On Agnosticism.

[charles22]

It was not until 1100 or so that Anselm and others made the very idea of proving God's existence, that having to believe in God's existence became the essence of theology.

Hegel said that ancient metaphysics never asked whether God existed, but just about the nature of the world, and its being.

Since the Church invented the concept of God, and belief, I don't see how agnostics can be other than theists who are not sure of their convictions.

Not put down of agnostics, but their claim that knowledge of God cannot be had is contradicted by that conviction itself.

[Az]

1. Knowledge and belief are not exclusive

The problem comes from trying to use the word agnostic to answer questions of belief. You can believe/not believe a thing without knowing for certain whether it is true/false.

Gnostic means to have knowledge. The prefix 'a' means without or not. Thus simply spoken an agnostic is someone that does not claim to have absolute knowledge on a subject.

Do you believe in God? Yes=Theist No=Atheist

Do you know if there is a god or not? Yes=Gnostic No=Agnostic

[charles22]

2. You can't believe in something that does not exist.

Can you?

[Az]

3. Sure

Belief does not necissarily relate to reality. Belief is the abstract construct your mind creates concerning the nature of the world around you.

[charles22]

4. Why would you believe in something that does not exist?

[Az]

6. Because they think it does exist

[charles22]

8. Right. My question, or assertion, is that it does not

logically makes sense to believe something you don't believe exists.

[kiahzero]

18. Is that your understanding of agnosticism?

"Believing something you don't believe exists?"

[charles22]

22. No it is no my definition.

Agnosticism defined is just one who does not know if God exists, but does not deny His existence.

[kiahzero]

28. That's an incorrect definition.

Agnosticism merely means "lack of knowledge." Applied to the existence of divinity, an agnostic may lean either way on the question (I believe Az referred to himself as an agnostic atheist), but believes that they lack the requisites to claim that they "know" the answer.

[charles22]

34. Same thing. I'm not interested in15 posts about the definition.

[kiahzero]

38. The meaning of words is critical for discussion

Especially when what is under discussion is abstract.

[charles22]

40. Right. I think we both defined it the same way.

What are you contesting?

[kiahzero]

5. How is that a relevent question?

I think you're making a leap that I'm not following in asking that question. Where does existence come into the picture?

[charles22]

7. Sorry, could you be more explicit?

Not sure what you mean.

[Az]

9. Because belief is independent of existance

The two need not be connected.

[charles22]

12. Ok, then.

So someone does not believe that something exists, yet believes in it? Not good logic.

[Az]

17. Ah... Pronoun problems

A person that does not believe a thing does not believe a thing. There is a difference between knowledge and belief. If a person has absolute knowledge of a subject they can both believe and know it. But a person can lack absolute knowledge of a subject and still believe a thing. That is a theist can not have direct knowledge of god but still believe there is a god.

[kiahzero]

19. This is why I'm a pedant about this type of thing.

:D

[charles22]

21. I said nothing of "absolute" knowledge.

If I don't believe in the Turtle holding up the earth...I believe there is no turtle; nothing to believe in.

[kiahzero]

25. Knowledge is binary. (n/t)

[charles22]

27. I don't think so...but what point are you making?

[kiahzero]

30. No, seriously... knowledge is binary.

You either possess justified true belief (or whatever post-Gettier model you prefer) or you do not. What you are referring to as "absolute knowledge" might be referring to second-order knowledge; knowing that you know.

[charles22]

33. I never introduced the idea of absolute knowledge.

Was just questioning someone elses use of the term.

[Az]

49. Absolute knowledge is binary

Just as absolute lack of knowledge is binary. Agnosticism is neither absolute knowledge or absolute lack of knowledge. It is merely the realization that one does not have absolute knowledge of a matter at the time. Agnostics typically reside in the shades of grey between the polar absolutes.

[charles22]

50. ok....

[charles22]

16. I'm asking, sceptically,

what logical sense does it make to hold that something does not exist, and to believe in that object?

[Az]

23. Agnosticism/Gnosticism are more adjectives than nouns

To understand the relevance of a persons Gnosticism/Agnosticism you need to know the focus of what they are talking about. In the case of religion it is relative to the existance of god.

An agnostic atheist for example does not believe in god but does not claim to know there is no god.

A gnostic theist claims to believe in god and further more claims to have direct experience or knowledge of god.

An agnostic theist claims to believe in god but does not claim to have direct experience or knowledge of god.

And lastly a gnostic atheist claims to not believe in god and furthermore claims to have absolute knowledge of the universe and the absense of god.

[charles22]

26. Ok, if these definitions are useful to you...

[Az]

45. The point of definitions is to convey information

And these definitions are what the words mean.

[charles22]

46. Ok, I never contested those definitions.

[SidDithers]

61. If you're not interested in proper definitions...

then you're not really interested in this discussion, but rather are looking for confirmation of your own opinion.

Sid

[charles22]

65. Define it. Let's discuss it. Let's do it.

[kiahzero]

11. I'm trying to understand your question.

I don't see how post 2 was a response to post 1, so I don't understand how you're using the words.

[charles22]

13. Then....????

Sorry.

[More Than A Feeling]

51. Whoa, you're back!

Welcome back!:hi:

[Meshuga]

10. Is agnosticism a conviction?

Some people change they way they feel about the existence of a god from time to time in their lives. There is no conviction that a god exists or that it doesn't from an agnostic point of view.

[Az]

14. Belief often changes

This can include peoples assertion that they are gnostic/agnostic. Some people attempt to hold to an agnostic position as a mode of intellectual skepticism. It really depends on the individual.

[charles22]

15. Yes, I think agnosticism is a knowledge claim.

[Meshuga]

29. What do you mean it is a knowledge claim?

That they know god exists or that they know that god does not exist?

[charles22]

31. Sceptics believe in object, they just question its nature.

An agnostic believes in God, but questions God's nature. I think in time of rigid theology, this an outcome.

[kiahzero]

35. Perhaps to you

But that's not how most people use the word "agnostic."

[charles22]

37. Again, explain it to me.

[kiahzero]

39. Az and I have several times

Agnosticism merely means "lack of knowledge." Applied to the existence of divinity, an agnostic may lean either way on the question (I believe Az referred to himself as an agnostic atheist), but believes that they lack the requisites to claim that they "know" the answer.

[charles22]

42. Ok. I see repetitions...

maybe this waning out

[kiahzero]

43. In a nutshell

"An agnostic believes in God" - Maybe, but not in all cases. In fact, I'd wager that it's not in most cases.

[charles22]

44. I didn't say agnostics believe in God. Is that your thesis?

[muriel_volestrangler]

62. Your sentence would normally be interpreted that way

"An agnostic believes in God, but questions God's nature."

If you now say "I didn't say agnostics believe in God", you are presumably saying that you meant, in your first sentence, "there is at least one agnostic somewhere who believes in God". But most people, seeing that sentence, would take it to mean that your definition of an agnostic was someone who believes in God, but questions its nature.

You need to be very careful with your language to avoid confusing people.

[charles22]

68. how about,

"believes that there is a god", the proposition itself.

[Meshuga]

47. That's not agnosticism

That's a belief in a different nature of God.

[charles22]

48. Define it then. I'm not trying to write a dictionary...let's talk

[Meshuga]

52. I am a theist

but I fall back from time to time to the personal god or to believing the god as a process. In my understanding an agnostic sometimes believes in a deity (personal or process) but sometimes thinks nothing really exists.

Many religions are based in god as a process and some really don't really agree on the nature of god. I am a Jew and we Jews don't really have an agreement on whether god is a process or a personal god. We just agree that god is one.

Some of us are theists even if we don't believe that god is a "big man in the sky" that controls everything.

[charles22]

53. Oh, thanks for filling that out.

But your experience closer to what I'm saying here--one would have to at least think the existence of God is plausible to be agnostic.

[Meshuga]

54. Plausible yes but I don't think it is a conviction

Sometimes agnostics think about the existence of a god as "who the fuck knows or who the fuck cares". :-)

I used to call myself an agnostic at some point in my life and I remember having that attitude sometimes.

[charles22]

55. Yes, my point.

You would not get angry if you thought nothing was there.

