Agnostic Theists?

[rexbeccarox]

Theists: do you consider yourselves gnostic or agnostic?

I'm guessing I'll get a bunch of crickets, but, hey! It's worth a try!

[Jacob(smooth)]

Tricky. My problem with the question is that agnostic seems by the definition I read to be more than simply the opposite of gnostic.

Could you clarify your question for me?

[rexbeccarox]

Gnostic: I know for sure.

Agnostic: I don't/can't know for sure.

[FreeTony]

In regards to the question "does a God exist"?



Someone who thinks they actually have a two way conversation with God I'd imagine is a Gnostic Theist.

Note Gnostic Atheist is not the same as Strong Atheist. Strong Atheist is (I think) someone who believes the reverse statement "No God exists", but isn't Gnostic about this statement.


Another thing people have a really hard time getting around is you can disbelieve both statements regarding the existence of something.

E.g. You can disbelieve both the statement "A God exists" and "No God exists" in the same way if rolling a dice you disbelieve both the statement "I will roll a 6" and "I will not roll a 6".

Someone who disbelieves both statements "A God exists" and "No God exists" is an Atheist by this definition, though sometimes they do describe themselves as just an Agnostic.

[Rayaan]

When speaking of knowledge, I think what we have to differentiate here is inherent knowledge versus acquired knowledge.

For example, some theists might say that they do "know" that God exists, but this type of knowing is different type of knowing. It's not the kind of knowledge where you can prove or demonstrate to everyone else that you clearly know the truth. Rather, it is an inner knowing or a very subjective knowing, and thus there is no way for them to prove that which they claim to know. The knowledge might be so deeply ingrained in their psyches that it manifests itself as "belief" at a conscious level. They feel that their knowledge of the existence of God is something innate. That is what I feel also.

So, according to that explanation, I would say that I am a gnostic theist. I know that God exists, but I still cannot prove what I claim to know. Even in mathematical systems, a logician named Kurt Godel (in his Incompleteness Theorem) proved that there are certain axiomatic statements which we know are true, but still they cannot be proved to be true.

"Godel showed that provability is a weaker notion than truth, no matter what axiom system is involved " - Douglas Hofstadter

http://www.miskatonic.org/godel.html

[max-greece]

In regards to the question "does a God exist"?



Someone who thinks they actually have a two way conversation with God I'd imagine is a Gnostic Theist.

Note Gnostic Atheist is not the same as Strong Atheist. Strong Atheist is (I think) someone who believes the reverse statement "No God exists", but isn't Gnostic about this statement.


Another thing people have a really hard time getting around is you can disbelieve both statements regarding the existence of something.

E.g. You can disbelieve both the statement "A God exists" and "No God exists" in the same way if rolling a dice you disbelieve both the statement "I will roll a 6" and "I will not roll a 6".

Someone who disbelieves both statements "A God exists" and "No God exists" is an Atheist by this definition, though sometimes they do describe themselves as just an Agnostic.

Not sure I agree with this:

Theist - someone who believes there is a God.
Atheist - someone who does not believe there is a God.
Agnostic - holds neither opinion - usually on the basis of insufficient evidence either way.

Whilst either the theist or the atheist may be 100% certain of their belief it isn't actually required:

I believe there is a God, but I may be wrong - still theist.
I do not believe there is a God but I may be wrong - still atheist.

IMHO and all that.

[FreeTony]

Even in mathematical systems, a logician named Kurt Godel (in his Incompleteness Theorem) proved that there are certain axiomatic statements which we know are true, but still they cannot be proved to be true.

"Godel showed that provability is a weaker notion than truth, no matter what axiom system is involved " - Douglas Hofstadter

http://www.miskatonic.org/godel.html

Isn't that where scientific thinking comes in? There are problems in Mathematics that have not been solved, however all the evidence points to them being true.

For example say we couldn't prove Pythagoras' Theorem. We could cut out thousands of triangles and measure them and they would all fit the rule. We can never say with 100% certainty it holds, as we might find a triangle that doesn't fit the pattern.

It begs the question how did Gobel know something was true in the first place? In mathematics it's definitely not some deep held feeling that it is true, and probably a process like with the triangles.

I don't think* you can prove that a circle has diameter 2*pi*r, I think it's something you have to assume by measurement alone.

* Please let me know if this isn't true, I'm not a Pure Mathematician

---

Not sure I agree with this:

Theist - someone who believes there is a God.
Atheist - someone who does not believe there is a God.
Agnostic - holds neither opinion - usually on the basis of insufficient evidence either way.

Whilst either the theist or the atheist may be 100% certain of their belief it isn't actually required:

I believe there is a God, but I may be wrong - still theist.
I do not believe there is a God but I may be wrong - still atheist.

IMHO and all that.

The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim "A God Exists". No evidence is required to disbelieve the claim.

An Atheist is not making a positive claim, they just do not accept the claim.

As with the rolling dice example, you can disbelieve "the dice will be a 6" without having to believe "the dice won't be a 6". In this example I would disbelieve both claims.

"The dice will be a 6" is the equivalent of the Theist claim, so disbelieving this statement makes me a dice Atheist. I still have no opinion on what score the dice will give, and it could well be a 6.

Having said all that, most people I know would disagree with all this and just call themselves Agnostics!

[Upside Down Dog]

I don't think being Gnostic is achievable; ie, no one can be a 1 or 7. No one is omniscient, so it's impossible to make the claim that you "know". There is no 100%.

That being said, I'm an agnostic theist. 1.4-1.6 on the scale.

[Godscreated]

I know without a doubt that God is real, scripture guides us to this end if we desire.

GC

[ThomM]

Theists: do you consider yourselves gnostic or agnostic?

I'm guessing I'll get a bunch of crickets, but, hey! It's worth a try!

You would need to define your terms - including what you think the word "god" means.

A strong agnostic would say - I have no knowledge of a god - and neither does anyone else. (Where knowledge is proven truth) He is NOT unsure - as theists like to claim.

Of course - that assumes a supernatural god like the xtian one.