NationStates Jolt Archive

"Agnosticism is a belief system that denies the ability to have knowledge or truth regarding the fundamental nature of the universe, and in particular about God. It differs from atheism in not denying the existence of God or cosmic divinities. An agnostic simply claims that there is insufficient knowledge or data to determine whether or not God does or does not exist."
(from Creationwiki.org's Philosophy page (http://creationwiki.org/Portal:Philosophy))

Is there anything wrong/illogical with this definition? Is the claim that one cannot have knowledge of a thing (per the first sentence) the same as the claim that one has insufficient knowledge (per the last sentence)? (or even compatible with it?) Is the claim that a thing does not exist inherent in the claim that one cannot have knowledge of that thing?

Is this a good definition of Agnosticism? How would you amend it?

(Edit: Yes, I'm going to use Creationwiki.org as a reference from now on. :p)

Well, it's taken the two definitions of Agnosticism and tried to pretend that they are one definition, for some reason, rather than just separating them into separate points.

EDIT: Actually, I take that back. It is one consistent definition, but the last sentence leaves out the idea that the Agnostic (by that definition) would say that sufficient knowledge or data cannot be obtained.

It is one consistent definition, but the last sentence leaves out the idea that the Agnostic (by that definition) would say that sufficient knowledge or data cannot be obtained.

Alright; so the idea that sufficient knowledge may be possible (at some future point) isn't necessarily implied in the statement that insufficient knowledge has henceforth been obtained. I'll buy that.

Is the claim that a thing does not exist inherent in the claim that one cannot have knowledge of that thing?

it seems to me that it is clearly logically possible that there could be things that exist that i cannot even in principle know.

I like to define agnostics as "don't know, don't care".

nah, that's just apathy

"Agnosticism is a belief system that denies the ability to have knowledge or truth regarding the fundamental nature of the universe, and in particular about God. It differs from atheism in not denying the existence of God or cosmic divinities. An agnostic simply claims that there is insufficient knowledge or data to determine whether or not God does or does not exist."
(from Creationwiki.org's Philosophy page (http://creationwiki.org/Portal:Philosophy))

Is there anything wrong/illogical with this definition? Is the claim that one cannot have knowledge of a thing (per the first sentence) the same as the claim that one has insufficient knowledge (per the last sentence)? (or even compatible with it?) Is the claim that a thing does not exist inherent in the claim that one cannot have knowledge of that thing?

Is this a good definition of Agnosticism? How would you amend it?

(Edit: Yes, I'm going to use Creationwiki.org as a reference from now on. :p)

If there is no way of getting information, a natural consequence of that is that we have no information. It doesn't work the other way around, though, but I think this definition is very accurate. Many agnostics, as far as I know, take a default stance in a theist or an atheist perspective, but wait to be proven wrong or correct before declaring any 'truths'. Which they're sure will never happen.

If we cannot have information about the existence of a god, it only means that whatever gods exist, they do so in a form or on a plane that can't be reached and measured with our senses or tools. It has no inherent bias in either direction.

I like to define agnostics as "don't know, don't care".

it seems to me that it is clearly logically possible that there could be things that exist that i cannot even in principle know.

What is a "thing"?

If there is no way of getting information, a natural consequence of that is that there is no information. It doesn't work the other way around, though...

The other way being "if there is no information, there is no way to get it"? It would seem to work better the other way around. :)

What is a "thing"?

entities and events?

entities and events?

How are entities distinguished?

agnostics=cowardly atheists....afraid to confront family or friends, they choose the easy way out and say things like "I'm confused, I'm not sure"....


belief in a god is either is a yes or a no issue, .....an agnostic claiming to be neutral because the evidence isn't conclusive one way or the other is illogical.... if there is no evidence of a God then there logically can be no God until it is absolutely proven...whereas atheism doesn't require evidence to prove the existence of nothing, either it exists or it doesn't....

don't know if I explained myself well.....

blind faith=a belief in god....any doubt at all=atheist

agnostics=cowardly atheists....afraid to confront family or friends, they choose the easy way out and say things like "I'm confused, I'm not sure"....


Being an agnostic isn't like coming out of the closet for christ's sake.

All I know is that I can't begin to understand the grander forces at work, if there are any.

The other way being "if there is no information, there is no way to get it"? It would seem to work better the other way around. :)

Oops, bad wording, sorry. What I meant was "If we have no information, there is no way of getting it." The original being "If there is no way of getting information, we can't have any of it."

belief in a god is either is a yes or a no issue... That's very true, but it would also seem to not be the case that the agnostic is uncertain, according to the definition in the OP. There, a very certain belief is stated in the first sentence.

How are entities distinguished?

what, fundamentally?

Oops, bad wording, sorry. What I meant was "If we have no information, there is no way of getting it." The original being "If there is no way of getting information, we can't have any of it."

OK, I keep forgetting: is information something we have in our minds? or something lying around "out there" for us to collect?

what, fundamentally?

Yes.

Personally, I can see the point of agnosticism, but I still choose atheism. Why? Because I could make that "we can't truly know" point about anything. I can't truly know that there isn't a giant pink tiger in my bedroom. I'm not going to worry about getting eaten when I go back in there though, because I think that its a sensible assumption that such a tiger is not present.

Of course, agnosticism is only necessarily valid for a vague idea of "super powerful being". In the case of a specific, unambiguously defined concept of God, it would be possible to disprove that God if it were logically inconsistent with itself. That is why I don't expect to ever see a religious person ever give a specific, unambiguously defined concept of God.

Personally, I can see the point of agnosticism, but I still choose atheism. Why? Because I could make that "we can't truly know" point about anything. I can't truly know that there isn't a giant pink tiger in my bedroom. I'm not going to worry about getting eaten when I go back in there though, because I think that its a sensible assumption that such a tiger is not present.

Anyone who thinks in absolutes is worth getting shot.

"You can't prove that this chair exists! ahahaha!"

I see the world and follow it accordingly. God is a concept that is beyond a simple (yes or no) answer.

