Last time I checked, if you prove something, you "know" it.

Therefore your first example (do you know?) contradicts your third example (have you proof?). Unless you think you can prove something and yet not know it to be true...which seems completely backwards.

As for Arcanus' wording, I think "conclusively established" is a better way of phrasing it for a scale, given that people tend to argue about absolute and relative proof / knowledge.

(July 13, 2009 at 6:13 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Your two questions are good for explaining to a 13 year old, but of course the phrasing can be done in many ways.

For instance the site that leo-rcc posted earlier (http://www.atheismtest.com/) phrases the second question "Do you claim to know either way?".

My personal way of phrasing the second question would be "Do you think you could prove either way?".

All questions deal with knowledge, and/or whether that knowledge can be shown. Of course, the question of whether it can be proven does not have to be objective. For instance a person who "saw" God in a vision might say that God proved its own existence to them, and that God can do the same to other people.

Other people only accept empirical proof, and would say that for various reasons, God could not be proved either way.

I've gone a bit beyond that; I hold that nothing can be proved absolutely (think the classic brain in the jar scenario). Every proof is rather subjective in my mind, but hey, that's just me.

Anyway, I've drifted, but yes, your questions are a good way of describing the atheist/theist agnostic/gnostic positions to a 13 year old.

Adrian,

I purposely phrased the second question the way I did so as to avoid the question of proof because gnosis does not require proof although proof would probably lead to gnosis. I really don't see how a person could be a gnostic atheist either because gnosis is personal knowledge of god. I see how it can be used, it just seems a silly position to hold.

Fr0d0,

What the hell man? There is no yes option along the proof metric? You serve up some tasty waffles when talking about proof, I've seen you swing in both directions and you have even gone so far as to make a post about evidence for God yet you claim there is no proof.

2. Have you proof?
A. No = gnostic (Butter)
B. No = agnostic (Maple syrup)

Rhizo

(July 13, 2009 at 7:14 pm)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: I really don't see how a person could be a gnostic atheist either because gnosis is personal knowledge of god. I see how it can be used, it just seems a silly position to hold.

In the atheist sense, gnostic means knowledge of the non-existence of God. For instance, I'm gnostic about the God of the old testament. We have proven that such events of the Old Testament simply did not take place (6 day creation, Noah's ark, etc) and are merely myth. This is knowledge of a certain God's non-existence.

I'm still agnostic about Gods in general. Specific gods are much easier to disprove since they have stories that can be checked up on.

(July 13, 2009 at 5:07 pm)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: 1. Do you believe there is a god in any form?
A. yes = theist
B. no = atheist

2. Do you make your assertion from personal knowledge?
A. yes = gnostic
B. no = agnostic

I try to reduce things down so I could explain them to a 13 year old.

What am I missing?
Rhizo

First, a fideist would answer both questions with a 'yes', but they would insist (rightly) that they are agnostic—since for them knowledge about God is personal and subjective only; i.e., they cannot communicate anything about God to someone else in any way other than describing their own personal experiences with him (cf. Soren Kierkegaard). And no, a fideist does not ascribe to "secret knowledge" about God a la Gnosticism; merely that their knowledge about God is entirely subjective.

Second, 'gnostic' is used with a lower-case to distinguish it as

Quote:c.1585, from L.L. gnosticus, from Late Gk. gnostikos, noun use of adj. gnostikos "knowing, able to discern," from gnostos "knowable," from gignoskein "to learn, to come to know" (see know) ... The adj. meaning "relating to knowledge" (with lower-case g-) is from 1656.

(July 13, 2009 at 8:20 pm)Tiberius Wrote: I'm gnostic about the God of the Old Testament. We have proven that such events of the Old Testament simply did not take place (6-day creation, Noah's ark, etc.) and are merely myth. This is knowledge of a certain God's non-existence.

Not to quibble, but... this holds only if non-literal interpretations of such events create a logical contradiction in relation to God's existence, which is not apparent on the face of it. Is there a hidden premise? Otherwise, if there is no logical contradiction, then it is possible that God exists and such stories are allegorical.

(July 13, 2009 at 7:14 pm)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: Fr0d0,

What the hell man? There is no yes option along the proof metric? You serve up some tasty waffles when talking about proof, I've seen you swing in both directions and you have even gone so far as to make a post about evidence for God yet you claim there is no proof.

2. Have you proof?
A. No = gnostic (Butter)
B. No = agnostic (Maple syrup)

Rhizo

I have pointed out when challenged: "that there is no trace of proof left by god for us to know he exists" ..that the proof is completely everything around us. This is neither proof nor disproof. How could you seperate out God's signature when everything contains it?

Personally I don't accept that there is proof either way - either for or against. This is consistent.

(July 14, 2009 at 1:44 am)Arcanus Wrote: Not to quibble, but... this holds only if non-literal interpretations of such events create a logical contradiction in relation to God's existence, which is not apparent on the face of it. Is there a hidden premise? Otherwise, if there is no logical contradiction, then it is possible that God exists and such stories are allegorical.

True, but then if the stories are allegorical, the God is completely different from the one portrayed; thus the God portrayed in the allegories does not exist.

@Arcanus,

That would be splitting hairs over the definition of gnostic which happens enough as it is. I would maintain that no matter what premise is on the table that there would be some coo-coo bird belief that says "we agree with the premise but none of the arguments that support it." Simply put, gnostic means knowledge of god from a human standpoint (Rhizo's definition). Human perception is always subjective even when using very acurate measuring tools.

I do believe in objective reality but it can only be approached subjectively because of the inherent biases in our tools. So Fideists be damned!

@fr0d0,

Something that is everywhere and indistinguishable from perceived reality is also nowhere and unimportant. God does not exist.

Rhizo

(July 14, 2009 at 8:13 am)Tiberius Wrote:

(July 14, 2009 at 1:44 am)Arcanus Wrote: Not to quibble, but... this holds only if non-literal interpretations of such events create a logical contradiction in relation to God's existence, which is not apparent on the face of it. Is there a hidden premise? Otherwise, if there is no logical contradiction, then it is possible that God exists and such stories are allegorical.

True, but then if the stories are allegorical, the God is completely different from the one portrayed; thus the God portrayed in the allegories does not exist.

The God portrayed in the allegories is not God as you understand.

(July 14, 2009 at 11:40 am)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: @fr0d0,

Something that is everywhere and indistinguishable from perceived reality is also nowhere and unimportant. God does not exist.

Rhizo

And God also exists (you forgot to add).

I believe people claim to be agnostic to create idiotic semantic debates.

(July 14, 2009 at 5:35 pm)LEDO Wrote: I believe people claim to be agnostic to create idiotic semantic debates.

Ledo,

I'm agnostic atheist because it is lack of evidence that brings me to the conclusion that there is no god. I don't "know" that there is no god.

Rhizo