he needs to make this case.
And of course, you know, my friend, my brother, there's no reason to apologize for standing your ground with what you think is right.
Heavens. The last thing you'd ever want to do is to give in to me or anybody else if you feel that you're in the right and that what we're saying or what I'm saying is not logical or not rational.
No, in no way, shape or form should that ever be.
Opposing me is a virtue if I'm wrong, of course, right?
And there's certainly no guarantee that I'm not.
So, I think it's worth having a little bit more of a chat because there does seem to be quite a lot of this sort of stuff floating around in the realm of philosophy and in the realm of those, I guess, who've taken a couple of undergrad courses or probably all the way through to the PhD level.
And so the position that is generally obfuscating the sort of standpoint It's this idea of this universe that exists outside of our existing universe, right?
So it doesn't necessarily have to be, you know, a first cause kind of argument.
It could easily be like that the universe exists, therefore something outside of the universe must have created it, and so on.
But rather that, you know, the universe from the Big Bang is expanding, it must be expanding into something, therefore something must exist outside the universe, and so on.
And in this realm of that which exists outside the universe, there is simply no way...
To be able to say in a true or false manner what that something is and what it contains.
So in the world that is not, in the world that exists outside the universe, there could be an abode of elves and leprechauns and hobbits and Nazgul and gods and goblins and so on.
And so to state in a positive manner that God does not exist is to state that I have positive knowledge that in this realm beyond the universe there's no such thing as God.
But of course since I don't have any direct knowledge or even indirect knowledge or evidence of this realm beyond the universe and that because the universe is sort of Exploding in many directions and must be carving its way into something.
We know for sure that there's something outside of the universe because this is sort of the position, right?
We know for sure that there's something outside of the universe and we also know that we can't say anything about what is outside the universe because it's beyond all possible human measure and therefore we can't state anything positive or negative about anything that is outside the universe and blah-de-blah-de-blah.
Now, fundamentally, there are sort of two possibilities in this realm.
I'm sort of not trying to oversimplify.
I'm just sort of looking at the realities.
If we say, of course, that...
And these are very similar to the first course problem of infinite regression.
So if we say, as many people do, that the universe exists, therefore something must have created it, and that something is God, then you don't solve the problem.
You just move it one step back, right?
Right. Which is to say that everything which exists had a cause, but God did not have a cause.
God has just existed eternally.
Well, that's not any more rational.
In fact, it's a whole lot less rational than saying because of the second law of thermodynamics that matter has existed in perpetuity and therefore...
There's no reason to believe that there was a first course of matter because matter has existed in perpetuity.
It is obviously very difficult for finite and mortal human beings to get the sort of basic notion into our heads or souls of perpetual existence because we sure as heck do not represent perpetual existence but rather a transitory short lifespan.
But just because it's tough for us to imagine as organic creatures that begin and end, that there is an infinity of time that matter has existed, a matter has perpetually existed, and in what manner, we don't know, and through what mechanism, we don't know, but it doesn't really matter.
Because we don't want to anthropomorphize the universe and say, because we live and die, the universe must also have had a cause in the way that we have a cause, i.e., the gleam in our Father's eye.
So, the problem of moving God one step back, which is not something I'm suggesting the agnostics do, I'm just sort of talking about a parallel.
The problem of moving God one step back and saying, well, we have a thing that is perpetually there, which is God, and God created the world, and so on, is completely illogical, right?
Because we have no evidence of life that exists in perpetuity, but we certainly have evidence that matter exists in perpetuity.
So saying that it's not matter which exists in perpetuity, but rather life which exists in perpetuity is completely the opposite of everything that we know about both matter and life, right?
So that's why I'm saying not only does it not solve the problem, It completely ignores and reverses all of the evidence that we have about the differences between life, short span and so on, and matter, eternal existence and matter or energy.
So when we take this and say, well, I'm not going to worry about the first cause, But the universe must be expanding into something, and therefore there's something outside the universe, and so on.
Well, I don't see how that solves any problems at all, right?
Because moving something one step back doesn't solve the problem of infinite regression.
So, of course, if the universe is expanding into something, we'll call it Universe X, right?
If our universe is expanding into Universe X, then clearly...
Universe X must either itself be limited and be expanding into something or, if you like, contracting it from something or it must be infinite in size or dimension.
