• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Opinions on Unobservable Things?

erm

Permabanned
Joined
Jun 19, 2007
Messages
1,652
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
5
Religion and the afterlife was one thing. Now people often claim they know death is eternal oblivion, that they didn't exist before they were born, that they only have one life, that life has no greater purpose, and so on.

I hear these kind of claims all the time, yet I wonder how they are any different from claims to an afterlife.

Essentially what I'm asking is, where's the evidence?

The rational position, from my point of view, is Agnosticism. No evidence, no assumptions.
 

Feops

New member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
829
MBTI Type
INTx
Religion and the afterlife was one thing. Now people often claim they know death is eternal oblivion, that they didn't exist before they were born, that they only have one life, that life has no greater purpose, and so on.

I hear these kind of claims all the time, yet I wonder how they are any different from claims to an afterlife.

Essentially what I'm asking is, where's the evidence?

The rational position, from my point of view, is Agnosticism. No evidence, no assumptions.

"Knowing" seems to be the hot topic today!

Oblivion is a rational conclusion for lack of confidence in a supernatural system. If there is no basis for spiritual interactions then what you're left with is that big meaty lump in your skull. So before it was there, you didn't exist, after it's gone, you won't exist. Both are cases of non-existence, so to be dead is the same as before you were alive.
 

rhinosaur

Just a statistic
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
1,464
MBTI Type
INTP
I support this thread.

My personal opinion on all those unobservable things -- the existence of god, the afterlife, the supernatural, etc. is pretty much uninformed and therefore meaningless. I liken my knowledge of those things to my knowledge of zoology. I have some basic idea of how it works, but the specifics are well beyond my comprehension.

However, as with many other things of which I have little knowledge, I am eager to learn. What can I say, I'm an information slut.
 

Snow Turtle

New member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
1,335
For some it's the default position to be in the negative till the positive has been proven true, and the claim falls on us to do so. Considering that it's currently not possible, we do have abit of a problem. Positive athiesm requires faith, but we need faith in our own perception of the world. :O
 

Sentura

Phoenix Incarnate
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
750
MBTI Type
ENXP
Enneagram
1w9
my gripe is this: agnosticism is the rational choice, at least in our minds. but how about all the other possibilities like, for instance, deism: that there once was a god that has since left us?

considering that we can only see "god" from the human perception, it leaves out much. perhaps the concept of god was never intended for humans to understand, perhaps there was never a reason to believe because "god" didn't want us to believe. perhaps there was never a "god" at all.

i don't buy into neither agnosticism, atheism or religion. discussing or believing something that may be beyond our understanding cannot be justified until we understand the concepts of what we are believing. if there ever was a rational choice, this would be it.
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
Well, my opinion is that we can't know anything about what isn't observable. My default assumption would be to start with the assumption it's not there, but not everyone would make that same one.
 

nozflubber

DoubleplusUngoodNonperson
Joined
Mar 30, 2008
Messages
2,078
MBTI Type
Hype
This is funny....... you ask about unobserverable things and I think of the Atom, and you think of Spiritual stuff. Interesting. Cuz I gotta tell ya, I don't believe in Atoms, either!
 

Fluffywolf

Nips away your dignity
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
9,581
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
It's about what works for you and what doesn't.

I'm not the type of person that could ever settle for anything less then truth. For as far as I can humanly possible unravel that truth. Hence I will always question my beliefs, and linger to the side that is best explained rationally. Which is atheism.

Agnosticism just doesn't work for me. It'd be like burying a hatchet I really want to leave unburied.

I need these concepts on my mind to be happy. I need to question them sufficiently to be happy with my opinion and stance towards it. Only that way can I be at peace with my beliefs. :)
 

JocktheMotie

Habitual Fi LineStepper
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
8,494
This is funny....... you ask about unobserverable things and I think of the Atom, and you think of Spiritual stuff. Interesting. Cuz I gotta tell ya, I don't believe in Atoms, either!

Haha, likewise. I came into this thread thinking of Dark Energy, Dark Matter, the Higgs boson/field, gravity, and time. I realized it was spiritually centered and quickly got bored.
 

Fluffywolf

Nips away your dignity
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
9,581
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
If you don't believe in atoms, then what -did- happen to Hiroshima? :/
 

erm

Permabanned
Joined
Jun 19, 2007
Messages
1,652
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
5
Oblivion is a rational conclusion for lack of confidence in a supernatural system. If there is no basis for spiritual interactions then what you're left with is that big meaty lump in your skull. So before it was there, you didn't exist, after it's gone, you won't exist. Both are cases of non-existence, so to be dead is the same as before you were alive.

But that 'rational' conclusion is riddled with assumptions.

Most notably, that we know anything about before we were alive. The only conclusion I can come to about before I was alive is that I have no memories of it.

I agree that the brain and the mind are strongly linked, but to say one causes the other or vice versa is impossible at the moment. Yes, it's a safe assumption to say if the brain changes, so does the mind. But what's to stop the brain from reforming? Afterall it won't 'go', merely change shape and evidence suggests come back in a few googelplex years. That's a massive extrapolation with our limited knowledge of the laws of physics, but an equal one to saying we'll cease to exist.

