Why Agnostic?

[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!