[Meshuga]

56. Not really

To me, as a Jew, faith is secondary. So does that mean that Jews are agnostics? :-) Probably not.

[charles22]

57. Lost me there,

faith secondary to what? Being a Jew?

[Meshuga]

58. Yes

Judaism is about how you act and not about your faith.

[charles22]

69. Thanks for clearing that up.

[ulysses]

60. defined, from my point of view as one,

agnosticism is the view that it is unknowable whether or not God exists. Belief doesn't enter the equation.

[charles22]

64. Yes, for the millionth time.... ok.

[applegrove]

20. Just the fact that wild animals turned into civilizations is a bloody miracle.

So when Buddism, Christianity and all suddenly came up with "do unto others.." around the same time...which is altruism incarnate..is amazing. Amazing that a brain of an animal could be a brain filled with love for outsiders. No - we do not practice it very well at times. There are still wars. But even the number of stars in the universe is a trillion trillion trillion of times more than we have ever seen. And to think at least one planet developed some living cells. It is all too much. Too huge. There is not way there can be any explanation except that some power exists. I don't know how to connect with it except to follow science and the humanities ..to keep on seeing all the miracles. To remind me how little I am. And how big whatever "god" is.. is.

Love! Something created some things that created other things that created love (or maybe it is just one step). And don't tell me it is all chemicals. That is the purely scientific explanation which can only go so far (back into the time the universe was created and then the science explanations hit a standstill ). Love is real. And in the same way..so is god. For me..more about love and connectedness to the world than praying to a god described in the bible. That is just my way..no better than anybody elses. I'm little afterall. We all are.

[charles22]

24. What does this have to do with agnosticism?

[applegrove]

32. I guess nothing. Thought it was related to agnostics.

[charles22]

36. Not trying to keep you out, my apologies.

Just didn't get it. Nothing wrong with that.

[applegrove]

41. No problem.

[ulysses]

59. huh?

And this has what to do with the price of tea in China?

[charles22]

66. Nothing.

[Name removed]

170. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[muriel_volestrangler]

63. I can't undertand any part of your argument at all

"Proofs" of the existence of a Supreme Being date back further than Christianity - to Plato, at least.

"Since the Church invented the concept of God, and belief"

Clearly, the Church did not. Monotheism predates Christianity.

"I don't see how agnostics can be other than theists who are not sure of their convictions"

This just seems a non sequitur to me. Agnostics are unsure of the existence of gods. Why should other people's belief in God cause an agnostic to be a theist?

Are you saying that you accept Anselm's argument? That you think everyone accepts his definition of God as "the greatest thing that can be conceived"? Most people think the argument is a load of dingo's kidneys.

[charles22]

67. First, I never mentioned monotheism.

So it never had relevance to my argument.

And yes, you didn't understand my argument. My point, here, is that Anselm made believing in God the issue, not the nature of God. (which is in my original post)--the propositional logic.

Again, you glossed over my statement about Hegel and the difference between ancient metaphysics and christian("modern"): Making a propostion out of belief, which Plato never did.

Anything else?

[muriel_volestrangler]

70. By talking about 'God', capitalised and without "a", you're talking about monotheism

Anselm put forward an argument for the existence of God (he was specifically talking about a Supreme Being). I don't know what you mean by saying he "made believing in God the issue" - it was already an issue, but it is not the only issue. I have no idea what "--the propositional logic" means.

I glossed over your remark about Hegel because it doesn't seem relevant. If Hegel did think that no-one ever talked about proofs of the existence of a Supreme Being before Anselm, or Christianity for that matter, then he was wrong about that. But that still doesn't help us with what an agnostic is. Hopefully (and your post #64 is a good sign), you now realise that agnostics do not have to be theists - they are unsure about the existence of gods, where a theist does believe in the existence of one or more gods. Knowing what people mean by 'God' or 'gods' is not the same as believing they exist - unless you accept Anselm's simplistic definition of 'God' as 'the greatest thing that can be imagined'.

[charles22]

80. Ok, you seem uninterested in my argument.

[muriel_volestrangler]

95. I'm interested, because I have continued to reply to you

But I don't think you've worded it so that anyone in this whole thread has understood it at all.

Your description of agnostics as heterodox theists doesn't seem to have convinced anyone. I don't think your paraphrase of whatever Hegel said about pre-Anselm philosophy is right - whether that's because of what Hegel said, or the way you've paraphrased it, I don't know. If you could give the actual argument (most of his work should be available online in English, I'd think), that might help. And I don't see why you think Anselm's position has settled what theology is - or why that backs up your definition of an agnostic.

[charles22]

97. Most posts have only been re-iterations of basic definitions.

I never contested those definitions, but asked to move the discussion further. Your denial of my thesis--of the propositional logic--is the essence of my argument. Like I said, your refusal to discuss it makes this discussion stagnant.

Hegel's and my argument, is that ancient metaphysics never proposed the concept of God as a concept to be affirmed or denied. Only latter, when the Church codified theology, did the proposition of believing that God exists become central.
If you do not want to discuss this concept, then...really the only reason I made this thread.

[muriel_volestrangler]

100. What propositional logic?

If you could point out what in your posts you consider to be an example of propositional logic, it might help.

Given that one of the accusations against Socrates was that he denied the existence of the gods, it seems silly to say "ancient metaphysics never proposed the concept of God as a concept to be affirmed or denied" - it was a matter of life and death.

[charles22]

103. Do you know what "propostional logic" is?

Ever here the term before? Your represention of Socrates is false--he never stated that one should or should not believe in God.

[kiahzero]

104. Muriel is 100% correct.

"Given that one of the accusations against Socrates was that he denied the existence of the gods" - all you need to do to domonstrate this is to read the Apology.

[charles22]

105. Ok...this going nowhere.

Socrates was a christian, you win.

[kiahzero]

106. Heh

You're kidding, right?

[charles22]

107. No, You win. Socrates taught one must believe in God.

Socrates a Christian, believed in the only begotten son....all is one, everything is nothing....

[kiahzero]

110. You're hilarious.

I don't know if it's intentional or not anymore. Go look at the Apology. Hell... just Google "socrates atheist" without the quotes.

[charles22]

112. I read Plato in Greek.

I read almost all the writings of Plato. You?

[kiahzero]

114. Yet somehow you weren't familiar with that charge?

It's right there in the Apology. Did you just forget?

[charles22]

116. Your comment irrelevant to my statement.

anything else?

[kiahzero]

117. You claimed that Socrates was never charged as being an atheist.

That such an idea never even occurred to people until 1100 CE. That is flatly contradicted by the evidence.

Just because you don't like being confronted with evidence doesn't mean that it's irrelevant.

[charles22]

120. I never said that.

[kiahzero]

122. Yes you did.

Muriel said:

Given that one of the accusations against Socrates was that he denied the existence of the gods, it seems silly to say "ancient metaphysics never proposed the concept of God as a concept to be affirmed or denied" - it was a matter of life and death.

You responded:

Your represention of Socrates is false

[charles22]

123. Yes. You are evading my argument.

[kiahzero]

126. So you lied when you said "I never said that?"

Or did you just forget what you posted?

Enlighten me - what argument am I evading?

[charles22]

129. "Yes", as in "Yes I said that."

And cut the "forget" thing, it's childish.

The argument is in the original post. The purpose of this thread is to discuss modern agnosticism, not whether or not Socrates was a monotheist or whatever.

Hegel first alerted me to the truth that there is a difference between ancient and "modern"(christian) metaphysics. As he said, the ancients never talked about God as a predicate of the world, but talked about what the nature of Being is, or what the nature of the world is.
It was not until Christian metaphysics (like Anselm, Augustine, Thomas) that God was considered a predicate of the world, that Being was a predicate of the world.
Thus moderns("christians") talked about whether or not God existed, and whether one believed in God's existence or not. Thus making God's existence a proposition to be affirmed or denied: Something Plato and his contemporaries did not do.

One might simplify the distinction by saying that Socrates and his Greek contemporaries where in an imminent metaphysics, and the Christians used a transcendent concept of Being.

[kiahzero]

131. Then how was Socrates accused of being an atheist?

If Plato and his contemporaries did not have a conception of the Gods existence being a proposition to be affirmed or denied, then how on earth did they have a conception of denying the existence of the Gods?

[charles22]

132. Socrates taught different "gods". Such was the accusation.

I think the accusation was, Not believing in the gods of Athens...something like that.

[kiahzero]

134. That was the contradiction in the argument of his accusers.

His accusers argued both that he was an atheist and that he believed in other gods.

[charles22]

137. Right. We agree.

Anything else?

[kiahzero]

139. OK, we agree.

Given that you agree that the ancient Greeks contemplated atheism, you must agree this statement is false:

Ancient metaphysics never asked whether God existed, but just about the nature of the world, and its being.

[charles22]

140. "atheism" just meant different gods.

And seriously, don't mind talking about Socrates, but it has nothing to do with the subject matter of this thread.

[kiahzero]

142. They explicitly discussed the existence or non-existence of the divine

Thereby falsifying one of your premises - that no one did so until 1100 CE.

[charles22]

143. Look, you're repeating your same phrase.

Totally ignoring my argument. so....Anything else? Let's stay on good terms here.

[kiahzero]

144. What's your argument?

That all agnostics are theists? We've already dealt with that. They aren't.

[charles22]

147. Then we ended on good terms.

[muriel_volestrangler]

115. I said "accusations of ..."

that doesn't mean Socrates did or didn't talk about believing in the gods (and note I said 'the gods' - so drop the stuff about whether Socrates believed in Christ or not - that's a red herring you introduced, as I'm sure you know); but it does mean that the existence of gods was a topic of philosophy at that time.

Propositional logic is the branch of philosophy dealing with how statements and arguments are formed. I don't know where you think there's a bit of logic in your argument that I've been ignoring; that's why it would be helpful if you pointed it out.

[charles22]

118. Socrates talked about god.

We agree. Nothing further to discuss if that was your point.

[muriel_volestrangler]

128. No, that wasn't my point at all

and I can't see how you possibly think that was my point.

My points have been that arguments for the existence of a Supreme Being were put forward by pre-Christian Greeks; that your insertion of the words "propositional logic" in some of your posts have not made any sense at all; and that your definition or characterisation of agnostics is incorrect.

[charles22]

130. Ok, have a nice day.

This going nowhere.

[Zhade]

71. Technically, every believer AND atheist are agnostic.

None - not a single one - KNOWS gods exist/don't exist.

[ulysses]

72. thus the obvious superiority of agnosticism.

;-)

[Zhade]

73. Well, I don't know if that's the right word for it.

There's nothing inferior, or incompatible, about being an agnostic atheist like myself.

I don't know gods don't exist, I don't know any do exist (thanks to the lack of evidence for them), thus I simply lack belief in any.

[ulysses]

78. juuuust kidding.

thus the winkie. :)

[Random_Australian]

76. That smilie had better keep winking!

Because if uncertainty were to mean we could not come to any decision, then science would never have given us medicine.

[ulysses]

79. oh, it is.

Besides which, I'm hardly agnostic in all things. :)

[charles22]

82. Care to support that idea?

[ulysses]

83. LOL - only if I can quote Anselm.

I'll throw in some Kierkegaard for variety. :D

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ulysses]

91. what would you like me to do?

Your theory's already been shot full of holes...

[Name removed]

168. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Az]

74. Well there are those

Who think they know. Of the atheists that claim to be gnostic ... well they are probably greatly misinformed about the nature of logic or simply do not understand the depth of the problem. The only possible true gnostic would be the theist. Trouble is there is no way of determining whether they are simply deluded or not.

[Random_Australian]

75. Only under an unpartitioned definition of agnostic that is so broad as to be

meaningless, IMO.

The kind of agnosticism in the OP, if I read it correctly, was not about uncertainty in those terms.

:)

Just popping by to add my $0.05 :)

[Evoman]

77. Hey, RA.

Haven't seen you around for a couple of days. How are you doing?

Oh geez...I guess I'm interrupting the thread...off topic. Hold on for sec....

Atheists RULE, theists DROOL.

Okay, I'm back. So how are ya?

[charles22]

81. I know God does not exist.

Now refute that proving that it is not possible to have that knowledge.

[ulysses]

84. I hope you stick around for a while.

You're a hoot. :D

[charles22]

85. You offer no debate or rational discussion.

Just cheap personal attacks.

[charles22]

86. And PS.

I know the practice at DU is to have the "Star" people make abusive attacks on those they cannot debate and get the moderator to ban them.

[ulysses]

90. ?

No one's ever let me in on that super-secret handshake. Sorry.

Listen, you were the one coming in with clams about agnostics. Now you want to complain because someone with a donor star disagrees with you? Please.

[Wickerman]

161. Having a star is not an exclusive badge

Anyone can have one.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/donate.html


Welcome to DU! :hi:

[charles22]

165. No thanks.

Already I get attacked and my post gets deleted. Not interested.

[charles22]

171. There are insults by ulyses, with the Star left on.

Yet I am the one who gets deleted. I hate the cowards at DU

[ulysses]

88. no personal attack intended!

I genuinely find it funny to posit your knowledge that there is no God, then demand that others refute it. :D

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

166. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SidDithers]

172. LMAO...

I suspect your wish will be granted.

:hi:

Sid

[charles22]

173. Don't wish it.

But I get attacked and my posts get deleted. Sick of it.

[SidDithers]

177. Ah, charlie, we hardly knew ye...

Sid

[muriel_volestrangler]

178. And I never got his no doubt unique definition of 'propositional logic'

I think he came ready to be offended. He complained he would be picked on, when no-one had done that.

[kiahzero]

179. Well, I kinda picked on him as he got more absurd. (n/t)

[muriel_volestrangler]

98. A god can be defined to have so much power that it can make the universe look like

there is no god - especially to a limited viewpoint such as ours.

[charles22]

99. Why would a god do that?

[muriel_volestrangler]

101. I don't know

but that's irrelevant to whether you can 'know' that God does not exist.

[charles22]

102. It's completely relevant to rational discussion.

Not interested in hypothetical assertions. God might be a turtle....??

[Az]

108. Um, see the way logic works

If you make a positive claim then you have to support the claim. Once you present the evidence for your case then the opposition gets to pick your evidence apart. After that they determine if your case is sufficient to demand acceptance or not. At that point you can counter etc.

This is why typically the atheist position is the defensive position. The theists are the positive claimant in that they say there is a god. We get to ask for their evidence and pick it apart.

Now if you go and say there is no god then you have a rather large task on your hands. You now have to provide compelling evidence that refutes all possible claims for god. This includes not only the traditional claims for god such as Christianities or Islams but it also includes such claims as God=Love and other less defined claims. And then there are the claims for god that are not even clarrified. And lastly there are all the claims that have not been made yet. Basically you are going to be busy for a while.

This is why logically speaking it is said it is impossible to support a negative statement. This specifically refers to making a positive negative claim. Example: Prove there are no smurfs in the universe. Can't really be done. Now you can prove that there are no married bachelors because that is an abstract construct just like math. Abstract constructs are provable because we define the rules. But in matters of the universe the best we can do is discover the rules. And even then we cannot be sure we have discovered all the rules. THis is why the scientific method must remain open to new evidence.

[charles22]

109. The way logic works, is,

I make a statement. I give supporting evidence. I construct an argument. Other try to show where my argument is inconsistent or incoherent. I never yet, said that I was going to prove God does not exist--no one asked me. That is logic.

[Az]

111. Are you saying you are playing a semantic game?

Claiming you know god does not exist would seem to be establishing that you are claiming a positive position on the subject. That is how most people are going to take it.

Now you may believe you know there is no god. But this would seem to indicate that you may not understand the depth of the problem. You may strongly believe there is no god (as do I) but to claim knowledge indicates knowledge of all the universe and all claims of god. Now thats a lot of knowledge.

[charles22]

113. Semantics means theory of meaning.

I am not playing. Why make such a charge of bad faith?

[Az]

119. Not meant in that way

Just trying to figure out where you are coming from. Are you claiming you have full knowledge of all the universe and all claims of god? That would seem to be what claiming to know there is no god means. Or do you mean it in a different way?

[charles22]

121. Never said a thing about "full knowledge of all the universe." You did.

[kiahzero]

124. Please learn to follow an argument.

Az's argument appears to be simple:

1) In order to know that there is no god, one would need to have full knowledge of all the universe.
2) You are claiming to know that there is no god.
3) Therefore, you are claiming to have full knowledge of all the universe.

Az, forgive me if I have misrepresented your thinking.

[Az]

127. Multiple views always help

As long as they are working from the same page and yeah... you got it.

[charles22]

133. You are being condescending. We're done here.

If you won't show respect, this can't work.

[Az]

125. You only said

You know there is no god and asked to have that statement refuted. The problem here is it is unclear what you want refuted. Is it that there is no god? Or that you know there is no god? If it is that there is no god then your statement is an effective positive statement that there is no god and that places the burden of providing evidence on you. If it is that you know there is no god this still places a burden on you of demonstrating that you have knowledge sufficient to absolutely eliminate any possibility of god.

Small statements can carry big implications.

[charles22]

135. Right, ok.

What is your point?

[Az]

136. I think my point is trying to figure out what your point is

Lets start with your statement "I know there is no God". What does that statement mean to you?

[charles22]

138. Well, not sure how to answer.

I know my body is not 100 feet tall. I know I don't like eating candy. I know God does not exist.

[Az]

141. The issue then seems to be whether you distinguish between belief and knowledge

This is the crux of this thread. Whether a person has knowledge of a thing. You clearly do not believe in gods (same here). But as to whether you know there are no gods is an entirely different matter. Knowledge of a thing is different from belief of a thing. I believe there is someone in Japan right now talking on a cell phone with cute dangly things hanging from the phone. But without going there and confirming it I cannot say I know this to be true. Only that I am very very confident that it is true.

Its a bit like a log curve. Belief can approach and come very near to being absolutely certain. But knowledge makes teh leap to the absolute. Just as a log curve infinitely approaches 1 but never reaches it. You can be astoundingly confident that there is no god. But that still falls short of knowing there is no god.

[charles22]

146. No, my argument is that agnostics

claim that knowledge of God's existence cannot be had, therefore no affirmation nor denial can be made. My point is that to deny knowledge is possible, is itself a knowledge claim--which the agnostics do not account for.
My knowledge is such that nothing corresponding to the idea of God exists. But I do not deny that those who choose to "believe" have no right to, only that it is a belief.

[kiahzero]

149. Ahh, epistemological bootstrapping.

Using the standard pre-Gettier JTB theory of knowledge, an omniscient observer may be able to ascribe knowledge to a theist or an atheist, depending on objective reality. However, the best a non-omniscient observer can do is believe that they know. Second-order knowledge (knowing that one knows something) is difficult, if not impossible, to establish for the most mundane of claims, let alone the esoteric nature of the question of whether or not there is any divine entity.

[Az]

151. Ah

That would be the position of militan agnostics(ie I don't know and you don't either). As the word was coined it is a more personal claim. But the issue still colapses in the case put forward regarding atheists. An atheist making a positive claim of knowledge of the absense of god is making a very large statement. One that may not be covered by logic.

Our knowledge is limited. Both of the universe and the possible claims for god. As such we cannot claim to have total knowledge of either subject. We may be able to refute every argument for god we have ever heard. But this still leaves the set of claims for god we have not heard and the set of claims that have not been made yet. The two together form a virtually infinite set. And as Godel's Incompleteness theorem suggests no one can have absolute knowledge of anything that includes themself. And as the universe includes us it is theoretically impossible to have absolute knowledge of it. We can have sufficient knowledge of it to be as close to absolute as possible. But that last leap is simply not possible.

I think the issue we are having here is one of the various definitions of the word knowledge. In the case of the word gnostic/agnostic it refers to a special case of knowledge. That of direct experience or absolute knowledge is what these terms refer to. The knowledge you are refering to is that of accumulated knowledge such as found in books and ideas. This is second hand knowledge and completely different that what Huxley and the Gnostics were referring to.

[charles22]

152. No. I am not denying God's existence.

Nor making a positive claim of non-existence. For example, There are gay men , I am not denying them being gay by saying I am heterosexual...nor would I call myself "non-gay". Merely linguistic.

[Az]

153. I didn't think you were

But the words you were using in the context of this thread made it appear you were.

