My views

AgnosticBoy

AgnosticBoy

Open-minded Skeptic
Administrator
Agnostic
Accepts Jesus' Resurrection
Cryptocurrency Enthusiast
Non-atheist and Non-theist
Oct 1, 2020
2,796
1,028
theagnosticforum.com
Worldview

Agnosticism

Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Multicolored Lemur
1. Is Hell a place for eternal punishment?
I lean towards Hell being a place for eternal punishment for those that are not believers. Matthew 25:46 specifically referring to non-believers going away to eternal punishment sealed the deal for me. Matt. 25:46 clearly says "eternal punishment". That would also be consistent with its parallel of "eternal life", unless someone wants to argue why "eternal life" literally means living in Paradise forever, while "eternal punishment" doesn't mean forever in the same context. My only doubt is Matthew 10:28 that talks about the soul being destroyed in hell. If something is destroyed then it would cease to exist.

I do believe that the biblical translators sometimes mix up Gehenna with Hell , but that alone doesn't mean that all mention of Hell is meant to be Gehenna. There are times when the Bible gives a description of "eternal punishment" , and in that case, the concept of Hell as an eternal punishment matches the description.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Scooter
2. Did Jesus come back from the dead - is his resurrection true?
While I don't have scientific level of certainty that it occurred, but I do accept that the resurrection happened based historical level of evidence. The way I look at it is that there is at least basic historical evidence, mostly in the form of witness testimony, reported by multiple independent sources, that Jesus died at one point, and then was found alive at a later point in time. That's all the evidence says in my view. It doesn't tell me how it happened, if or how God was involved, etc. I go by information that people would've seen objectively and reported on, whether it be now or in the past.

The reason I don't accept some of the skeptical explanations is because they leave out details of the story which makes their explanation faulty (it doesn't explain all of the data or it's conveniently selective on which data to include). Another reason is because some skeptics simply dismiss the resurrection because it goes against naturalism. In my view, being in line with metaphysical naturalism doesn't automatically make a story true or false when there is EVIDENCE involved. Evidence is evidence, whether it be for or against naturalism.

Read here for more details on my view:
AgnosticBoy

Featured Thread 'A non-believer's case for the Resurrection'

Imagine that some event in the past is documented. It has multiple attestation, it has explanatory power, etc. Would not such an event be accepted as a historical fact by many, including historians? The answer is yes.

But, then let's say that the event is a supernatural one, like the resurrection of Jesus. Now all of the sudden, the event is not accepted despite having the same level of evidence. To show the absurdity even more, let's say that Jesus's resurrection had many different sources, even from rivals. Even the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate that sentenced Jesus to death says...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Multicolored Lemur
Edit: Added some points at the end....

What is the supernatural?
I view the supernatural as being a domain of existence that exists along side the natural world. In order for the supernatural to exist, there would have to be laws of nature, and those laws would not be absolute in that they don't apply in some cases. The supernatural would simply apply to phenomenon where the laws of nature don't apply.

Many assume that the supernatural involves the non-physical, but I believe it can involve BOTH the physical and non-physical. Many also assume that the supernatural is based on magic, but I believe it's entirely possible for the supernatural to operate under some laws and that these laws co-exist with the laws of nature.

How to identify the supernatural?
I think the main way would be dependent on how certain we are about our natural laws. If we know for sure the a human can't walk on water or come back from the dead in any natural way, then when it happens, that would be supernatural. Some skeptics may try to say that if a resurrection did happen, then that would mean that we misunderstood a law of nature. While being wrong or having an incomplete understanding about some law of nature is possible, but the extraordinary event (a resurrection) would still be valid if it did occur afterall. The only issue would be that we've mislabeled it as being supernatural.

But the one double standard here is when we have skeptics claiming that such events can't occur because they are not natural, but then as soon as they occur, they say it's natural. You can't have it both ways. This double standard might also be due assumptions about the nature of the laws - that they are absolute and unbreakable.
 
Do objective morals exist?

This is one of my favorite questions to answer. I tend to be skeptical of objective moral theories because they tend to not have good grounds for its ontology and epistemology.

When it comes to ontology, I question how objective morals would exist in the Universe. If the purpose of these morality is to preserve order and survival, then I would think morality needs to be consistent for all of existence. But what we have now are different things (humans, viruses, artificial intelligence, etc.) with different moral codes all interacting in the Universe, which leads to the question of who or what is supposed to survive and what decides that. We don't know that humans are meant to survive given the fact that there's so much natural evil in the world. We can follow the rules perfectly and suddenly get hit with a huge asteroid or some pandemic that wipes us out.

When it comes to epistemology, I question if we can reliably know what morals are objective vs. subjective (based on culture and opinion). I would think that there would have to be some objective or scientific way to discover such rules, but as it stands we don't have that. Some say that we can have a general consensus on some of the basic things like do not murder. I question even that because of what I've seen that politics can do to people, leading us to disagree on even the most minor of things. I've seen people argue over if such things are allowed when race is injected into the mix, and in other cases I've even encountered people (mostly Hamas supporters) justifying the murder of children and women.

Basically, I think what we have is just faith in objective morals. Despite all of this, I don't live life in some amoral way, but rather I try to form moral opinions based on what most or all sides could agree with. And of course, to keep myself from facing legal consequences, I follow the law. So rewards and punishment does help either way, as most want rewards and little to none want to be locked up in a cage. Just my two cents!
 
AgnosticBoy said:
Why I'm not a Christian nor Atheist?
Click to expand...
I don't identify with the Christian and Atheist label because i see both sides as being too polarizing and they carry too much philosophical baggage.

When it comes to the polarization, many from both groups act partisan where it seems that supporting their side matters more than getting to the truth. This sometimes have led to both sides not acknowledging the valid points of the other side as if the other side is always wrong. On many Christian and atheist dominated sites that I've participated in, there seems to always be an orthodoxy where questioning some established view is out-of-bounds.

When it comes to my other point, it just seems that each side is entrenched in some worldview, with the Christian side interpreting everything through the lens of the Bible and classical theism, while many atheists just seem bent on supporting metaphysical naturalism or materialism no matter what. I think in this case, worldviews can be a barrier to truth. As an agnostic, I want to be able to follow the evidence whereever it leads, instead of following it up to the point that it supports my worldview. I don't want to be restricted to by a lens or worldview. Now that's intellectual freedom!
 
Last edited:
What is non-physical?
The nonphysical can be anything that does not have any of the properties of matter. It does not occupy space, has no mass, etc. There is at least one example in my view of a nonphysical existence and that is conscious or subjective experience itself. Many philosophers have explained this ranging from the qualitative feels of conscious experience (the "what it's like" to feel pain) from the non-observability of consciousness. In the case of the latter, I think it is easier to demonstrate. For instance, hallucinations can be experienced only from the first-person point of view. If they existed in space and had other physical attributes than others would be able to experience the same thing.

For what it's worth, here's from ChatGPT:
Prompt: Are hallucinations nonphysical?
Response: Yes, hallucinations are typically considered nonphysical experiences. They involve perceiving things that aren't actually present in the external world, like hearing voices or seeing things that aren't there. These experiences can be caused by a variety of factors, such as mental health conditions (like schizophrenia), drug use, sleep deprivation, or neurological issues. Although hallucinations seem real to the person experiencing them, they do not have a physical existence outside of the mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom