Why Agnostic?

[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