(July 4, 2009 at 6:38 am)Arcanus Wrote:(July 3, 2009 at 9:24 am)fr0d0 Wrote: To the lay person I think that would mean someone who has established conclusively that God exists. I think that sounds a bit final and over-stepping the mark. Is that a correct reading?
Um, yes. Conclusively estabished does mean established conclusively. Sort of tautological.
If it sounds "a bit final" then it accomplishes its aim. Is it over-stepping the mark? I don't think so, because a "conclusive" argument is not necessarily one that is somehow universally convincing. Rather, to establish something conclusively is to adequately settle the question. If someone holds that theistic arguments don't adequately settle the question (i.e., not conclusive), then they belong to the agnostic theist category.
I see. I totally agree with this now.
On the same grounds I think you Kyu should declare yourself Gnostic Atheist & not Agnostic Atheist..
You have settled the question. That does not imply absolute proof, just like the opposite of the scale Gnostic Theist does not imply conclusive proof. This new scale has abolished the incorrect & impossible classifications.
