Why am I an agnostic atheist? I don't know!

[Edwardo Piet]

My conclusion to the question "Why am I an agnostic atheist?" ultimately leads to "I don't know really".

Here is why:

Why am I an agnostic atheist? Because I am without belief in God.

Why am I without belief in God? Because I am unconvinced.

Why am I unconvinced? Because nothing has convinced me that God exists.

Why has nothing convinced me that God exists? Because my own experience has not led to a convincing argument.

Why hasn't my experience led to a convincing argument? I don't know really.

So the question of "why don't I believe in God?" Ultimately leads to: I don't know. So, really, I don't know why I don't believe in God because I don't know why nothing has convinced me that God exists.

If I was a gnostic atheist on the other hand, I'd base my belief that God doesn't exist on some other belief and then maybe that belief on something else, and so on, until I'd get to an invalid and baseless belief, because, of course, I can't prove the negative that God doesn't exist. UNLESS he is a particular God who's definition contradictions himself.

[Stempy]

If I was a gnostic atheist on the other hand, I'd base my belief that God doesn't exist on some other belief and then maybe that belief on something else, and so on, until I'd get to an invalid and baseless belief, because, of course, I can't prove the negative that God doesn't exist. UNLESS he is a particular God who's definition contradictions himself.

Doesn't your analysis (iterative skepticism) apply to any belief?

You are assuming throughout that in order for a belief to be valid it has to be based on some other belief. But why believe that?

[Darwinian]

Why hasn't my experience led to a convincing argument? I don't know really.

Because it hasn't..

This may help.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tNLvNOu9Mw

[Edwardo Piet]

You are assuming throughout that in order for a belief to be valid it has to be based on some other belief. But why believe that?

Whether I assume that or not: It is still the case that I ultimately don't know why I don't believe. EDIT: So your objection is completely irrelevant to my point

@ Darwinian. That is begging the question.

Answering the question "Why hasn't my experience led to me being convinced that God exists?" with "Because it hasn't" answers nothing.

[Ace Otana]

Why hasn't my experience led to a convincing argument? I don't know really.

Let me give this bastard a try.

"Why hasn't my experience led to a convincing argument?" Because no rational, logical, credible argument could be made for the existence of a god or gods.

What do I win?

[Edwardo Piet]

Nothing. It is begging the question: "Why haven't you known of a rational, logical, credible argument for the existence of a god or gods?"

You've more or less given no extra information. A convincing argument is one that is rational, logical and credible - providing that you are rational in believing it - right? So really you have more or less just answered the question "Why haven't I known of a convincing argument?" With "Because I haven't". It's a non-answer.

[Ace Otana]

Nothing. It is begging the question: "Why haven't you known of a rational, logical, credible argument for the existence of a god or gods?"

You've more or less given no extra information. A convincing argument is one that is rational, logical and credible - providing that you are rational in believing it - right? So really you have more or less just answered the question "Why haven't I known of a convincing argument?" With "Because I haven't". It's a non-answer.

I love discussing philosophy with you. Stimulates the mind.

"Why haven't you known of a rational, logical, credible argument for the existence of a god or gods?"

Perhaps there is no rational, logical, credible argument for a god or gods. Could you find a rational, logical, credible argument for invisible pink rabbits under the moon's surface? If not, then that is a reason. It is an answer. I do not know if there are invisible pink rabbits under the moon's surface and I cannot prove one way or the other. Since it's so very irrational, illogical and incredible. Perhaps it is impossible to have a convincing argument for it. The very concept defies all reason, much like god does.
So perhaps, due to the irrational nature of the concept and your level of reasoning, you as a rational being cannot find a rational convincing argument for such a concept.

You've more or less given no extra information.

Not entirely. If a claim/concept is without a convincing argument, then perhaps, it is too unrealistic to support rationally. It is an answer.

A convincing argument is one that is rational, logical and credible - providing that you are rational in believing it - right?

I think believing rationally, depends on the likely hood and credibility of the claim. In the case of the existence of god, there is none. We have a reason to lack belief in it. I am an atheist for a reason.