So what do you call a person who is neutral on the existence of God but acknowledges the theoretical possibility of proof either way?

Personally, I can see the point of agnosticism, but I still choose atheism. Why? Because I could make that "we can't truly know" point about anything. I can't truly know that there isn't a giant pink tiger in my bedroom. I'm not going to worry about getting eaten when I go back in there though, because I think that its a sensible assumption that such a tiger is not present.
But if you went and looked, then you'd know, right? So you *can* know, just not now, or by the means presently available.

The first sentence in the OP would seem to be saying that there is no way for us to know, at all. So just not looking, or not having the means to look right now, isn't the same, isn't agnostic.

Of course, agnosticism is only necessarily valid for a vague idea of "super powerful being". In the case of a specific, unambiguously defined concept of God, it would be possible to disprove that God if it were logically inconsistent with itself. That is why I don't expect to ever see a religious person ever give a specific, unambiguously defined concept of God.
That would seem to be the case, that it is about things we can know nothing about because they're supernatural.

Yes.

entities are distinguished by the basic ontological facts about the metaverse, whatever those happen to be.

Anyone who thinks in absolutes is worth getting shot.

"You can't prove that this chair exists! ahahaha!"

I see the world and follow it accordingly.

Can you see all of it? Do you accept that what you see/sense is all that there is?

I'm not really sure what you're saying here. Assuming that you know and it's not just one of those get-out stock phrases for justifying religion, could you explain?

There's no proof that god exists, there's no proof that god doesn't exist.

I think it's arrogant to claim either.

Anyone who thinks in absolutes is worth getting shot.

"You can't prove that this chair exists! ahahaha!"

I see the world and follow it accordingly. God is a concept that is beyond a simple (yes or no) answer.

I'm not really sure what you're saying here. Assuming that you know and it's not just one of those get-out stock phrases for justifying religion, could you explain?

So what do you call a person who is neutral on the existence of God but acknowledges the theoretical possibility of proof either way?

Undecided.

Can you see all of it? Do you accept that what you see/sense is all that there is?

*head starts pounding*

This discussion never goes anywhere.

Being an agnostic isn't like coming out of the closet for christ's sake.



well for many it is equal to coming out of the closet depending on where you live, atheists keep a very low profile in the southern USA....even where I live I keep a low profile....

All I know is that I can't begin to understand the grander forces at work, if there are any.

I find nature grand and there is much I don't understand, I don't need a god to explain it....

which is easier to understand.... testable science/nature or.... an invisible sky god that does nothing to demonstrate it's existence

logic tells me if you can't prove something exists...then it doesn't

Undecided.

I'd call them "agnostic" - and indeed, that is the common term for them.

The definition in the OP seems too strong for me.

entities are distinguished by the basic ontological facts about the metaverse, whatever those happen to be.

What is a fact?

I'm not trying to be difficult, just trying to get to a place where I can dispute your claim that a thing can exist that cannot, in principle, be known. If it's a thing, either experiential or imagined, it can be known.

OK, I keep forgetting: is information something we have in our minds? or something lying around "out there" for us to collect?

What I mean by 'information' is scientific data and research results. Something that is out there for collecting. If it can't be backed up by some sort of evidence, it has no value in determining whether a divine being exists or not.

This also makes philosophy invalid for discovering the truth. Logical conclusions without sufficient data can be horribly wrong, and often have been in history. (That is why I find atheists rather amusing; at least religious people have their scriptures to rely on, whereas atheists have nothing but their own opinions.)

So what do you call a person who is neutral on the existence of God but acknowledges the theoretical possibility of proof either way?

i like undecided. fits well with our normal ideas about subjects we just don't happen to have beliefs about yet.

*head starts pounding*

This discussion never goes anywhere.

There's a first time for everything. :)

If it's a thing, either experiential or imagined, it can be known.

imagining is not a justification for a belief. so even if the belief happened to be true, we wouldn't have knowledge.

There's no proof that god exists, there's no proof that god doesn't exist.

I think it's arrogant to claim either.

Completely agreed.

However, it's not irrational to behave as if one or the other were true. This is the same attitude one takes to the rest of life - very few things are certain, but we make whichever assumptions seem most likely to be true. For example, catching a train. Under normal circumstances, we assume the train has not been cancelled and go to catch it. This is not proven, but we make a decision nonetheless.

Completely agreed.

For example, catching a train. Under normal circumstances, we assume the train has not been cancelled and go to catch it. This is not proven, but we make a decision nonetheless.

Next to god the comparison would go like this:

Someone says that a train is coming at 3:00pm, but someone else says that one is coming at 3:45pm, and so on and so forth until someone says that there is no train. Regardless I never needed to get on one to begin with.

(That is why I find atheists rather amusing; at least religious people have their scriptures to rely on, whereas atheists have nothing but their own opinions.)

That is why I find deists rather amusing; at least atheists have the confidence of their own morality to rely on, whereas deists have nothing but mythological fairytales...

i like undecided. fits well with our normal ideas about subjects we just don't happen to have beliefs about yet.

But they have beliefs... indeed, they may have carefully considered the issue, and come to the conclusion that the only rational position is agnosticism ("at this point in time, I/we lack the knowledge to affirmatively say one way or the other.")

"Undecided" implies that they have no position at all... perhaps not denotationally, but connotationally.

If it's a thing, either experiential or imagined, it can be known.

If I conceive of something that cannot be experienced, how would I go about attaining knowledge of its existence?

(That is why I find atheists rather amusing; at least religious people have their scriptures to rely on, whereas atheists have nothing but their own opinions.)

Nevermind deists have 0 first hand accounts of god and cannot provide any detailed descriptions, but they still know exactly what god wants.


Atheists rely on this as their arguement, which makes sense. Especially since many religions overlap each other. (Christianity and Roman Paganism).

Day of sabbath so happens to be called Sunday.

I'd call them "agnostic" - and indeed, that is the common term for them.