If Universe X is infinite in size or infinite in dimension, then clearly we are allowing that an infinity exists.
It's just our universe is bounded by the edge of the Big Bang or that which we can measure or whatever, and it's expanding into Universe X, but Universe X is infinite in size.
Well, of course, if Universe X is infinite in size, then there's no reason why we wouldn't believe that our universe is infinite in size.
And we're not expanding into nothing, right, any more than a sound wave expands into a vacuum, right?
A sound wave just goes into where it wasn't before.
It's like a big empty space, right?
So where there's just an infinity of emptiness at the edge of the universe, we're expanding into that and contract and expand again.
Who knows? It depends how many black holes there are at the center of the universe, I guess.
But there's no reason to believe that if we allow that universe X, in fact, there's every reason to not have to do this step, right?
If we accept that universe X that we're expanding into is infinite, then it's a whole lot easier and more simple to just say, well, our universe is infinite and we're expanding into an emptiness.
What's in that emptiness?
Well, nothing, by definition.
It's a vacuum. It's got no matter and energy, and the matter and energy that's propelled from the Big Bang is expanding into it, and blah-de-blah-de-blah.
But if we say that, no, universe X is not infinite.
And that solves the problem of saying, well, if universe X is infinite, why do we need it?
Because we can just have our own universe be infinite and then there's nothing beyond it.
There's just that which we have not reached yet in terms of the we being sort of matter and energy expanding from the Big Bang.
There's just empty vacuum space that we have not reached yet.
So... I mean, sorry, to say that the universe is created as it expands is sort of like saying that the road is created as I drive it, right?
I mean, you know, the road's ahead and I just drive into it.
Emptiness is ahead and the universe expands into it.
I mean, I don't see how that's particularly problematic.
But if you want to solve the problem of the fact that Arkham's razor or that the simplest explanation is probably the best, if you want to say that, if you want to solve that problem and say, well, the universe X, the one outside her own, is not infinite, right?
Then you've solved the problem, right?
But you've also introduced another problem, which is that if Universe X is not infinite, then there is obviously something outside of Universe X, right?
So our universe, the proposition is that because our universe is finite in scope and size based on the expansion of matter and energy from the Big Bang, and then we say outside of our universe is Universe X, right?
Then Universe X is either infinite, in which case it's not needed, or Universe X is finite, In which case, you haven't really solved the problem.
Because if we're expanding into universe X, which is finite, then universe X is expanding or contracting from some other universe Y and Z and AA and BB and CC infinity and so on, right?
So it's the problem of the infinite regression.
If that which is outside of our universe is finite, then that's fine, right?
You've solved that problem, you've introduced the reason for the complexity, but you still haven't solved the problem because the principle which applies to our universe would also apply to the other universe, which is there is that which exists and that which we're expanding into or that which is outside that which exists, right? And maybe our universe would be outside the universe that exists, but of course our universe by this whole logic is perceived to be finite and therefore that doesn't work either.
So... Then you sort of are stuck with this proposition, right?
Which wherein you're saying, okay, so our universe is finite and expanding into that which does not exist.
Or even if you say that our universe is infinite, there's something outside of it, although there really couldn't be anything outside of an infinitely sized thing.
But even if we say that there is something outside the universe, well then, of course, to that universe, there would also be something outside that very universe.
So when you pop into universe...
Then the universe X must be bounded by universe Y. And so you end up in this problem wherein you have this infinite sort of Russian doll eating each other universes, one inside the other or outside the other.
And each one of those universes has no relationship to each other, never crosses or touches, exist simultaneously or in parallel or whatever, but never has any effect on each other universe, on the other universe, and must also contradict every other universe, right?
Because if there was a universe out there that did not contradict our universe, it would be part of our universe.
At least that would be the likely thing that would occur, in which case it would not be a parallel universe, right?
It would just be some other place within our universe.
So it would have to have something contradictory about it, Because if it didn't have anything contradictory about it relative to our universe, then we should be able to measure and see it.
And so then you sort of have either the problem of unnecessary duplication of infinite universes, i.e., if the universe that's around us is infinite, then our universe is just infinite, or you have the infinite regression problem, so you either have a duplication which solves nothing, Or, you have the problem of infinite regression, which is sort of exactly the same thing as the first course, right?