So really you have more or less just answered the question "Why haven't I known of a convincing argument?" With "Because I haven't". It's a non-answer.

Not quite. I haven't found a convincing argument for it due to it's sheer total lack of reason, logic and credibility. Perhaps, due to the nature of the claim and concept, it is impossible to provide a convincing argument for it for the rational to accept and believe.

[Welsh cake]

You've quintessentially formulated your very own regress argument DvF.

The conclusion is not "I don't know" while considered intellectually honest, its not a position or valid response to the loop in reasoning since it provides no justification that is being sought after. Someone can easily ask "Why don't you know?" you reply with the statement "I don't know" and yet again one asks recursively "Why don't you know?", this exchange will go on endlessly. Even if you attempt to escape the regressive reasoning by begging the question like for example "Why not?" the argument will still seek an unattainable epistemic explanation and "Why, why not?" will be the response over and over again.

To beat the regress problem we must appreciate not all propositions require justification. I've read some acceptable responses in the form of infinitism, foundationalism, coherentism, foundherentism and pragmatism. If you tell me for instance that you're an agnostic atheist I may either accept that at face-value or ask varying questions but at an important juncture we will eventually agree to disagree or reach an understanding where you will have satisfied my enquiry beyond a reasonable doubt, its an approach from common sense, any further debate on the subject matter after that is as counterintuitive as it is pointless.

[Ashendant]

You've quintessentially formulated your very own regress argument DvF.

The conclusion is not "I don't know" while considered intellectually honest, its not a position or valid response to the loop in reasoning since it provides no justification that is being sought after. Someone can easily ask "Why don't you know?" you reply with the statement "I don't know" and yet again one asks recursively "Why don't you know?", this exchange will go on endlessly. Even if you attempt to escape the regressive reasoning by begging the question like for example "Why not?" the argument will still seek an unattainable epistemic explanation and "Why, why not?" will be the response over and over again.

To beat the regress problem we must appreciate not all propositions require justification. I've read some acceptable responses in the form of infinitism, foundationalism, coherentism, foundherentism and pragmatism. If you tell me for instance that you're an agnostic atheist I may either accept that at face-value or ask varying questions but at an important juncture we will eventually agree to disagree or reach an understanding where you will have satisfied my enquiry beyond a reasonable doubt, its an approach from common sense, any further debate on the subject matter after that is as counterintuitive as it is pointless.

Any argument can be beaten by a constant stream of "why?"

[Edwardo Piet]

I love discussing philosophy with you. Stimulates the mind.

Good

"Why haven't you known of a rational, logical, credible argument for the existence of a god or gods?"

Perhaps there is no rational, logical, credible argument for a god or gods.

Irrelevant. Whether is or not, the question is: "Can you ultimately know why you don't believe?". My point is, sure, you can say you don't believe because you're unconvinced. But isn't that pretty much just stating "I don't believe because I don't believe" and giving a non-answer? Because, can we EVER believe a proposition without, to an extent, being convinced that that proposition is true?

And if I ask why you are unconvinced (or ask myself why I am unconvinced), you (or I) will reply with something like: "Because I haven't known of a logical argument or anything that remotely convinces me. Simple!" - maybe it is simple, but it doesn't actually answer the question whatsoever. Because we are only convinced by what we believe to be logical and rational... if we don't think something is logical or rational we are unconvinced. And even if we COULD believe something at the same time as considering it irrational or not logical (whatever that would mean) that still doesn't answer the question, because this all still begs the question "Why haven't you been convinced by anything whether it's logical, rational or otherwise?" It still doesn't answer why you aren't convinced, and so still doesn't answer why you don't believe because you gave "because I'm not convinced" as the answer to why you didn't believe. And the same applies to me. I no longer believe that I know why I don't believe in God. I just don't. It's true that I don't believe because I'm unconvinced but I don't think there's anyway for me to believe besides being convinced. "I don't believe because I am unconvinced" answers nothing, it just states the fact that I'm not convinced. I don't believe, I'm not convinced: It's the same thing. I can't answer the question "Why don't I believe in God?".

