Why Agnostic?

[Tiberius]

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

I believe about 50% of your posts are pointless...and I'm probably right.

[LEDO]

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

I am just making this statement based upon my keen observations of this thread.

[Ryft]

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.

How is God altered if the stories are allegorical? I am not aware that allegorical narratives by definition cannot portray actual entities (e.g., describing some characteristic of an entity via an allegorical aid).

[Kyuuketsuki]

This is not about something that is empirically measurable, it is about belief and, as such, we are in a very different ball game ... we are still in a two state scenario i.e. you cannot "not know" whether you believe a given claim or not, you either do or you don't. IOW your given scenario is irrelevant to the question at hand ... I suppose I could (but won't since I don't greatly care) even argue that your use of it constituted a strawman.

Again, you simply are not listening.

No Adrian, I AM listening I just don't agree with you ... that's the point!

Agnosticism is not about "not knowing" whether you believe. It is about actually knowing something rather than just believing it. Do you accept that knowledge and belief are completely different things? i.e. that you can believe something without "knowing" if it is the truth?

No, it's not ... no one can KNOW (nothing is absolute) therefore it cannot be about knowing.

My scenario was perfectly valid in explaining the difference between belief and knowledge; it was not a strawman. You simply read it with an honestly bizarre misconception about agnosticism meaning "not knowing what one believes".

No it wasn't for reasons already given.

Accepting for a moment your point that it is possible to view the existence of deity as unknown and unknowable this still leaves us with a person who is either atheist or theist and give that the claim that a deity is unknown or unknowable (one I don't agree with since I see no reason to accept ANY claim that something has no empirical attributes) proves absolutely [expletive deleted] we are left with it being nothing more than a philosophical dodge i.e. the theist or atheist that would like to believe there remains the possibility of such a being yet cannot support it in any way empirically has no choice but to retreat into the psychobabble of modern day philosophy.

It's not about wanting to believe that there remains a possibility, it's a about being intellectually honest. In my opinion, nobody can say "there is a god" or "there is no god" as a factual statement. The being known as "god" has been defined with supernatural qualities, and thus cannot possibly be known empirically (as you observed).

I never said such a being could not be observed empirically ... my argument has always been that any claimed being must have observable aspects.

On that note, you contradict yourself. You say you will not accept any claim that something has no empirical attributes, yet this leaves you in a position of unknown as well. So whilst you argue against my point, you seem to actually agree with it.

No, it leaves the burden of proof on the claimant pure & simple.

Not really! Quite simply this explains why I regard the entire idea of agnosticism as wishy-washy rubbish ... it is also the reason (since you evidently do believe it is a valid POV) why I didn't want to continue arguing this with you, why I thought we were done ... we are on different planes, we don't see things the same way indeed in some ways I feel you are closer to Frodo's POV than mine.

Frodo's point of view is that we all have knowledge of God, which is truly bizarre. I argue the complete opposite. It's a puzzle why we are on different planes though; I suspect it is because you have this confused notion of agnosticism that you just cannot let go, and you have certainly proved in your response that you aren't listening to me when I explain the difference between belief and knowledge. If you didn't want to argue this with me, why are you? I admit you're not actually making any worthy attempt to rebut my points, but perhaps you have a problem with "last word syndrome".

Perhaps I do but no more than you since had previously considered this matter settled and it was YOU who insisted I continue the discussion.

When I said you were closer to Frodo's POV I didn't mean you were a believer but that you were closer in philosophical terms and I believe you are ... based on something Frodo said you said (never saw you say it) it appears that you believe that to test for a god like being you need god-like tools, I do not agree, I believe that in order to affect this universe something has to have an effect and such effects can be measured, tested, examined ... that the being supposedly causing them is some whacked up super-dude is entirely irrelevant.

Anyway, whether you respond to my points is up to you, but if you do decide to respond, please respond to what I've said, and not just pick things out of it.