If you say, matter was created, but God exists in perpetuity, then you're accepting that an entity exists in perpetuity, you're just calling it God, so you've duplicated that against all evidence, and you haven't solved the problem.
So, obviously, Occam's razor and the basic scientific method and logic would say that that's not a viable solution to the problem.
Or, you know, you've said...
That the universe exists, therefore it was created, God exists, therefore God was created by God 1, therefore God 1 exists, therefore God 1 was created by God 2, and you have the problem of infinite regression.
This is not hellishly complicated.
I'm sorry if I'm beating around with it too much, but I just wanted to get this problem that either you have unnecessary duplication or You have the problem of infinite regression.
And in either case, either with the first cause or with this universe X phenomenon wherein God may exist, you have exactly the same issue.
You either have an unnecessary duplication because you have a finite universe expanding into an infinite universe.
Which means that infinite universes can exist, so why not make the original universe the infinite universe and save all that additional hassle of imaginarily creating some other universe?
Or you have the problem of infinite regression, that all finite universes are bounded by something else, which means that you have an infinity of universes, none of which touch each other and all of which are self-contradictory in nature.
Sorry, contradictory with each other.
Now, so everything that you have to accept It's either infinitely duplicated, which is surely wrong, right?
I mean, it's surely wrong if the solution to the problem requires an infinity of universes and energies and matters and constantly contradictory physical laws between the universes and so on.
Because if your whole problem is a fundamental logical thing that occurs with either of these solutions, If your fundamental problem Is that you don't like infinity, right?
So if you don't like the fact that our own existing universe is, to all intents and purposes, infinitely large because the outside, the shell of the universe as it was created, the shell of matter and energy as it was created through the Big Bang, is expanding, I guess, near the speed of light and you can't go any faster than that.
You can't sort of zoom out past the edges of the exploding galaxies and matter and energy and get to what's out there.
Or even if you could go faster than light, all that would be out there is emptiness with the galaxies coming towards you.
Slowly, or I guess fast, but with the sizes and distances that we're talking about, it would be pretty slow.
If you get far enough out, it would take thousands, millions of years for the galaxies to get to you.
If your problem is that you don't like the idea that the universe is infinite, and my particular perception is the universe is infinite because there's no bump at the end, and of course if there was a bump, then how far does that bump go?
If there's a wall at the edge of the universe, what's beyond the wall?
It doesn't really solve the problem.
But it's also a pretty irrelevant thing, right?
Because the universe that is, you know, billions and billions of light years away, the edges of the universe will never get beyond it.
And even if we did, there'd just be space out there.
We would just be part of what the universe is expanding into.
It would just blow past us, right?
Like we're standing on the...
Like we're standing on the beach and a big wave goes past us, right?
That's all that would happen. We'd see the wave coming and then it would go past us as we see the universe does expand.
And of course, having 20 billion years of watching the expansion go along, or at least seeing the evidence of it, we can pretty surely and safely say, I think, that the universe is more than capable of expanding into an infinite distance.
There's no reason to think that after 20 billion and one years bump, it comes up against the edge, right?
That's not going to happen. But if you don't like the infinite universe thesis, the infinite R universe thesis, that's fine.
But then the solution that you invoke to solve the problem of your discomfort or lack of belief in infinity, the solution that you come up with can neither be A, an unnecessary duplication, which is the we're surrounded by an infinite universe X, And neither can it be a solution that involves infinity, right?
So, that's not going to work either.
Because if you say, well, the universe can't be infinite, right?
For whatever reason, right? The universe can't be infinite.
That's fine. But then you're saying infinity is not a valid solution to a problem.
But then, of course, you face the grave problem, logically, and perhaps emotionally, of requiring an infinity of universes.
Since you will not grant that any one of those universes can be infinite, as we've talked about before, then clearly you are going to have to invoke an infinity of universes to solve the problem that infinity is never a solution to a problem.
Do you see the sort of contradiction in it?
It's like punching a kid and saying, don't hit people.
It's innately self-contradictory.
It's like me telling you that you're deaf.
It's like, well, if you can hear me, you're not deaf.
It's one of these innately self-contradictory things.
Or me saying that I want to have an argument with you and then invoking either faith or the state, the violence or complete irrationality.
So, given that we have an innately self-contradictory statement, we can say to someone that they kind of need to go back to the drawing board, right?
That the problem that they're trying to solve requires that they impose a solution on it or suggest a solution for the problem they're trying to solve, which has exactly the same characteristics of the problem they're trying to solve.
So if they're willing to accept that the solution to this problem of a universe expanding into infinity, if they're willing to accept that the solution is an infinite number of universes, then clearly infinity is a viable solution to a problem.
Right? And if infinity is a viable solution to a problem, then you don't need universe X to begin with.
So I hope that that sort of makes you understand, at least where I'm coming from, and I think it's pretty good logic myself, where I'm coming from in this question of what's outside the universe.
Now, the other thing really that's talked about is that basically...
The universe that is outside the universe, Universe X, has no definitional capacity whatsoever.
You simply cannot understand or comprehend or say anything about Universe X at all.
Right? And...
That really is defined, Universe X is defined as that which does not exist.
Universe X, can you see it?
No. Hear it, taste it, touch it, smell it?
No. Does it show up on any oscilloscope or spectrograph or infrared or x-ray or any kind of detection device for matter or energy?
No. Does it have any gravity?
No. It is defined as a synonym, an identical synonym for non-existence.
This is a very important thing to understand.
What is defined as outside the universe is identical to non-existence.
The two definitions are completely interchangeable.
There's no evidence for it and it's completely self-contradictory and irrational.
That's sort of what you would say in logic is a false proposition and in science is non-existence.
And so The synonym for that which is outside the universe is non-existence.
So, really, when you think about it, when I say God does not exist, and you say God exists possibly in something outside the universe, but since outside the universe, to all intents and purposes, and in all practical logic and empirical observation, outside the universe is exactly the same As doesn't exist.
So we're saying exactly the same thing.
This is what I find so annoying about agnostics.
They like to put a whole load of bigfalutin words out there to say, well, no, you see, I'm agnostic about the existence of God.
And you say, well, why are you agnostic about it?
And you say, well, because I can't say anything about God.
It's like, well, why can't you say anything about God?
It's like, because God may exist in some other dimension.
Well, how is that other dimension defined?
Well, it's something that has no evidence, no logic, will never show up in any measurements whatsoever, because the moment it does, it's part of this universe, and then it's subject to all of the scientific method and logical requirements.
And so it will never exist, never be recordable, never have an impact, never have any energy that we can see or hear or record, never have any gravity or matter or anything like that, which is exactly the same.
As not existing. So when I say God does not exist, and agnostics say, well, I'm not going to say whether God exists or not because I'm going to put him in a category where there's simply no possible evidence for him, well, that's exactly the same as saying that God doesn't exist.
It's just a more cowardly way of saying God doesn't exist, and it's a more weaselly way of saying it so that you don't have religious people get upset with you.
Because, you know, just to sort of jump out of the logical arena and to jump a little bit more into the sort of personal emotional arena, I've never once seen an agnostic say to a Christian, The only conceivable way that any god could exist is if that god is in this non-existent realm that I'm going to define as non-existent and is never going to have any effect on you,
is never going to talk to you, is never going to influence anything in the world, certainly didn't send down his only begotten son and didn't impregnate a virgin and didn't have his kid walk on water and didn't whatever, whatever, right?
I've never seen an agnostic say that a Christian should stop believing these silly things, which would be the perfectly logical response to the belief, even if there was this belief that was logical, that God existed in some other universe X or might exist and so on.
Clearly, clearly, if we're going to banish God to this non-existent realm or this realm that's never going to have any impact on the existing realm that we live in, then clearly, religious belief is a complete fantasy.
So, potato-potato time, folks.
If I say God doesn't exist, and you say I define God as existing in a state which is exactly the same as not existing, which is this nonsense argument about Universe X, then we're really much of the same opinion that there's no point praying, there's no reason that none of the miracles exist, the Bible is totally false, and...
There's no reason to pray, no reason for organized religion.
We're in the same boat, right?
But the difference is, my friends, that I will actually say to a Christian, you should not believe these silly things, but the agnostic won't.
This is why I'm spending so much time on the argument here.