I don't believe in God because I don't know of any convincing evidence for God's existence, right? But once again, that is identical to what would convince me. I can't answer the question "Why haven't I known of any evidence of God's existence?": And, of course - and this is important - I can't answer the question with "Because there genuinely isn't any valid evidence for God's existence" because that would actually be comitting a fallacy on my part. It is true that I, myself, am not aware of any evidence, I don't know of any evidence, for God's existence. God's existence isn't evident to ME. BUT: This does NOT mean that there necessarily ISN'T any evidence for God's existence. So once again, I've answered nothing: I still don't know why I don't believe in God. All my answers are just paraphrases of the fact that I don't believe in God, they don't answer WHY I don't believe in God. I don't know why I don't believe. I am aware that I am unaware of any reason to believe, but I am not aware of why I am unaware of a reason to believe: "I don't have a reason to believe because I don't have a reason to believe" answers nothing at all. And because I don't know why I don't have a reason to believe, I don't know why I don't believe.

Could you find a rational, logical, credible argument for invisible pink rabbits under the moon's surface?

I don't know if I could and I don't declare it impossible because I don't know of any logical contradiction that would make such invisible pink rabbits impossible.

If not, then that is a reason.

I don't believe in pink rabbits because I know of no reason to believe in pink rabbits. But having a reason to believe is identical to believing because I can't believe without a reason to believe: When I have a reason to believe, I believe, when I don't, I don't: Whether my reason to believe is valid or invalid. So the fact I have no reason to believe is identical to the fact i don't believe. Saying I don't believe because I have no reason to believe is basically stating "I don't believe because I don't believe" or "I don't have a reason to believe because I don't have a reason to believe".

If I am to answer "I don't believe because I have no reason to believe" how do I answer "Why do I have no reason to believe?" I can't, I don't know why I have no reason to believe. I am unaware. It just hasn't happened, a reason just hasn't occured to me, and I don't know whether it could or couldn't occur to me. I don't know why I don't believe because I don't know why I don't have a reason to believe.. I just don't. So "I don't believe because I have no reason to believe" is no answer.

I do not know if there are invisible pink rabbits under the moon's surface and I cannot prove one way or the other. Since it's so very irrational, illogical and incredible.

How do you know it's irrational, illogical and incredible? Of course you don't. Well, it's incredible to you sure, and lots of people I'm sure! Or at least I hope! But how can you really know what's rational to believe or not if you don't really know what is evident besides your own awareness and you're not actually aware of whether invisible pink rabbits actually exist or not? You just don't believe in invisible pink rabbits, because nothing has convinced you, naturally. But how can you know WHY nothing has convinced you?. You can't. It just hasn't happened.

I mean, if we are to assume cause-and effect exists right from the big bang up until now: Ultimately the answer to "Why don't you believe?" is "Because there has been no chain of cause and effect since the beginning of the universe that has led to me being convinced"... AND THEN how do you answer this question?: "Why has there NOT been a chain of cause an effect since the beginning of the universe that has led to you being convinced?" - obviously, you aren't aware of that answer either are you? You don't know the answer and nor do I.

And if we take AWAY cause and effect.... and assume everything that happens is all a matter of probability and nothing is really determined, all cause and effect is just an illusion, some patterns are just so incredibly probable that we never experience an exception to those patterns so they seem like they are "caused", how the hell would that help you?

Perhaps it is impossible to have a convincing argument for it. The very concept defies all reason, much like god does.

How do you know it defines all reason? If you knew it defied all reason then surely it would be a logical contradiction and so impossible to exist by definition? Surely then you would be a gnostic atheist and not an agnostic atheist, if you really believed that?

So perhaps, due to the irrational nature of the concept and your level of reasoning, you as a rational being cannot find a rational convincing argument for such a concept.

Perhaps. If we are rational. God could exist. I sincerely doubt it. But.... I don't know why I doubt it. I just like doubting things and consider it rational to do so based on my experience..... I don't know why I don't believe in God because I don't know why I'm not convinced, I'm just not.