I don't and, as I have repeatedly said, you & I see this (and many other things) from completely different points of view. .. if it's OK with you (oh please, please Mr. Adrian, please) I'll evaluate things from MY philosophy and not YOURS. That OK?

Kyu

[Tiberius]

How is God altered if the stories are allegorical? I am not aware that allegorical narratives by definition cannot portray actual entities (e.g., describing some characteristic of an entity via an allegorical aid).

I'm talking about actual events. The God of the Old Testament who created the world in 6 days does not exist because there was no 6 day creation. The God of the Old Testament who flooded the world does not exist because there was no global flood.

etc.

---

---

No Adrian, I AM listening I just don't agree with you ... that's the point!

You said

we are still in a two state scenario i.e. you cannot "not know" whether you believe a given claim or not, you either do or you don't

Yet I have never claimed agnosticism means "not knowing whether you believe" . This is something you keep on saying in your rebuttals, and it counts for nothing since you aren't actually responding to my point! Hence my accusation that you weren't listening. My view of agnosticism (the one original defined by Huxley) is that of actually knowing (absolute knowledge), not whether you know or don't know whether you believe a claim.

To be an agnostic according to Huxley, you say that it is impossible to know anything absolutely (although the word usually associates with purely "knowledge of God". In other words, if someone comes forward claiming knowledge of God, the agnostic says this is impossible. Typical brain in a jar scenario; we cannot know anything absolutely.

No, it's not ... no one can KNOW (nothing is absolute) therefore it cannot be about knowing.

My point exactly...an agnostic is one who holds the view that nothing can be absolutely known. Atheism/Theism covers belief, Agnosticism/Gnosticism covers claims of knowledge. The gnostic claims spiritual knowledge, or that God's existence/non-existence can be "known". The agnostic claims otherwise.

No it wasn't for reasons already given.

You didn't give any reasons. You said "I suppose I could (but won't since I don't greatly care) even argue that your use of it constituted a strawman" (emphasis mine). I'd love to see why you think it is a strawman...if you can find the time to "care" to give me a response.

I never said such a being could not be observed empirically ... my argument has always been that any claimed being must have observable aspects.

Yet if such a being had omnipotence, surely it could alter the minds of observers like yourself? I mean, it's the standard argument used by philosophers. Technically speaking, the world could have been created last Thursday and everything made to look older than it really is, our minds created to think this way. It's also a creationist argument, but it does raise interesting questions. Perhaps you could explain how we can empirically observe such a being? It seems that if you agree with me that there are no absolutes, empiricism is meaningless when dealing with such a being. It can only tell us the probability of something existing of happening the way we think it does (relative knowledge); it cannot tell us anything absolutely.

Another example perhaps, but how would you test a being of omniscience? If a man walked into your office and said "Kyu, I am God". How would you be able to test this man? All tests for omniscience require the examiner to also be omniscient...

When I said you were closer to Frodo's POV I didn't mean you were a believer but that you were closer in philosophical terms and I believe you are ... based on something Frodo said you said (never saw you say it) it appears that you believe that to test for a god like being you need god-like tools, I do not agree, I believe that in order to affect this universe something has to have an effect and such effects can be measured, tested, examined ... that the being supposedly causing them is some whacked up super-dude is entirely irrelevant.

I agree with you, but this only extends to gods who do not claim omnipotence. Gods who can do anything can cover up their changes, or even affect the entire nature of the universe to make it look like the changes ever happened. That is mine (and fr0d0's apparently) point about testing gods. Furthermore,
if a being had omniscience, they would know how to change the affect the universe without revealing themselves.

Also, you assume that we can measure everything in this universe, which I disagree with. You also seem to think empiricism holds all the answers, yet you have admitted that there are no absolutes. I cannot seem to bring together your two views; that there are no absolutes (I agree with this one), but that we can measure the affects of a god and deduce that it is...a god.

[Kyuuketsuki]

No Adrian, I AM listening I just don't agree with you ... that's the point!

You said

we are still in a two state scenario i.e. you cannot "not know" whether you believe a given claim or not, you either do or you don't

Yet I have never claimed agnosticism means "not knowing whether you believe" . This is something you keep on saying in your rebuttals, and it counts for nothing since you aren't actually responding to my point! Hence my accusation that you weren't listening. My view of agnosticism (the one original defined by Huxley) is that of actually knowing (absolute knowledge), not whether you know or don't know whether you believe a claim.

That was a mistake (brain fuzz) ... I meant I have never claimed agnosticism is about knowing (real knowledge). The [expletive deleted] up expressions of modern day philosophy never made a great deal of sense to me, part of the reason I consider it psychobabble.

To be an agnostic according to Huxley, you say that it is impossible to know anything absolutely (although the word usually associates with purely "knowledge of God". In other words, if someone comes forward claiming knowledge of God, the agnostic says this is impossible. Typical brain in a jar scenario; we cannot know anything absolutely.

Nothing (no explanation, at least in science, the only philosophy I recognise as valid) is held to be absolute, that I agree with ... my problem is with knowledge about belief, you cannot not know whether you believe or not, that's the two state affair.

No, it's not ... no one can KNOW (nothing is absolute) therefore it cannot be about knowing.

My point exactly...an agnostic is one who holds the view that nothing can be absolutely known. Atheism/Theism covers belief, Agnosticism/Gnosticism covers claims of knowledge. The gnostic claims spiritual knowledge, or that God's existence/non-existence can be "known". The agnostic claims otherwise.

Agnostics (the non-"don't know" kind) hold the view that it is impossible to have knowledge of "god" and it is that I disagree with ... if it exists, if it affects our universe e, THERE WILL BE KNOWLEDGE (as in evidence). To say otherwise is a philosophical dodge, BS, wishy-washy rubbish.

No it wasn't for reasons already given.

You didn't give any reasons. You said "I suppose I could (but won't since I don't greatly care) even argue that your use of it constituted a strawman" (emphasis mine). I'd love to see why you think it is a strawman...if you can find the time to "care" to give me a response.

Actually I did answer it, I said: "This is not about something that is empirically measurable, it is about belief and, as such, we are in a very different ball game ... we are still in a two state scenario i.e. you cannot "not know" whether you believe a given claim or not, you either do or you don't. IOW your given scenario is irrelevant to the question at hand ... I suppose I could (but won't since I don't greatly care) even argue that your use of it constituted a strawman."

I never said such a being could not be observed empirically ... my argument has always been that any claimed being must have observable aspects.

Yet if such a being had omnipotence, surely it could alter the minds of observers like yourself? I mean, it's the standard argument used by philosophers. Technically speaking, the world could have been created last Thursday and everything made to look older than it really is, our minds created to think this way. It's also a creationist argument, but it does raise interesting questions. Perhaps you could explain how we can empirically observe such a being? It seems that if you agree with me that there are no absolutes, empiricism is meaningless when dealing with such a being. It can only tell us the probability of something existing of happening the way we think it does (relative knowledge); it cannot tell us anything absolutely.

Obviously I cannot disprove "last thursdayism" any more than I can disprove the desk in front of me isn't real or that we do not live in computer simulation ... these are all stupid (really [expletive deleted] pathetic scenarios. I deal with the world we observe, I (like every other scientist/genuine science adherent) make the basic assumption that the universe is rational and that it operates according to a consistent and explainable set of rules.

If you genuinely think there is merit to any of these concepts such as the world being real then I invite you (or anyone else) to step out in front of a fast moving lorry to test it ... I further invite you (and anyone else) once that test is done to come back and let us know how it goes.

Another example perhaps, but how would you test a being of omniscience? If a man walked into your office and said "Kyu, I am God". How would you be able to test this man? All tests for omniscience require the examiner to also be omniscient...

Legal issues aside, smack him round the head repeatedly with an office chair ... if he dies he's not god. If he doesn't then I'll be looking for other explanations.

When I said you were closer to Frodo's POV I didn't mean you were a believer but that you were closer in philosophical terms and I believe you are ... based on something Frodo said you said (never saw you say it) it appears that you believe that to test for a god like being you need god-like tools, I do not agree, I believe that in order to affect this universe something has to have an effect and such effects can be measured, tested, examined ... that the being supposedly causing them is some whacked up super-dude is entirely irrelevant.

I agree with you, but this only extends to gods who do not claim omnipotence. Gods who can do anything can cover up their changes, or even affect the entire nature of the universe to make it look like the changes ever happened. That is mine (and fr0d0's apparently) point about testing gods. Furthermore, if a being had omniscience, they would know how to change the affect the universe without revealing themselves.

A viewpoint I have already made clear I consider philosophical hogwash.

Also, you assume that we can measure everything in this universe, which I disagree with. You also seem to think empiricism holds all the answers, yet you have admitted that there are no absolutes. I cannot seem to bring together your two views; that there are no absolutes (I agree with this one), but that we can measure the affects of a god and deduce that it is...a god.

I said everything in the universe is empirically measurable (or potentially so) given sufficient advances in technology (resolution).

Kyu

[Tiberius]

Nothing (no explanation, at least in science, the only philosophy I recognise as valid) is held to be absolute, that I agree with ... my problem is with knowledge about belief, you cannot not know whether you believe or not, that's the two state affair.

I agree, you cannot "not" know whether you believe or not, but again this is at all what agnosticism is about. Agnosticism is about knowledge in general, not knowledge of belief. This is the point that we keep dancing around because you keep using this weird definition of agnosticism that I have never used.

I'm on your side in this. I agree with you, you cannot not know what you believe, so people who say "I don't know what I believe" are mistaken (or lying). If they claim they are agnostics, they are equally mistaken. Agnosticism is about know-ability of actual things (physical objects if you will), not concepts like beliefs.

Agnostics (the non-"don't know" kind) hold the view that it is impossible to have knowledge of "god" and it is that I disagree with ... if it exists, if it affects our universe e, THERE WILL BE KNOWLEDGE (as in evidence). To say otherwise is a philosophical dodge, BS, wishy-washy rubbish.

Evidence and knowledge are completely different things (you should know that). If you are saying that there should be evidence of gods, then I'd agree. However to go from this to say that any evidence is immediately "knowledge" is a leap. Evidence is interpreted; it was once thought that the mere existence of humans (evidence) pointed to God's existence. Then we found perfectly natural ways of explaining the same evidence. This doesn't disprove God's existence anymore than the original interpretation proved it, and you will still find theistic evolutionists who claim that the process of evolution (or the complex nature of DNA) is evidence that points towards God's existence.

As I have stated before, I am gnostic about several gods, and I use your stance to back up my position. Science has long ago shown that certain events of the old testament never happened, meaning the specific god of that text does not exist. However to say that all gods do not exist (or require evidence to back up their existence) is ridiculous. The deistic god by definition is one which does not interfere, and although some people (notably Anthony Flew) claim that DNA points to design, it can equally point to coincidence. Patterns form in nature, as they do on pieces of toast, and it is all down to interpretation.

This is why I am agnostic in general to gods; because they are unknown beings, because we cannot deduce anything from them. They might not exist at all, but they might just as easily exist but cover their tracks, or leave clues that are interpreted by some but not by others. I mean, if the starts suddenly formed the message "God exists" in the sky, would you count that as evidence? Many people would, but before we make the leap to "supernatural being", there are many more explanations, and whilst there are still explanations, there can be no "knowledge".

Actually I did answer it, I said: "This is not about something that is empirically measurable, it is about belief and, as such, we are in a very different ball game ... we are still in a two state scenario i.e. you cannot "not know" whether you believe a given claim or not, you either do or you don't. IOW your given scenario is irrelevant to the question at hand ... I suppose I could (but won't since I don't greatly care) even argue that your use of it constituted a strawman."

I've already dealt with how agnosticism is about knowledge in general and not "knowledge of belief" in a previous paragraph. My example was perfectly reasonable for explaining the difference between them, and was not a strawman. In fact, I hold that it was your "rebuttal" that was the strawman.

Obviously I cannot disprove "last thursdayism" any more than I can disprove the desk in front of me isn't real or that we do not live in computer simulation ... these are all stupid (really [expletive deleted] pathetic scenarios. I deal with the world we observe, I (like every other scientist/genuine science adherent) make the basic assumption that the universe is rational and that it operates according to a consistent and explainable set of rules.

The point of last thursdayism and "brain in a jar" scenarios is that they are philosophical questions about the very nature of reality. The "world we observe" as you put it might not be reality in any shape or form. Hence why we can only speak of relative knowledge. I agree, we must make the assumption that the universe is (rational? I would have said ordered) and that it operates according to rules, but that does not stop the fact that it might all be an elaborate ruse; a simulation. We can explain the universe in which we live in a relative way, but not in an absolute way. That is the point of scenarios like "last thursdayism"; to explain how absolute knowledge might exist, but that we cannot ever be certain what we "know" is the absolute truth.

If you genuinely think there is merit to any of these concepts such as the world being real then I invite you (or anyone else) to step out in front of a fast moving lorry to test it ... I further invite you (and anyone else) once that test is done to come back and let us know how it goes.

It's a hypothetical scenario, posed by philosophers to explain concepts of relative knowledge. Of course, I operate under the same assumptions as you; that this universe is real, and it can be discovered through science. Point is, all we discover is relative to us; it might not actually exist.

Legal issues aside, smack him round the head repeatedly with an office chair ... if he dies he's not god. If he doesn't then I'll be looking for other explanations.

Of course in the first scenario (the wacking of the head), you are assuming that gods cannot die, but I hold that since gods are unknown beings they might be able to, which further strengthens my point about agnosticism...we can't know.

Second scenario (look for other explanation), what would be an example of something that could prove he was God?

A viewpoint I have already made clear I consider philosophical hogwash.

Hogwash to you maybe, but it is a perfectly valid position as it could be true. Please explain though, how you could test a god that covered his tracks, or who knew how to change the universe without revealing themselves.

You've already admitted you cannot disprove last thursdayism, so how is this any different? Why call something "hogwash" when you know it is logical (given the definitions of omniscience and omnipotence). It's annoying, I'll give you that, but when you have infinite abilities like the aforementioned ones, you get annoying results.

I said everything in the universe is empirically measurable (or potentially so) given sufficient advances in technology (resolution).

Yet this is an absolute statement, something you have said cannot hold. What if there was some property of the universe that cannot be measured? You can't make absolute statements when you do not know anything absolutely...it's a contradiction in terms!

[Purple Rabbit]

still there folks??...

latest local news...potatoes 2 cents up the kilo, cucumbers 1 cent down a piece, colliflower...errrr...zzzzzzzzz

[bozo]

still there folks??...

latest local news...potatoes 2 cents up the kilo, cucumbers 1 cent down a piece, colliflower...errrr...zzzzzzzzz

I'm quite enjoying it actually...maybe they'll take the gloves off...eventually.

[Ryft]

I'm talking about actual events. The God of the Old Testament who created the world in six days does not exist because there was no six-day creation. The God of the Old Testament who flooded the world does not exist because there was no global flood, etc.

Right, that's what I thought. And it is a non-sequitur. It simply does not follow that "God is completely different from the one portrayed" (Msg. #126). It is some specific action of God's that would be completely different from the one portrayed, not his nature or very existence; i.e., acts of God (e.g., six-day creation) are separate from attributes of God (e.g., omnipotence).

• "You say God created the world in six days. Since there was no six-day creation, you are therefore...
  • ... wrong about God's existence."
    
  • ... wrong about God's nature."
    
  • ... wrong about how long creation took."