This is funny....... you ask about unobserverable things and I think of the Atom, and you think of Spiritual stuff. Interesting. Cuz I gotta tell ya, I don't believe in Atoms, either!

Except, the atom is observable.

Not directly observable, but their effects can be seen. Some spiritual things can be disproven, but only the ones that need to be observable in order for them to be true.

Haha, likewise. I came into this thread thinking of Dark Energy, Dark Matter, the Higgs boson/field, gravity, and time. I realized it was spiritually centered and quickly got bored.

Those are all very observable though. It would have been false advertising to put them in this thread.

I suppose 'unobserved' would have been a better word.

This isn't spiritually centered. None of the examples I gave in the OP are anymore spiritual than physics.
 

JocktheMotie

Habitual Fi LineStepper
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
8,494
Those are all very observable though. It would have been false advertising to put them in this thread.

I suppose 'unobserved' would have been a better word.

This isn't spiritually centered. None of the examples I gave in the OP are anymore spiritual than physics.

They are not observable. They were created to explain observations and predicted by theories. That is not the same. In a way, I do not find Noz's skepticism on atoms all that unreasonable, however I myself believe there is sufficient evidence to say that they do indeed exist.
 

erm

Permabanned
Joined
Jun 19, 2007
Messages
1,652
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
5
They are not observable. They were created to explain observations and predicted by theories. That is not the same. In a way, I do not find Noz's skepticism on atoms all that unreasonable, however I myself believe there is sufficient evidence to say that they do indeed exist.

Last I checked gravity and time are names given to the observed effects. Nothing extra is added when people create these concepts.

So, when someone observes masses enacting a force upon each other relative to their mass and the distance between them, they call it gravity. Completely observable.

Dark matter and energy have some slight assumptions involved, which is why people are setting out to prove their existence by observing every type of effect they are supposed to have on the observable universe.

I'm not sure about the Higgs Boson thing, but I do know there's a very large particle accelerator that was intended to allow us to observe it.
 

JocktheMotie

Habitual Fi LineStepper
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
8,494
Last I checked gravity and time are names given to the observed effects. Nothing extra is added when people create these concepts.

So, when someone observes masses enacting a force upon each other relative to their mass and the distance between them, they call it gravity. Completely observable.

Dark matter and energy have some slight assumptions involved, which is why people are setting out to prove their existence by observing every type of effect they are supposed to have on the observable universe.

I'm not sure about the Higgs Boson thing, but I do know there's a very large particle accelerator that was intended to allow us to observe it.

I understand what you are saying now, and in how you say them, I agree. I do not doubt the existence of these things because of their effects on the universe, however so far their components are not observable as of yet. We have predictions on masses and components of these particles and energies but they elude interaction the electromagnetic spectrum, which is very bizarre. The graviton is such a tiny boson that we cannot find it yet, and furthermore, is a spin-2 particle, of which I do not think has ever been observed either. We also haven't found a gravity "wave" yet either.

It just seems our criteria for "observable" is different.
 

erm

Permabanned
Joined
Jun 19, 2007
Messages
1,652
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
5
I understand what you are saying now, and in how you say them, I agree. I do not doubt the existence of these things because of their effects on the universe, however so far their components are not observable as of yet. We have predictions on masses and components of these particles and energies but they elude interaction the electromagnetic spectrum, which is very bizarre. The graviton is such a tiny boson that we cannot find it yet, and furthermore, is a spin-2 particle, of which I do not think has ever been observed either. We also haven't found a gravity "wave" yet either.

It just seems our criteria for "observable" is different.

Fair enough. Essentially I don't think it's rational to say anything exists until it has been observed. I formed this belief from the premise 'existence is observation, nothing more'.

Speculation about what exists based on limited observation is rational as well. As long as it remains just that, speculation, without further evidence.

Agnosticism just doesn't work for me. It'd be like burying a hatchet I really want to leave unburied.

It's a fair enough from me to most of your post, except this bit.

You can be an agnostic and not give up on finding an answer.

I'm talking about weak agnosticism, which states we don't even know whether we can know about these things. As opposed to strong agnosticism, which states we can never know about these things.

I need these concepts on my mind to be happy. I need to question them sufficiently to be happy with my opinion and stance towards it. Only that way can I be at peace with my beliefs. :)

I quite like not having an idea of what happens in these 'spiritual areas', makes life feel more like an adventure. Like you though, I want the truth more than that feeling.

When I do speculate, it ends up like this The Pros and Cons of Eternity. That is vastly too limited for me to even consider it a coherent idea, as of yet.
 

JocktheMotie

Habitual Fi LineStepper
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
8,494
Fair enough. Essentially I don't think it's rational to say anything exists until it has been observed. I formed this belief from the premise that, existence is only observation, nothing more.

I think that premise is a sound one. But I actually think the opposite. It was "observed" that the sun revolved around the earth, for a very long time. However there wasn't a mechanism attributed to this. The universe used to be filled with ether because how else would the light waves propagate? We now use similar arguments for these things like dark matter and dark energy. "Well if it didn't exist, what could it be?"

Until I can "see" the particles, forces, masses, ie, the mechanisms for some of these things I will always be skeptical and looking deeper for Truth.
 
Top