Not entirely. If a claim/concept is without a convincing argument, then perhaps, it is too unrealistic to support rationally. It is an answer.

Perhaps it is or perhaps it isn't. What answer have you given? Just because you believe something is unconvincing in no way implies that it is actually unrealistic or irrational. Because creationists believe evolution is unconvincing does that imply that it is unrealistic or irrational? That's just incredulity, it answers nothing. That is just "I don't believe because I don't believe".

Why don't you believe? Because you are unconvinced. Why? Because nothing has convinced you. Why? You don't know and nor do I. It just hasn't happened.

"Why don't I believe?" leads to the conclusion: "I don't know".

I think believing rationally, depends on the likely hood and credibility of the claim.

How do you know how probable God's existence is?

I don't believe God is probable at all. Why? Because I find the proposition of God's existence very unconvincing. Why? Because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and I know of no extraordinary evidence for such an extraordinary claim. Why? I don't know. Maybe because I believe it is extraordinary. Why? Because it is so far from my experience. Why? I really don't know, it just is, such extraordinary things just haven't happened to me.

Once again, I don't know why I don't believe in God, nor do I know why I consider him improbable.

In the case of the existence of god, there is none. We have a reason to lack belief in it. I am an atheist for a reason.

I am an atheist for a reason assuming that everything happens for a reason, but I am completely unaware of that reason, whatever it is. I don't know why I don't believe because I don't know why I'm unconvinced. I don't know why God is improbable because I don't know why God is an extraordinary claim because I don't know why God is so far from my experience.

Not quite. I haven't found a convincing argument for it due to it's sheer total lack of reason, logic and credibility.

How do you know it lacks reason, logic and credibility? If you knew that then you'd be a gnostic atheist. You don't know it, you just find it unconvincing.So you haven't founded a convincing argument for God because you find God unconvincing?

...Why do you find God unconvincing? Because you know of no convincing argument? Why don't you know of a convincing argument? Because you find God unconvincing? Circular reasoning?

Perhaps, due to the nature of the claim and concept, it is impossible to provide a convincing argument for it for the rational to accept and believe.

Perhaps, perhaps not. It's still down to personal incredulity. What other kind of incredulity is there besides personal?

---

You've quintessentially formulated your very own regress argument DvF.

We shall see (or maybe not).

The conclusion is not "I don't know" while considered intellectually honest, its not a position or valid response to the loop in reasoning since it provides no justification that is being sought after.

If I don't know I don't know. I'm not going to pretend to know the answer if I don't. At least, I hope I don't.

Someone can easily ask "Why don't you know?" you reply with the statement "I don't know" and yet again one asks recursively "Why don't you know?", this exchange will go on endlessly.

I don't know because I am unaware. Yes it's the same thing: But I'm unaware because nothing has lead to me being aware. Yes it's a regress but that's completely irrelevant to the fact that it's tautologically and completely necessarily true: I know that I'm not aware because if I was aware I'd know I was aware (because I'd be aware: I think therefore I am. I am aware of my awareness therefore I am aware) and I don't know that I'm aware so I'm not aware.

Even if you attempt to escape the regressive reasoning by begging the question like for example "Why not?" the argument will still seek an unattainable epistemic explanation and "Why, why not?" will be the response over and over again.

And your point is?

To beat the regress problem we must appreciate not all propositions require justification.

I never made such an implication.

I've read some acceptable responses in the form of infinitism, foundationalism, coherentism, foundherentism and pragmatism.

Where is the relevance here?

If you tell me for instance that you're an agnostic atheist I may either accept that at face-value or ask varying questions but at an important juncture we will eventually agree to disagree or reach an understanding where you will have satisfied my enquiry beyond a reasonable doubt, its an approach from common sense, any further debate on the subject matter after that is as counterintuitive as it is pointless.

So where is the relevance to my point that I don't know why I don't believe in God?

Any argument can be beaten by a constant stream of "why?"

Why do you think that?