The definition in the OP seems too strong for me.

wait...isn't an agnostic someone who DOESN"T acknowledge the possibility of proof either way?

wait...isn't an agnostic someone who DOESN"T acknowledge the possibility of proof either way?

Not necessarily. That's what I've been trying to say.

Would most people who call themselves "agnostics" really continue in their disbelief in God if some really extraordinary evidence manifested itself?

Not necessarily. That's what I've been trying to say.

Would most people who call themselves "agnostics" really continue in their disbelief in God if some really extraordinary evidence manifested itself?

Well, certainly most would probably switch when faced with enough evidence, but I think the thing is that they don't believe that the evidence could ever exist.

There's no proof that god exists, there's no proof that god doesn't exist.

Only we take positions on things that we have no proof of all the time.

A friend of mine humorously maintains to me that he's God, intending to give me the help I desperately need to attain salvation. I have no proof that he's not, but I don't believe him anyway. ;)

I think the thing is that they don't believe that the evidence could ever exist.

So if Jesus returned and lifted up all the faithful into the sky, that wouldn't be evidence?

Only we take positions on things that we have no proof of all the time.

A friend of mine humorously maintains to me that he's God, intending to give me the help I desperately need to attain salvation. I have no proof that he's not, but I don't believe him anyway. ;)

Sure you do, he's human and you judge the situation based on common sense. Now if he were glowing...

Well, I don't find people of any religious or nonreligious stance inherently amusing. I do find a lot of the beliefs irrational, but irrationality is a big part of the human mind, so I don't really get any strong feelings about it.

So if Jesus returned and lifted up all the faithful into the sky, that wouldn't be evidence?

That is a point. I'll admit that I'm not completely knowledgeable on this issue, just my conceptions of agnosticism. I will concede.

Sure you do, he's human

I have no proof of that.

and you judge the situation based on common sense.

Yes, and based on common sense I find the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal being who created everything fairly absurd - an absurdity only magnified if you add in omnibenevolence.

Now if he were glowing...

And if there were clear, direct evidence of God's miracles....

imagining is not a justification for a belief. so even if the belief happened to be true, we wouldn't have knowledge.

You're jumping ahead --you're right, it's not a justification for belief. Belief is in things that are true, not factual.

But when we imagine a thing, we know it as an imagined thing --it is a part of "what we know." It's not the same as an experienced thing, which is why I distinguished the two. The imagined thing is also an entity.

Imagine, if you will, the first moment of waking consciousness. You become aware of things. What makes them 'things'?

That is why I find deists rather amusing; at least atheists have the confidence of their own morality to rely on, whereas deists have nothing but mythological fairytales...

Yep, it works both ways, entirely depending on your world view. I never said that either group was particularly well supported in their beliefs.

Nevermind deists have 0 first hand accounts of god and cannot provide any detailed descriptions, but they still know exactly what god wants.


Atheists rely on this as their arguement, which makes sense. Especially since many religions overlap each other. (Christianity and Roman Paganism).

Day of sabbath so happens to be called Sunday.

Hey, the Bible, for example, is filled with detailed descriptions and even first-hand testimonies. Whether you choose to believe them, is an entirely different matter. Of course, I'm not saying you absolutely should, but atheists, much like any non-agnostics, have a tendency of ignoring anything that doesn't match their world view.

Could you explain what relevance does the day of sabbath being called Sunday have?

If I conceive of something that cannot be experienced, how would I go about attaining knowledge of its existence?

You have knowledge of an imagined thing. Or is "knowlege" something else?

You have knowledge of an imagined thing.

Of its actual real-world existence? No, I don't.

I have no proof of that.

He matches all the descriptions of human. Breathing, eating, and sleeping. Nor has he displayed any evidence of being divine, and if you believed he were god then what would that lead to?


Hey, the Bible, for example, is filled with detailed descriptions and even first-hand testimonies. Whether you choose to believe them, is an entirely different matter. Of course, I'm not saying you absolutely should, but atheists, much like any non-agnostics, have a tendency of ignoring anything that doesn't match their world view.

Could you explain what relevance does the day of sabbath being called Sunday have?

The bible was man written, translated, published over thousands of years, and still people believe that there can be no different interpretations. Also it isn't descriptive enough from keeping the various Christian ideals from spliting into factions.

How can religion claim such knowledge when they don't even agree among each other?

Mon- Day = Moon Day
Sun- Day = Sun Day
Hell = Hel, the nordic goddess of the underworld.
Christmas is a rip off of Saturnalia, a pagan holiday.

I am the ultimate fence sitter, an agnostic bisexual. now I have two groups who constantly tell me I'm really just part of their group but won't admit it to myself.

But they have beliefs... indeed, they may have carefully considered the issue, and come to the conclusion that the only rational position is agnosticism ("at this point in time, I/we lack the knowledge to affirmatively say one way or the other.")

"Undecided" implies that they have no position at all... perhaps not denotationally, but connotationally.

oh, yeah, that positive knowledge claim is agnosticism too, rather than mere undecidedness. though i also think it's a case of bad induction.

I'm not sure what there is to gain from hearing an agnostic say that if presented with solid, irrefutable proof of God, they would believe in God. Unless the person asking had the ability to manifest God in front of the other person, and only needed to know that they are interested and would begin to believe in God...

Religion is a personal thing. I don't think there's much to gain from "recruiting" people to your chosen belief system other than having that cliquey feeling. I don't force other people to be agnostic, or even bother discussing religion because I really don't care about other people's beliefs, and I don't expect them to care about mine either.

I have no proof of that.

Is proof necessary to distinguish him as "human"? Is the evidence of your senses not enough?

Belief is in things that are true, not factual.

what's the distinction?

But when we imagine a thing, we know it as an imagined thing --it is a part of "what we know." It's not the same as an experienced thing, which is why I distinguished the two. The imagined thing is also an entity.

yeah, but the imagined entity would be a different entity than the actually existing one. so while we could have knowledge of the imaginary thing, we don't have epistemic access to knowledge about the real one.

Imagine, if you will, the first moment of waking consciousness. You become aware of things. What makes them 'things'?

the ontological facts about the universe - they are things whether i'm aware of them or not. the awareness is internal, the thingness is external.

Of its actual real-world existence? No, I don't.

Is that what imagined implies?

He matches all the descriptions of human. Breathing, eating, and sleeping.

And our universe certainly seems to be without God. While certainly science has not provided all the answers, it certainly has been very successful at explaining plenty of things in the past people believed God must have done - and there seems no reason why that would not continue.

Nor has he displayed any evidence of being divine,

But as the agnostics are so fond of saying, a lack of evidence for God's existence is not proof of His non-existence.

So while I do indeed have no evidence for his divinity, other than his non-serious word, that is hardly proof that he is not divine.

and if you believed he were god then what would that lead to?

It would mean that I've heard several times from God Himself that if I continue on my current path, I'm going to Hell. That would not be very pleasant. :)

But all in all, the implications aren't all that much more absurd than belief in, say, the Christian God - who probably would have made sure that we all know who's really right about Him by now, and a whole bunch of other things that haven't happened.

"Agnosticism is a belief system that denies the ability to have knowledge or truth regarding the fundamental nature of the universe, and in particular about God. It differs from atheism in not denying the existence of God or cosmic divinities. An agnostic simply claims that there is insufficient knowledge or data to determine whether or not God does or does not exist."
(from Creationwiki.org's Philosophy page (http://creationwiki.org/Portal:Philosophy))

Is there anything wrong/illogical with this definition? Is the claim that one cannot have knowledge of a thing (per the first sentence) the same as the claim that one has insufficient knowledge (per the last sentence)? (or even compatible with it?) Is the claim that a thing does not exist inherent in the claim that one cannot have knowledge of that thing?

Is this a good definition of Agnosticism? How would you amend it?

(Edit: Yes, I'm going to use Creationwiki.org as a reference from now on. :p)

I strongly adhere to the first sentence and strongly oppose the second sentence. If agnosticism is accepted as "insufficient knowledge" then it becomes meaningless, as no one can logically hold a position of complete knowledge of God or anything else for that matter.

Is proof necessary to distinguish him as "human"?

No. Indeed, that is precisely my point - we do not need proof to hold positions on things.

Is that what imagined implies?

I suppose I can imagine (in the "conceive of" sense) something whose existence I actually do have substantive knowledge of, but I need not necessarily have substantive knowledge of the existence of something in order to imagine it.

It would mean that I've heard several times from God Himself that if I continue on my current path, I'm going to Hell. That would not be very pleasant. :)

But all in all, the implications aren't all that much more absurd than belief in, say, the Christian God - who probably would have made sure that we all know who's really right about Him by now, and a whole bunch of other things that haven't happened.

Certainly he seems more human than godly though? While no one is ever 100% sure about anything, nor am I 100% agnostic as I lean towards atheism.

"I help those who help themselves."

Jesus is a prick. :p

Certainly he seems more human than godly though?

On balance, yes. But then, this universe not having a God seems more plausible than the opposite, too.

what's the distinction?
I'd like to save that for later, if that's okay, or even another thread, and continue on with the other part of this discussion, which is what interests me now. (me me me me me)

yeah, but the imagined entity would be a different entity than the actually existing one. so while we could have knowledge of the imaginary thing, we don't have epistemic access to knowledge about the real one.
True; but they are both entity, both "things", and both knowable.

Can there be an entity or "thing" that is not knowable?

the ontological facts about the universe - they are things whether i'm aware of them or not. the awareness is internal, the thingness is external.
OK, good! We've completely changed the subject, now... from knowing things to the existence of things.

What makes these "ontological facts" things to me (as the agent of knowing)?

On balance, yes. But then, this universe not having a God seems more plausible than the opposite, too.

Which is why I lean towards Atheism, while philisophically being Agnostic.

The bible was man written, translated, published over thousands of years, and still people believe that there can be no different interpretations. Also it isn't descriptive enough from keeping the various Christian ideals from spliting into factions.

How can religion claim such knowledge when they don't even agree among each other?

You forgot to mention that most of the stuff in the Bible was passed down orally for centuries, before someone bothered to write it down. Anyway, my point was that it's rather arrogant to claim with certainty that there has never been any observations of divine stuff of whatever kind, even though so much of it has been documented.

Equally strange is to claim that because there are so many religions or denominations, none of them can be right.

Mon- Day = Moon Day
Sun- Day = Sun Day

Yes, I noticed that. What I was curious about was how does the names of those days suggest that christianity is false? I admit that I don't know how, when, and where those names were taken into use, but I'd bet it's a cultural remnant that has nothing to do with christianity.

Christmas, midsummer, easter and many other pagan holidays and other stuff were taken into christianity so that converting the pagan tribes would have been easier. I have nothing against that, because the Bible doesn't say we shouldn't celebrate the birth of Jesus in Christmas, even though 1) it doesn't say we should, and 2) it's been proven that he wasn't born then. And so on. So it has taken some influences along the way? The core message still stays the same.

You forgot to mention that most of the stuff in the Bible was passed down orally for centuries, before someone bothered to write it down. Anyway, my point was that it's rather arrogant to claim with certainty that there has never been any observations of divine stuff of whatever kind, even though so much of it has been documented.

None that I've ever seen or anyone I know has ever seen. I'm not the type of person who sees Virgin Mary on his toast in the morning. As Sartre said: "If divine messages exist then it is I who shall define it."

Or something like that, but the point is the same. Most often divine interventions are amazing events simply interperated to be the will of god. (Why do I feel like I'm playing Vince from Pulp Fiction :D)

Equally strange is to claim that because there are so many religions or denominations, none of them can be right.

Not saying none of them are right, but it seems unusual that they just can't agree on what god is, or how to worship god.

Yes, I noticed that. What I was curious about was how does the names of those days suggest that christianity is false? I admit that I don't know how, when, and where those names were taken into use, but I'd bet it's a cultural remnant that has nothing to do with christianity.

Christmas, midsummer, easter and many other pagan holidays and other stuff were taken into christianity so that converting the pagan tribes would have been easier. I have nothing against that, because the Bible doesn't say we shouldn't celebrate the birth of Jesus in Christmas, even though 1) it doesn't say we should, and 2) it's been proven that he wasn't born then. And so on. So it has taken some influences along the way? The core message still stays the same.

Just seems to back the idea that Christianity was invented by a bunch of men, and in men I will remain skeptical in. I don't think it's false as much as I don't believe it's the word of god.

Can there be an entity or "thing" that is not knowable?

yes. anything outside of our epistemic access that actually exists is an unknowable thing.

OK, good! We've completely changed the subject, now... from knowing things to the existence of things.

What makes these "ontological facts" things to me (as the agent of knowing)?

i've always been talking about existence as distinct from knowledge.

the ontological facts are just basic categories of the universe, they exist whether you recognize them or not

None that I've ever seen or anyone I know has ever seen. I'm not the type of person who sees Virgin Mary on his toast in the morning. As Sartre said: "If divine messages exist then it is I who shall define it."

Or something like that, but the point is the same. Most often divine interventions are amazing events simply interperated to be the will of god. (Why do I feel like I'm playing Vince from Pulp Fiction :D)

Very true. It's just that atheists tend to eliminate the very possibility of a divine intervention, and therefore any testimony or documentation anyone could provide, is rejected invariably. If an atheist himself saw God, he'd dismiss it as a hallucination or a strange light phenomenon or whatever. I, too, think that people, who see virgin Maries on toasts, are more or less touched in the head, but ruling out the possibility of miracles entirely is just too big an assumption in my christian-agnostic opinion.

Just seems to back the idea that Christianity was invented by a bunch of men, and in men I will remain skeptical in. I don't think it's false as much as I don't believe it's the word of god.

Either that, or maybe those men are just overly obsessed with spreading it at all costs.

Anyway, I think that wraps the discussion up nicely. It was fun, but it's over 6 AM, and I must get some sleep. Good night.

yes. anything outside of our epistemic access that actually exists is an unknowable thing.

Ok, I'm not sure what "epistemic access" is but if there is a thing that is beyond our conceivable "access" of knowledge, might it just as well not exist as far as we and our knowledge are concerned? (like "God")

Is there any use labelling as "something" a thing we cannot know of?

i've always been talking about existence as distinct from knowledge.

Yeah; my bad that the subject changed, I asked an incomplete question.

the ontological facts are just basic categories of the universe, they exist whether you recognize them or not

Aren't these "ontological facts"/categories of the universe things that we can know?

Ok, I'm not sure what "epistemic access" is but if there is a thing that is beyond our conceivable "access" of knowledge, might it just as well not exist as far as we and our knowledge is concerned?

No. The existence of God may not be verifiable, but even so, it may nevertheless matter to us.

We may, for instance, view a created universe ruled over by a deity differently from a naturally-formed universe ruled over by nothing, even if it makes no difference at all in what we experience.

Ok, I'm not sure what "epistemic access" is but if there is a thing that is beyond our conceivable "access" of knowledge, might it just as well not exist as far as we and our knowledge are concerned? (like "God")

That's the point of agnosticism. Because one can not know with certainly EVER the truth of god's existence, you can acknowledge this and move on with your life, rather than picking a side. It's not fence sitting and it's not indecision, it's the suggestion that because we can not know, there's no point in choosing.

Is there any use labelling as "something" a thing we cannot know of?

Yes. We so far (and likely permanently) can not know of the events that transpired before the big bang (if they can even be called events in the absence of time). However, we can still speculate on what happened, and these imaginations, these concepts we develop have a "thingness" to them, whether they exist outside our imagination or not.



Aren't these "ontological facts"/categories of the universe things that we can know?

Not necessarily. An Ontological Fact is merely a fact regarding the existence or being of any thing, entity, person, etc. Plato, for instance, believed that any and all nouns had an associated entity (this being the basis for the Platonic Ideals). Despite these Ideals and Entities essentially being inaccessible and unknowable (because even though you could conceive of a perfect triangle, for instance, thus giving this perfect triangle the status of platonic ideal for a triangle, that does not mean that this triangle necessarily exists somewhere outside our ability to conceive of it).

Hope that made sense.

No. The existence of God may not be verifiable, but even so, it may nevertheless matter to us.

We may, for instance, view a created universe ruled over by a deity differently from a naturally-formed universe ruled over by nothing, even if it makes no difference at all in what we experience.

What "matters" is a different thing, a value judgement.

Is there a significant (to us) difference between something whose existence we cannot know --have no way of ever knowing exists --and something that does not exist?

What "matters" is a different thing, a value judgement.

No, it's crucial to the question you asked.

Is there a significant (to us) difference between something whose existence we cannot know --have no way of ever knowing exists --and something that does not exist?

There can be, yes.

Something whose existence we cannot know may exist - and thanks to those "value judgments" you mentioned, this can be significant to us.

That's the point of agnosticism. Because one can not know with certainly EVER the truth of god's existence, you can acknowledge this and move on with your life, rather than picking a side. It's not fence sitting and it's not indecision, it's the suggestion that because we can not know, there's no point in choosing.

Alright; yet there are agnostic atheists and agnostic theists. Agnosticism has helped them pick a side.

Yes. We so far (and likely permanently) can not know of the events that transpired before the big bang (if they can even be called events in the absence of time). However, we can still speculate on what happened, and these imaginations, these concepts we develop have a "thingness" to them, whether they exist outside our imagination or not.

We can know of speculations as imagined things, but what of things that we cannot know, at all, ever? Might they just as well not exist? Is there any value in considering them "things" at all?

Not necessarily. An Ontological Fact is merely a fact regarding the existence or being of any thing, entity, person, etc. Plato, for instance, believed that any and all nouns had an associated entity (this being the basis for the Platonic Ideals). Despite these Ideals and Entities essentially being inaccessible and unknowable (because even though you could conceive of a perfect triangle, for instance, thus giving this perfect triangle the status of platonic ideal for a triangle, that does not mean that this triangle necessarily exists somewhere outside our ability to conceive of it).

Hope that made sense.

If it's a "fact" does that make it something we know?

If we can conceive of the ideal triangle, does it not exist as a known imagined thing?

No, it's crucial to the question you asked.

Interesting! I had asked, "if there is a thing that is beyond our conceivable 'access' of knowledge, might it just as well not exist as far as we and our knowledge are concerned?" How is "what matters (to us)" crucial to what we can know, in your view (if that's what you meant)?

There can be, yes.

Something whose existence we cannot know may exist - and thanks to those "value judgments" you mentioned, this can be significant to us.

Cool. I think we're getting somewhere, now.

How do we relate to something whose existence we cannot know? (How do we relate to something we know?)

Alright; yet there are agnostic atheists and agnostic theists. Agnosticism has helped them pick a side.

No, they're merely expressing a lean in their beliefs. Agnosticism isn't some all-encompassing canonical term. It's a label, and so being an agnostic theist just means that while you put your faith in a deity, you acknowledge that it is impossible to know for certain whether or not he/she exists.

We can know of speculations as imagined things, but what of things that we cannot know, at all, ever? Might they just as well not exist? Is there any value in considering them "things" at all?



If it's a "fact" does that make something we know?

If we can conceive of the ideal triangle, does it not exist as a known imagined thing?

What you're basically arguing here is something referred to as the Ontological Argument. Basically, if we can conceive of something, specifically something that represents an ideal or "best" of its type, than that thing must exist (you extend this to anything we can conceive of, but for now I will examine from the Ideal standpoint). However, refutations of the Ontological Argument abound as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_Argument

Is really a good place to start if you want some reading material on the subject.

Interesting! I had asked, "if there is a thing that is beyond our conceivable 'access' of knowledge, might it just as well not exist as far as we and our knowledge are concerned?" How is "what matters (to us)" crucial to what we can know, in your view (if that's what you meant)?

Not that it's crucial to "what we can know" - just that it's crucial to whether or not it might "just as well not exist."

While it might not affect our experiences whether or not a certain entity exists or not (and indeed, if we are really going to say that something is "unknowable", that would probably be the best way to justify it), we might care about its existence or non-existence anyway - thus making the difference a significant one.

How do we relate to something whose existence we cannot know?

We conceive of its existence, and have an emotional reaction.

No, they're merely expressing a lean in their beliefs. Agnosticism isn't some all-encompassing canonical term. It's a label, and so being an agnostic theist just means that while you put your faith in a deity, you acknowledge that it is impossible to know for certain whether or not he/she exists.

Is it possible that the reasoning that leads the agnostic theist to believe in the impossibility of knowing whether a thing exists is the same reasoning that leads him or her to believe in that possibility that it might exist? (OK, that's a leading question... haha)

What you're basically arguing here is something referred to as the Ontological Argument. Basically, if we can conceive of something, specifically something that represents an ideal or "best" of its type, than that thing must exist (you extend this to anything we can conceive of, but for now I will examine from the Ideal standpoint). However, refutations of the Ontological Argument abound as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_Argument

Is really a good place to start if you want some reading material on the subject.
I'm more concerned with knowledge than with existence, i.e. if we cannot know of a thing at all, is there any value in regarding it as being a "thing"? I don't just mean not knowing about it, or not being able to know about it now, but having no possible means of knowing or even conceiving of it (because conceiving of a thing is knowing an imagined thing).

-snip.

Good night, err uhh morning I guess :p

Not that it's crucial to "what we can know" - just that it's crucial to whether or not it might "just as well not exist."

While it might not affect our experiences whether or not a certain entity exists or not (and indeed, if we are really going to say that something is "unknowable", that would probably be the best way to justify it), we might care about its existence or non-existence anyway - thus making the difference a significant one.
Good point; there's two tracks, with "knowing" and "existing", and I get off-track sometimes. I have to keep reminding myself gnosticism is about knowing, not about existence. But you were on to something, with meaning...

We conceive of its existence, and have an emotional reaction. But then it's something we know, because we have conceived of it.

In order to relate to something we cannot know, we create a symbol for 'the unknowable' and relate to the symbol. It's the same way we relate to the known world around us: through symbols of language. (And you're right: words can stir emotions.)

But then it's something we know, because we have conceived of it.

We might know its nature or qualities, but we do not necessarily know whether or not it exists.

We might know its nature or qualities, but we do not necessarily know whether or not it exists.

Just so; but gnosticism is about the knowing, not what is known.

Just so; but gnosticism is about the knowing, not what is known.

"Agnostic" in common usage refers simply to a lack of knowledge regarding the existence of God.

"Agnostic" in common usage refers simply to a lack of knowledge regarding the existence of God.

The OP suggests that god is not just unknown but unknowable. If god is unknowable, then god is not to be found in "knowing" the world --god is literally to be found in the "not knowing" (a-gnosos). By what process do we "know" things?

The OP suggests that god is not just unknown but unknowable.

The EXISTENCE of God.

God Him/Herself being unknowable is a doctrine of much of monotheist theology, not of agnosticism.

The EXISTENCE of God.

God Him/Herself being unknowable is a doctrine of much of monotheist theology, not of agnosticism.

So we're back to existence: is there a significance difference between saying the existence of a thing is unknowable and the thing is unknowable? Is it a thing if it doesn't exist?

So we're back to existence: is there a significance difference between saying the existence of a thing is unknowable and the thing is unknowable?

Yes. I can perfectly comprehend the qualities of something whose existence I cannot know either way.

Why would that not be possible?

Is it a thing if it doesn't exist?

Of course it is. It is just not an existing thing.

is there a significance difference between saying the existence of a thing is unknowable and the thing is unknowable?
Yes. I can perfectly comprehend the qualities of something whose existence I cannot know either way.

Why would that not be possible?
Ah, Dualism...

I didn't mean to ask about what you know (your knowledge of a thing), but about the existence of a particular thing that is unknowable.

We know things by their characteristics, those things that make up their perceived nature. If a thing is unknowable, it can have no characteristics. Therefore, there is no difference between a thing whose existence is unknowable and a thing that is the unknowable.

God Him/Herself being unknowable is a doctrine of much of monotheist theology, not of agnosticism.
There is no significant difference, except to the "undecided".

Of course it is. It is just not an existing thing.

It's a thing that doesn't exist?

We know things by their characteristics, those things that make up their perceived nature. If a thing is unknowable, it can have no characteristics.

No knowable characteristics.

It's possible for something to have characteristics beyond human comprehension, and thus be unknowable.

Therefore, there is no difference between a thing whose existence is unknowable and a thing that is the unknowable.

That doesn't follow from your premise. Something whose existence is unknowable can have characteristics.

There is no significant difference

Yes, there is a difference.

In one case, we are referring to the transcendent nature of God's qualities; they are such that they cannot be comprehended by the human mind.

In the other, we are referring to the unknowability of His existence, whatever His qualities; it is argued that for whatever reason we can never know whether or not God actually exists, regardless of whether or not we can fully comprehend Him.

It's a thing that doesn't exist?

Yes. Like unicorns, or faeries, or dragons, or wizards.

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquistion!!!!!

No knowable characteristics.

It's possible for something to have characteristics beyond human comprehension, and thus be unknowable.

By definition, characteristics (http://www.answers.com/topic/characteristic) are what we can observe, so it is impossible for something to have characteristics beyond human comprehension.

In one case, we are referring to the transcendent nature of God's qualities; they are such that they cannot be comprehended by the human mind.

In the other, we are referring to the unknowability of His existence, whatever His qualities; it is argued that for whatever reason we can never know whether or not God actually exists, regardless of whether or not we can fully comprehend Him.

What are these "transcendent qualities"? How do we know them? What is the difference between knowing them and knowing of him?

Yes. Like unicorns, or faeries, or dragons, or wizards.

They are not "things"? What is the difference between being a thing and existing as a thing?

"Agnosticism is a belief system that denies the ability to have knowledge or truth regarding the fundamental nature of the universe, and in particular about God. It differs from atheism in not denying the existence of God or cosmic divinities. An agnostic simply claims that there is insufficient knowledge or data to determine whether or not God does or does not exist."
(from Creationwiki.org's Philosophy page (http://creationwiki.org/Portal:Philosophy))

Is there anything wrong/illogical with this definition? Is the claim that one cannot have knowledge of a thing (per the first sentence) the same as the claim that one has insufficient knowledge (per the last sentence)? (or even compatible with it?) Is the claim that a thing does not exist inherent in the claim that one cannot have knowledge of that thing?

Is this a good definition of Agnosticism? How would you amend it?

(Edit: Yes, I'm going to use Creationwiki.org as a reference from now on. :p)

Atheists and believers, of all faiths, I can stand. Agnostics really get in my craw--Pi Patel in Life of Pisums it up best: "[doubt as a way of life] is akin to using immobility as a mode of transportation."

agnostics=cowardly atheists....afraid to confront family or friends, they choose the easy way out and say things like "I'm confused, I'm not sure"....


belief in a god is either is a yes or a no issue, .....an agnostic claiming to be neutral because the evidence isn't conclusive one way or the other is illogical.... if there is no evidence of a God then there logically can be no God until it is absolutely proven...whereas atheism doesn't require evidence to prove the existence of nothing, either it exists or it doesn't....

don't know if I explained myself well.....

blind faith=a belief in god....any doubt at all=atheist

What a ridiculous idea.

What is agnosticism?

dumb.

By definition, characteristics (http://www.answers.com/topic/characteristic) are what we can observe, so it is impossible for something to have characteristics beyond human comprehension.

No, all that definition says is that they are distinguishing - not that we can fully comprehend them.

God is distinguished by His traits, but we still cannot comprehend them fully. Or so it goes, anyway.

What are these "transcendent qualities"?

Typically they are said to be omnipotence, omniscience, etc.

How do we know them?

Religion tells us, or it's presupposed by the question ("Does a God as described by Christian theology exist?")

What is the difference between knowing them and knowing of him?

It's the difference, if I'm understanding you correctly, between knowing what something is and whether or not something exists.

Even if I could fully comprehend God's qualities, I still wouldn't know with certainty whether or not He actually exists.

They are not "things"?

They are things. They are non-existent things.

What is the difference between being a thing and existing as a thing?

The same difference as there is between non-existence and existence.

In my mind, an agnostic believes he can't know if there is a god, an atheist doesn't believe there is a god, and someone who isn't sure just 'isn't sure.'

"That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism."
-["Agnosticism and Christianity", 1889]T. H. Huxley

This definition of agnosticism is so broad that it includes just about everyone who has never spoken with a burning shrub while barefoot. Everybody knows that there is no proof of God. That is why God's existence is accepted or rejected as a matter of faith. Faith is a belief in the absence of any proof.

Everybody knows that there is no proof of God.
so the religious are lying when they say that they think they've had direct experience with god?

so the religious are lying when they say that they think they've had direct experience with god?

I would not say that they are lying. I am sure that they felt that they had a faith affirming experience, but I doubt that they experieced proof of God's existence. Some people may have experienced some form of proof. Perhaps Moses talked to a burning bush. Most people are not blessed with such experiences.

I recently saw a story on a Christian TV show about a ghetto gangster drug dealing thug who had a dream of a cross or something and stopped being a badass and became a minister and converted a lot of ghetto scum. This was undoubtedly a faith affirming experience for the guy but I would not call it proof of the existence of God.