[charles22]

154. which gets to my argument about agnosticism.

And also, why probably for centuries it has not been seriously argued for--how does one deny knowlege of God cannot be had without asserting it in the first place?

[Az]

155. Not exactly the assertion that mainstream agnostics argue

The typical agnostic argument is that they personally are not in posession of any direct knowledge of God. It is the militant agnostics that insist that others cannot have knowledge either. Their position is paradoxical as they seem to be asserting that those who claim to have knowledge of god or claim to have experienced god are in fact wrong. How they are aware of this or knowledgable of this is not made clear. In the end their claim collapses back on itself.

They may have a fair argument if they stated that theirs was a belief statement rather than a positive assertment.

[charles22]

156. Well I would distinguish between psychological agnostics

who merely make a personal statement that they do not know, from philosophic agnostics who claim that the knowledge is not available.

[Az]

157. A labeling problem

But we seem to be on the same page or close enough at this point.

[charles22]

158. Well, probably.

The real purpose of this thread was to argue that agnosticism--the philosophic kind--is an incoherent philosophy. Not at all an ad hominem attack.

[muriel_volestrangler]

159. Does that mean that when you said

"I know God does not exist", you were just taking up that position for the sake of argument?

[muriel_volestrangler]

160. One case is knowledge of God's existence; the other is knowledge about knowledge

which means they are in different categories. To claim absolute knowledge about knowledge (that is, that there is a certain piece of knowledge that cannot be known for sure) may be a large claim, but it's not the same as saying that God's existence can be absolutely known.

[Zhade]

145. No, you don't, though you may think you do.

But since you don't have every possible bit of information available in the entire universe, that makes sense.

Happily, you don't have to worry about your not knowing giving the believers an advantage, because the burden of proof is on them, and the evidence just isn't there for gods.

[charles22]

148. Why must I have every bit of information in universe?

Don't understand that argument. My only conception of God is: Creator, and Transcendence of Being. Since I see no evidence for it, I don't believe it.

[kiahzero]

150. Belief is different from knowledge.

Belief is necessary, but not sufficient, for knowledge.

[charles22]

169. No. Belief need not have anything to do with knowledge.

[kiahzero]

176. Except for, you know, being a requisite. (n/t)

[Zhade]

162. Because you state that you know, for a fact, they don't exist.

I too do not believe any gods exist, but that's different from saying I know they don't exist.

[charles22]

167. good. we're different then.

[Brentos]

92. I have a question...

Since the Church invented the concept of God, and belief, I don't see how agnostics can be other than theists who are not sure of their convictions.

What support is there for this conjecture? My understanding is that churches have defined doctrine, but not the idea of God or belief, which came from writings well before there was any centralized church?

I'm curious as to which "church" you a referring, and what basis for this claim. I would be interested in reading about it.

[charles22]

93. Anselm. Augustine. Especially St Thomas Aquinas.

Thomas' Summa Theologica excellent.

[muriel_volestrangler]

94. Is this meant to be an answer to reply #92?

If so, it's bizarre. Are you claiming that mainstream Christians who lived centuries after Jesus, and are looked on with approval by today's Christians, made the claim, in writing, that "the Church" invented the concept of God? I have never heard anyone argue that before in my life. It would be so completely illogical that I can't think of a single person, however atheist or fervently believing Christian, who would make it.

If it's a reply to something else, could you tell us what?

[charles22]

96. My reply to 92 was about who organized the theology.

and getting tired of your hostility.

[Brentos]

163. I don't recall...

I don't recall ever reading about them inventing God. That was a much older concept, as far as all my research shows. Some doctrine and theology, sure, but not the over-all concept.

[charles22]

164. I would read them, instead of reading about them.

Especially St. Thomas. No one ever proposed proving God, or putting forth 4 arguments to prove God's existence.

[charles22]

174. Notice Ulysses is contantly making personal attacks on me.

Even his obnoxious, uncalled for, "what does this have to do with the price of tea in china" is left up. But my posts, and don't remember exactly what I said, was basically, Please stop writing insults to me. And my posts get banned.

[kiahzero]

175. .

:cry:

[Wickerman]

180. locking

in homage to the departed.