Why Agnostic?

[Tiberius]

I've got a sneaking suspicion that Richard Dawkins got there first

Assuming you are talking about the actual scale, then yes, but his scale is crap, as I outlined in my article: http://atheistblogger.com/2008/12/23/sca...certainty/

Here is Dawkins scale:
1. Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
2. De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
3. Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
4. Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
7. Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

Dawkins makes butchery of basic terms, which is why I wrote a better one, with proper explanations of my reasoning. For instance, mine does not combine certainty and knowledge within the same attribute, but recognises that one (knowledge) addresses absolute knowledge, and the other (certainty) addresses relative knowledge.

Also, Dawkins erroneously places agnosticism as the mid-point, claiming "God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.". Thomas Huxley would turn in his grave if he read that. Agnosticism isn't a question about probability, it is a question about proof. Just as the defining question that separates theists from atheists is "Do you believe?", the question that separates agnostics from gnostics is "Do you think it can be proven?". An agnostic does not hold that existence and non-existence are equiprobable, but that you cannot know (absolutely) that God exists or not. The probability of God's existence might be very high or very low in your opinion, but the agnostic will never say "I know God exists" or "I know God does not exist".

My scale on the other hand, using separate attributes (knowledge, belief, certainty) to create an accurate scale which people can use. The mid-point is one of apatheism, either not caring to believe or disbelieve, or an honest "I have no opinion".

My Scale:

1. Strong Gnostic Theist - Believes in God, holds God as provable (or proven) and is 100% certain about its existence.
2. Strong Agnostic Theist – Believes in God, holds God as unprovable (or unproven) but is still 100% certain about its existence.
3. Weak Agnostic Theist – Believes in God, holds God as unprovable (or unproven) and is uncertain about its existence.
4. Apatheist – Could be described as 100% uncertain about their beliefs. Usually agnostic, and with a distinct sense of apathy on forming any opinion on the existence of God.
5. Weak Agnostic Atheist – Disbelieves in God, holds God as unprovable (and unproven), but is still uncertain about its non-existence.
6. Strong Agnostic Atheist – Disbelieves in God, holds God as unprovable (and unproven), but is 100% certain about its non-existence.
7. Strong Gnostic Atheist – Disbelieves in God, holds God’s non-existence as provable (or provable), and is 100% certain about its non-existence.

As to the original post:

The first step in a proof is to define the premises. So the first thing I need to do is to define god. As soon as I try to do that I find it impossible to come up with a coherent definition. If it's impossible to define "god" coherently, then the concept must be incoherent. If the concept is incoherent, then it can't exist.

Well done, you just made an atheist's version of the Ontalogical argument, and the original sucked as badly as this one does. You cannot simply define God into existence (or non-existence as you do). The fact that you cannot come up with a coherent definition of God is your problem. It's both an argument from definition and an argument from personal incredulity rolled into one. The fact that there is not a definition for something does not make it untrue, neither does the fact that you are unable to come up with one.

So yes, well done. You have single handedly come up with the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard for atheism. I'm sorry if that offends, but seriously: Worst. Argument. Ever.