Because I want to rouse this silent army of agnostics to fight the good fight for truth, rationality, and empiricism, and the scientific method, and the honorable way, and the values of philosophy.
I want to shake them into righteous virtue and get them off this fence they think they're straddling, which is just an intellectual excuse they've made up to themselves to avoid confrontation and to pretend that they're all zen and detached and full of wisdom and refuse to make irrational positive statements like God doesn't exist, but instead prefer to make statements that God exists in a manner which is exactly the same as non-existence and think that they've made some great leap forward in knowledge.
Because I've never, right, this is something so important to understand, and I mentioned this in the first podcast I did on my stroll around the parking lot, but it's still, it's important to sort of reiterate and to understand that this is only, only, only ever invoked for God.
You don't have a lot of debates where people say, I think that unicorns exist, and people say, well, I don't have any opinions about unicorns.
Because there could be some alternate dimension wherein unicorns do exist.
So I'm not going to, you know, I have no opinion about unicorns.
You don't see people setting out an extra plate at dinner for somebody who died saying in some other realm they might not have died so I'm not going to pass judgment about whether they are alive or dead so I might as well act sometimes as if they're alive and sometimes as if they're dead or refrain from burying them because I don't know whether they're dead or not or anything like that.
So, you don't see it invoked in that way.
When your kids say, Daddy, Daddy, is there a monster under the bed or in my closet?
You don't say, well, I have no opinion about that.
I can't tell you that there's no monster under your bed.
I can't tell you that there's no monster in your closet.
Because, I don't know, in some alternate realm, there may be.
I mean, the asshole dad of the year award, if that's what you're telling your kids.
But I bet you that you're not.
I bet you're saying, look, I open up the closet and I poke around in here with a stick.
There are no monsters. No monsters for you.
Nothing to be worried about. Nothing to be scared of.
Chill. And you don't do that, right?
And you don't say to your kid, if your kid says, is there a Santa Claus?
And, you know, because some kid was saying he went through the math at school and said, well, there can't be a Santa Claus because this is how much he'd have to travel and this is the friction of the atmosphere and, you know, they'd be burning up flaming meteor red suit guy.
And so, is there a Santa Claus?
You don't say, well, I can't answer that.
You don't say, I'm agnostic about the existence of Santa Claus.
Why? Because in some alternate dimension, there may be a Santa Claus.
So, I'm not going to say that there isn't a Santa Claus.
People don't say that.
If you're a math teacher, And some kid hands in an assignment, 2 plus 2 is 5.
You're supposed to mark that kid.
Sometimes when I was doing math, when I would come up with a really good solution, but with an incorrect premise, I would sometimes get half marks, or the teacher would say, well, I'm not going to count this one either plus or minus because you did this, that, and that was right, this, that, and that was wrong, and so on.
So if you're a math teacher and somebody starts off with 2 plus 2 is 5, do you then say, well, I can't mark this?
How could I conceivably have an opinion about whether this is in fact correct, that 2 plus 2 is 5 or 2 plus 2 is 4?
I can't have any opinion about that.
I'm agnostic as to whether that's a true or false statement.
I'm certainly not going to say that 2 plus 2 is Sorry, I'm certainly not going to say that 2 plus 2 is not 5, but I'm not going to say that 2 plus 2 is 5.
What I'm going to say is that I can't make up my mind.
Who could conceivably say that there's no place in this or any other universe where 2 plus 2 does not equal 5?
Well... That's not what happens.
Just looking for some common sense here, people.
Just looking for some integrity with how you actually live.
That's all I'm really asking for from the agnostics.
I mean, if this is how you deal with things, fantastic.
I wish I'd had you in math class.
If somebody who is...
If somebody who is in your Euclidean geometry class comes up with the false definition of the triangle inequality theorem or a relation, I think it was called, so we didn't get the TIT acronym, or the opposite angle theorem or whatever, just uses that completely incorrectly and comes up with an absolutely false response, do you say, well, I can't mark this?
I don't know if they're right or wrong.
I have no idea.
Because in some alternate dimension, maybe there is a square circle, or maybe the triangle inequality relationship is something different, or maybe opposite angles aren't equal.
So, really, that is all we're sort of asking for.
All we're sort of asking for, or at least all I'm asking for, is for some basic consistency with relation to how you actually live.
How you actually live.
