(April 26, 2009 at 10:59 am)erniesam Wrote: Still, I do have a question: if a god, which supposedly finds itself in the unknown, is unknowable to us, how can you speak of it in the first place. By stating: you can't prove or disproven the existence of a god you are saying something about the unknown.Agnosticism is more than a position about the unknown though, it is a position about the unknowable. Yes, we are asserting something about the unknown, but we do this through logical inference. Logically, gods are unknowable beings, there is no way, scientifically, that you can prove or disprove the existence of beings that are omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient, because all those attributes combined produce something that defies science. In other words, let us suppose that a God does exist, and has all three omni- attributes. We can deduce therefore that this being has the knowledge and ability to hide itself from detection, even though it is omnipresent. In this way, there is no difference (that we can tell) between a non-existing god and a god that hides itself willingly.
On the other hand, if this being existed and made itself detectable, it is thwarted by the same constraints that make it God. There is no way to prove to humanity that you have omniscience, or omnipotent, or even omnipresence since all of them involve infinities which are inaccessible by science. A good example of this is a story my friends and I like to go over, which involves an advanced alien arriving on the planet Earth, descending in a beam of pure light whilst trumpets and angelic voices ring out all across the world. To most people, this figure would be as a God, but my friends and I agree that the first thing we would ask it is "Can we have some of that technology?!?!?". Suitably advanced aliens are indistinguishable from gods, and so agnosticism is the only logical position to take.
As for saying something about the unknown, I hardly think it is a bad thing. You yourself say something about the unknown by calling yourself a "non-theist". You do not believe in theism, and theism is the belief in gods, which are (as I have already explained) unknown entities. Thus your rejection of theism is ultimately a stance on the unknown, only a more logical one.
Anyway, I apologise for calling you "ignorant" in my first response it wasn't polite and was uncalled for. I've just had some bad news about a student group I'm involved with, so I was more than a bit pissed off. Plus, I'm always annoyed when people misrepresent positions such as atheism and agnosticism, even though in your case it was unintentional.
What I should have said was "Welcome to the forums!"
