(July 30, 2016 at 4:07 am)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(July 29, 2016 at 11:26 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: It's the plural form of the word agnostic, if you were wondering.

I wasn't.

But it is, if you were.

Would that it were, aaah, would that it were.

(July 30, 2016 at 4:25 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(July 29, 2016 at 9:46 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: I already put forward my final question. Is there something you identify as a God which you believe actually exists, or not?

I think there are some things which I would be willing to call god which I definitely believe MIGHT exist. . . but I don't know if they do or not.

What's the word for believing something might exist?

Maybe I'm an agnostic maybe-theist.

I believe we might live in a simulation, in which case I would be perfectly willing to call our programmer a God. So, you see, in that way, I'm in the same boat as you are. Except for the fact that I do not yet worship this being, since I don't have any tangible reason to believe in exists, only probabilities and theories. I don't have any evidence. My belief would be very much cemented with some evidence. 

Does that make me a theist about it? Of course not. I allow probability for this, but I don't actively believe in it to the point where I'm convinced about it. So I couldn't possibly call myself a theist on the matter. I'm very much an "agnostic atheist" towards the simulation God, just as I am towards the other kinds of Gods, even though I find the former far more appealing scientifically, and far more likely.

You need to figure out whether any of these things you might call God really appeal to your mind to the point where you are more convinced that they exist than you doubt their existence(on a scale of 1 - 100, you'd have to be over the 50 mark to call yourself a believer - I think that's reasonable, don't you?). So, are you, Benny, over the 50% mark on that scale about anything you would/do call a God yourself? -- Because as far as I'm concerned, you couldn't possibly be called a believer in God, unless you call something God yourself.

If a crazy person asks you whether you see a cat and believe in its existence, you respond in the affirmative and then it tells you it considers it to be God, it would be more than silly to call yourself a theist about that cat, yet this is exactly what you have been implying earlier over and over again. So, I think you'll agree, it's far more reasonable to call yourself a theist about an entity only and only if you think of that entity as of a God yourself, otherwise it is something else to you, since we have established already that belief in God is far more subjective than it is objective(for the lack of evidence, of course).

(July 30, 2016 at 11:42 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote: Would that it were, aaah, would that it were.

It still is ok.

^___________________^

Benny: Are you saying you don't know what to believe, or you don't know what you believe?

Or something else?

In my case, I don't know what I believe about it, because I don't know what it is. Once it's been adequately defined (which rarely happens) then I can know what I believe, or don't believe, about it.

@benny:

You've made two different arguments in this thread. First, that gods are not sufficiently well defined so as to be able to categorically answer the belief question. Now you seem to be making an argument about the mechanics of belief and there being an indeterminate state in which neither belief nor disbelief predominates. Both seem to provide adequate foundation for a position of agnosticism on their own. So which one is the foundation of your agnosticism?

Why does everyone act as if agnosticism is how a valid position on its own? Of course it isn't. We're all agnostics, but we're not merely agnostic, we're either atheist or theist agnostics.

(July 30, 2016 at 5:26 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: @benny:

You've made two different arguments in this thread.  First, that gods are not sufficiently well defined so as to be able to categorically answer the belief question.  Now you seem to be making an argument about the mechanics of belief and there being an indeterminate state in which neither belief nor disbelief predominates.  Both seem to provide adequate foundation for a position of agnosticism on their own.  So which one is the foundation of your agnosticism?

I don't think I can point to one of those as exclusively the starting point.  In fact, I'd add others-- a general distrust of the nature of reality and of mind, which makes it hard for me to form beliefs about things in general.  I find it hard, in fact, to see how any serious philosophical-minded person could be more than an agnostic, with regard to God or actually to almost anything else.

(July 30, 2016 at 6:10 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: Why does everyone act as if agnosticism is how a valid position on its own? Of course it isn't. We're all agnostics, but we're not merely agnostic, we're either atheist or theist agnostics.

It changes when you add the "-ism."  This usually points to a systematic belief, rather than just a state.  "Agnostic" literally just means "not knowing."  But "agnosticism" means something like a doctrine or systematic position on not knowing-- it represents (or at least can represent)  a world view, not just an answer to a question.