Somebody shortchanges you at the store.
You hand them a 20, they give you change for a 10.
Do you say, well, I have no opinion about whether I got shortchanged because in some other universe, maybe I didn't.
I mean, that's mental illness.
But you sort of understand what I'm saying?
If you try to live like that consistently, you would never get out of bed because you wouldn't know you're in bed because in some alternate dimension, maybe being in bed is going to work.
This would be a form of psychosis.
Even a psychotic has motivational fantasies.
Fantasies that make them do often quite horrible things.
But that's not how you would actually live your life.
That's not how you do actually live your life.
So... The other thing that is interesting as well about agnosticism, and this is true of skepticism in general, let's have a look at sort of the final, maybe not the final, because, you know, there's pretty much any approach you take to these illogical propositions can kick them out of the realm of truth and reality, but let's have a look at this one.
So, if I say that God does not exist, and the agnostic says that I can have no opinion about whether God exists or not, because there could be some other realm where God does exist and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. I can't say anything about universes that I have not visited and do not know anything about, so God could exist and so on, so on, so on.
Then that's very interesting, of course, because they are making a negative declaration, which is positive.
I'm so sorry to get all my polls mixed up, but what I'm saying is that, not what I am saying, what I mean to say with some slight degree of clarity, is that somebody who says to me, Steph, your statement that there is no God is false.
So, they have no opinion about whether God exists, because in some alternate dimension, God may exist.
So, they will not have an opinion about God, but they will have an opinion about my opinion.
So, agnostics aren't agnostic with regards to atheists.
They say that atheists are logically incorrect.
This is a very important thing to understand.
The agnostic won't come down on either side of the fence about whether there is or is not a God, because they say, well, I can't possibly judge that.
There's some alternate dimension where God might exist.
But they're perfectly happy to say that an atheist is wrong.
So they're perfectly happy to make universal pronouncements about truth and falsehood when it comes to the statement that there is a God, but not about whether there is a God or not.
So, an agnostic is not agnostic about atheism.
An agnostic is not agnostic about agnosticism.
And I know this is a little bit of a sort of head trip, but, you know, just bear with me because I think it's really worth understanding.
It's exactly the same as the statement, you can never be certain about anything.
You can never be Well, that's just nonsense, right?
Because the moment you say you can never be certain about something, lo and behold, you are certain about something, and therefore you've just contradicted yourself, right?
So when an agnostic says, you cannot say that there is no God, that's what he says to the atheist.
And then he turns to the Christian and he says, you cannot say, although they never seem to get around to that, but they then turn to the Christians logically and say, you cannot say that there is a God.
So the agnostic is saying to other people, you cannot make a positive declaration of truth or falsehood.
To say that God does exist is incorrect.
To say that God does not exist is incorrect.
As if there is a door number three, but...
But of course they're saying you can't be certain about God or not, but they're certain about that.
They are certain that the atheists should not say there is no God, and they're equally certain, though never quite as vociferous, that the Christian should not say that there is a God.
So they're opposing the positive absolutist statements of other people through their own positive absolutist statements.
But relative to what?
Relative to what?
Well, they would say, it can't be relative to the world that is.
It can't be relative to the world that is, because there is no evidence for God, and God is innately self-contradictory, and therefore God does not exist.
So an agnostic can never be saying to the atheist, you can't say that there's a God.
And I'm going to tell you that with reference to reality, with some tangible material, our universe.
Because if they did turn to the atheist and say that you can't say that there is no God and I'm going to tell you that with reference to reality, they would be completely incorrect, right?
They would be completely correct in turning to the Christian and saying there is no God and I'm going to tell you that with reference.
I'm certain of that with reference to reality because in reality there, you know, in fact is no God, right?
So that's fine, right?
So... They then turn to the atheist and they say, well, you can't say that there is a God.
And how do I know this?
Because you can't be certain of any statement because you have to measure it relative to some unknown dimension.
But, of course, that very dimension, this dimension X, this universe X, is completely unknowable.
And that's why the agnostic says we can't make any positive statements about the existence of God, or negative statements about the existence of God.
And so the agnostic turns to the atheist and says, you can't make a statement that God does not exist.
And I know that relative to a realm that is unknowable.
But how can you derive knowledge with reference to a realm that is unknowable?
