I have a giant box, guess what's in the box. I'm willing to bet 1 million dollars that any guess you make is wrong simply because there are too many possible things that could be in the box. Is that a reasonable bet? Yes.
I have a universe, guess what created it. I'm willing to bet 1 million dollars that any guess you make is wrong simply because there are too many possible things that could have created the universe. Is that a reasonable bet? Yes.
The agnostic makes a different bet. He says he doesn't know what's in the box but there's a 50% chance it's god and a 50% chance it's not.
The real probability is god is but a 1 out of infinite probability where the domain encompasses Bolzman brains and cosmic hippos. The better bet is to say it could be anything BUT god.
Anything but god yields a (infinite - 1)/infinite probability of being correct, aka 100%.
I can't use science to disagree with that opinion because it's religious flame war?
Then logically the article itself is instigating religious flame war.... He argues his side I argue mine.
I don't think your being impartial here. His post attacks my beliefs and I attack his in return who is instigating war here? Your saying he can attack my belief but I can't argue for mine.
Are you saying that if an article shows up on HN supporting logic and science and atheism no religious person can argue against it or offer their opinion?
Grandiose rhetoric on an inflammatory topic makes for low-quality threads and flamewars. We don't want that here.
I'm willing to bet your being biased here and you can't see it. It is very hard to recognize in yourself without asking for personal opinions. I'm willing to bet that you personally highly highly disagree with what I wrote.
If I am right then I think it's quite likely you are completely unaware that your personal opinion influenced you to see what I wrote as grandiose because frankly this entire topic is grandiose. He makes grand claims about the nature of reality citing drug induced experiences as evidence, is that not grandiose?
The evidence of god, or higher dimensional beings is equivalent to the amount of evidence that exists for the cosmic hippo.
Both concepts do not have zero probability of existing but are you really open minded by being agnostic and considering the possibility of the cosmic hippo existing? I just made up the cosmic hippo, like just now. Zero material evidence exist for either concept. But we lend more credit to profound descriptions of god. This is human bias at work. Higher dimensional is a complicated word that is just as absurd as hippo in a tutu.
Agnosticism is not open mindedness it is closed mindedness because the logic behind agnosticism supports consideration of the cosmic hippo as a valid argument for existence.
The key insight is that all descriptions of god are equivalent in absurdity to the cosmic hippo and therefore agnosticism is an an absurd philosophy.
We do not know what created the universe. But because virtually zero evidence exists or hints at what created the universe I can safely say any guess you come up with is completely and utterly wrong. It's like guessing a number between 1 and 9999 trillion trillion. I can safely say if any human on earth made a guess about what this number is... They'd be wrong.