That's exactly what the agnostic is saying to the atheist.
You can't make a positive declaration because there's this realm, unknowable realm, this universe X, which we don't know anything about.
Therefore, you can never make a statement that God does not exist because we don't know anything about it.
And I know that your statement is incorrect because I have gained this knowledge by comparing your statement with dimension X. But do you see how insane that is?
I don't mean that these people are insane, but the logic of it is deranged.
If you understand or if you accept the premise that you can't make any statements of truth or falsehood with any reference involved whatsoever to universe X, to this universe outside this universe or whatever, if you get that you can never make any positive or negative statements with regards to knowledge when you compare it,
to Universe X then the agnostic has absolutely no right to turn to the atheist and say you are incorrect relative to Dimension X because the invocation of Dimension X or the existence of Dimension X with reference to any statement of truth renders it null and void.
Whenever you reference dimension X, you can make no positive or negative declaration because it is an unknown void.
Right?
If I say to you, is X equal to this orange? .
Right? And you say, well, I don't know.
What is X? Is X another orange?
Or is it a pear? Or is it a microphone?
Or what is it? And I say, well, I'm not going to tell you.
I'm not going to tell you what X is, but I want you to tell me whether or not X is equal to this orange.
Well, of course, you're going to say, well, I don't know.
In the database language terms, this is called a null comparison, and it's illegal.
A database doesn't store what something is.
It's just a null, if you allow the database field to do that.
It's a null, which means I don't know what it is.
It's not a zero. I can't say it's a zero because nobody's entered anything into the field.
If you don't know somebody's age, you don't say, well, they're 0 or they're 50.
You say, I don't know. That's what a null is.
And a null comparison is an explicit problem.
You say, is this null value greater than 50?
And I say, well, I don't know, because you're trying to compare x to an orange.
So the moment that you bring dimension x into any comparison whatsoever, no positive knowledge or negative knowledge, no comparison is possible.
It's a null error.
Invalid use of null. And so, by invoking dimension X, the agnostic can in no way, shape, or form turn to the atheist and say, your statement that God exists, that God does not exist, is incorrect relative to dimension X, because dimension X is a null.
It's an unknown. It's a non-knowable.
It's a non-existent. And therefore, any time it comes into a comparison, the only answer is, does not compute, is not possible to compare.
So there's no logical possibility that the agnostic can ever say to the atheist, you cannot be right about the non-existence of God because of dimension X. The moment dimension X comes into the equation, the equation is null.
The moment you invoke something outside the universe, outside of logic, reason, rationality, evidence, science, knowledge, tangibility, sensual empiricism, the moment you invoke this great black void of nullness, Then you can't make a statement about anything.
You can't compare the atheist statement that God does not exist to dimension X because the moment that you do, there's no possibility of comparison.
So the very logic of agnosticism should actually have the agnostic just shut up.
Have nothing to say.
It's an innately self-contradictory statement to say you are wrong relative to Dimension X because Dimension X is by its very nature completely unknowable and therefore cannot be compared with anything.
And this is so, so important to understand.
I don't pick on agnostics because I just get mad at them for not standing up to Christians.
I mean, a little bit.
Okay, just a little bit.
But I pick on agnostics because this is perfectly clear and evident, right?
Nobody's going to have that much difficulty with this if they just recognize that you can't sort of go around through life with your head in a, you know, up your own ass refusing to debate with anybody about the existence of God.
I mean, you can do it, but for God's sake, don't think that you're doing it because you're so high and mighty and intellectually correct.
It is just a form of cowardice.
So, I hope that this is helpful.
I hope that this has been useful to you.
I certainly hope that I don't sort of mean to offend the agnostics.
I just kind of want them to understand.
You know, I sort of want you people out there who are agnostics to understand you don't have an intellectual leg to stand on.
And I don't sort of mean to do this in a mean way.
I'm just sort of pointing out the basic reality and what you need to do.
In my opinion, if you don't mind, I guess if you minded my opinions, you wouldn't be at Podcast 511.
But, in my opinion, what you need to do, if you want to deal with the problems of agnosticism, is forget about the logical arguments.
I mean, obviously agnosticism is a ridiculous position, but...
You need to forget about the arguments, right?
Because the only reason you became an agnostic is because you're afraid of conflict, right?
I mean, this is an important thing to understand as well.
So many important things to understand.
It's like I've got the volume at 11 all the way through the concert.
But... The reason you became an agnostic is not because you reasoned through it, because it's not how you live the rest of your life in any way, shape, or form, and the logic of it is so clear that it doesn't take very long to figure it out.
By that, I in no way, shape, or form mean to indicate in any manner that you're not a very intelligent person.
Agnostics are very, very intelligent people, but they're also broken people.
And they're emotionally broken people.
I can absolutely guarantee you that an agnostic comes from a household wherein conflict was not allowed.
And conflict was not allowed in a self-righteous manner.
Conflict wasn't just, you know, don't you yell back at me or anything like that.
It's like, we don't talk that way.
We don't talk about these topics at the dinner table.
There was kind of a priggy, prissy, sanctimonious kind of conflict, destruction within.
And maybe feminine might be a fair way of characterizing it, but there was an extreme discomfort on the part of your parents or caregivers with conflict.
Which was communicated to you with a kind of haughty and superior disapproval.
I guarantee it. I guarantee it.
That you are not allowed to have conflicts with those around you.
So agnosticism fundamentally is philosophically justified after the fact scar tissue.
Philosophically justified, after the fact, scar tissue.
You're frightened, and I bet with good reason, given your family, you're frightened of conflict.
You're frightened of getting into disputes and debates with people because, fundamentally, you don't have any methodology for resolving it, and it just gets uglier and uglier.
So you, very early on, gave up on the idea of any kind of rational...
Detente or understanding, you have no scientific method within your family.
You have no methodology for objectively resolving disputes, right?
The null zone that this dimension X is your family's defenses, right?
It's not out there at the end of the universe in some other dimension.
It is right in your own heart and it is derived from the abuses and suffocations that occurred for you within your family, right?
So this is sort of an example.
I don't mind going over the intellectual arguments.
But they're not going to help you at all.
Because you're just going to make up some other reason to avoid conflict.
You're just going to make up some other reason.
And this is what people do with their scar tissue.
What people do with their scar tissue is they avoid and then make it virtuous to avoid.
They practice avoidance.
Avoid negative stimuli.
It's pretty common. And then they make up virtuous reasons as to why they should do that, right?
So you never had the ability to speak your mind and to ask questions and to have open conflicts with people that could be resolved in a positive manner.
You were never allowed to do that, and you were bullied for doing it either through withdrawal.
I think mostly it comes through withdrawal of affection and withdrawal and disapproval and pursed-lipped kind of negativity.
So you are manipulated and frightened into not having opinions that were conflicting with those around you.
And so you're frightened of conflict and the scar tissue that forms over that, right, the gassy abstractions that form over that, you call agnosticism.
But agnosticism is exactly the same as non-existence, which is why you avoid it so much, right?
I mean, just sort of talking brother to brother, brother to sister.
Yeah. Agnosticism is exactly the same as non-existence, right?
Not having an opinion, not having the capacity to debate with people, not having the capacity to come to resolutions.
I don't mean it on Freedom in Radio.
I mean sort of in your childhood upbringing.
The non-existence that you talk about is your self.
That's why it feels so real.
But it's a false self.
This dimension X is just a false self.
It's false self nonsense. And the degree to which it gets abstracted in the realm of the agnostic personality is really truly frightening.
And so you're not going to get anywhere by either accepting these arguments or anything like that.
I sort of went through them so that you could see that I do understand where you're coming from.
But Fundamentally, agnosticism is an emotional problem.
It's not an intellectual error.
It is an emotional problem because when you have these beliefs, which you never practice in any other way, shape, or form in your life, but have this special pleading consideration over there in the realm of God, you know that you're not dealing with them.
with anything that is logically thought out, because, of course, it's completely contradictory to everything else and to basic logic, you know that you're dealing with then a situation wherein you've got intellectual reaction formation to an intense amount of hostility for which I have a great deal of sympathy for when you were a child.
So I hope that this helps when it comes to understanding why I have both sympathy for and some problems with the agnostics, right?
It's important to deal with your history and not make up philosophy.
That makes no sense in order to avoid dealing with your past.
I look forward to donations. I haven't had any in two days.
▲
Export Selection