I would not say that they are lying. I am sure that they felt that they had a faith affirming experience, but I doubt that they experieced proof of God's existence. Some people may have experienced some form of proof. Perhaps Moses talked to a burning bush. Most people are not blessed with such experiences.

I recently saw a story on a Christian TV show about a ghetto gangster drug dealing thug who had a dream of a cross or something and stopped being a badass and became a minister and converted a lot of ghetto scum. This was undoubtedly a faith affirming experience for the guy but I would not call it proof of the existence of God.

well nothing will work as proof - god isn't held to be a math problem, as far as i know. but direct experience is typically counted as very powerful evidence in all other realms of life. and such experiences with what they take to be the divine are typical among the religious.

(of course, they are typical among all religions, which is a pretty good sign that the divine has nothing to do with it...)

I prefer Gnosticism. I guess I am too lazy to add the A in front of it :)

"Agnosticism is a belief system that denies the ability to have knowledge or truth regarding the fundamental nature of the universe, and in particular about God. It differs from atheism in not denying the existence of God or cosmic divinities. An agnostic simply claims that there is insufficient knowledge or data to determine whether or not God does or does not exist."
(from Creationwiki.org's Philosophy page (http://creationwiki.org/Portal:Philosophy))

That sounds ok to me.


Is there anything wrong/illogical with this definition? Is the claim that one cannot have knowledge of a thing (per the first sentence) the same as the claim that one has insufficient knowledge (per the last sentence)?

No, there's a very significant difference.

I do not currently know how M&Ms are made. I believe that I could know, were I to seek such knowledge, but I don't currently know. On the other hand, I believe that neither I nor any other human being can possibly know whether or not there is an omniscient, omnipotent being guiding our existence. Regardless of whether or not I seek this knowledge, I do not believe it is possible to attain it.


Is the claim that a thing does not exist inherent in the claim that one cannot have knowledge of that thing?

No. There are plenty of things that could exist, yet which I could not possibly have knowledge about. Human knowledge, and our ability to understand, is limited.

No knowable characteristics.

It's possible for something to have characteristics beyond human comprehension, and thus be unknowable.

That doesn't follow from your premise. Something whose existence is unknowable can have characteristics.

A characteristic, by definition, as something we observe to distinguish an object, can only be knowable, because it's not a characteristic until we observe it, and when we do, we then know a thing by it. Perhaps you're thinking of properties. The usefulness of a characteristic is in identifying an object to us.

No, all that definition says is that they are distinguishing - not that we can fully comprehend them.

God is distinguished by His traits, but we still cannot comprehend them fully. Or so it goes, anyway.
We are the ones who distinguish; we cannot distinguish unless some comprehension --conscious or otherwise --is involved.

Typically they are said to be omnipotence, omniscience, etc.

Religion tells us, or it's presupposed by the question ("Does a God as described by Christian theology exist?")

It's the difference, if I'm understanding you correctly, between knowing what something is and whether or not something exists.

Even if I could fully comprehend God's qualities, I still wouldn't know with certainty whether or not He actually exists.

Okay, so you're going by the "somebody said so" method, rather than the "I can determine for myself how and why I can know things" method, which is what I was aiming for. I can't compete with "somebody said so."

The difference between knowing a thing and knowing of a thing is that the latter allows for "somebody said so."

They are things. They are non-existent things.

The same difference as there is between non-existence and existence.

If they don't exist, how is it they can be something?

"Agnosticism is a belief system that denies the ability to have knowledge or truth regarding the fundamental nature of the universe, and in particular about God. It differs from atheism in not denying the existence of God or cosmic divinities. An agnostic simply claims that there is insufficient knowledge or data to determine whether or not God does or does not exist."
(from Creationwiki.org's Philosophy page (http://creationwiki.org/Portal:Philosophy))

Is there anything wrong/illogical with this definition? Is the claim that one cannot have knowledge of a thing (per the first sentence) the same as the claim that one has insufficient knowledge (per the last sentence)? (or even compatible with it?) Is the claim that a thing does not exist inherent in the claim that one cannot have knowledge of that thing?

Is this a good definition of Agnosticism? How would you amend it?

(Edit: Yes, I'm going to use Creationwiki.org as a reference from now on. :p)

There are really two kinds of Agnosticism. One where the practitioner denies knowledge of God's existence, and therefore refuses to say whether or not it exists, and then there are those who say some form of god-figure exists, but there is no way to know what it is.

Is the claim that a thing does not exist inherent in the claim that one cannot have knowledge of that thing?
No. There are plenty of things that could exist, yet which I could not possibly have knowledge about. Human knowledge, and our ability to understand, is limited.

But they could still be known if our limitations were surpassed? Then they are still in the realm of the potentially knowable.

If a thing is not even potentially knowable, is that the same as something that does not exist?

A characteristic, by definition, as something we observe to distinguish an object, can only be knowable, because it's not a characteristic until we observe it, and when we do, we then know a thing by it. Perhaps you're thinking of properties. The usefulness of a characteristic is in identifying an object to us.

we don't enter into it. whether we can observe a particular characteristic or not matters not at all to the existence of that characteristic.

If they don't exist, how is it they can be something?

why would something have to actually exist in order to be a thing? what sort of things would you say non-existent things are?

If a thing is not even potentially knowable, is that the same as something that does not exist?

this universe might be one of a number of universes, and it may in fact be literally impossible for anything in any universe to find out anything about any other universe, but those other universes would still exist regardless.

Okay, so you're going by the "somebody said so" method, rather than the "I can determine for myself how and why I can know things" method, which is what I was aiming for. I can't compete with "somebody said so."

Um, no.

What God is is a matter of definition, not something that can be empirically observed. If empirically we somehow observed something else, we would know that, but since it would not be God, it would be beside the point.

If they don't exist, how is it they can be something?

Because existence isn't a necessary condition of being something. If it were, we could not speak coherently of what does and does not exist, because we would have no means of speaking of the non-existing things.

What is agnosticism?

Hell if I know.

But they could still be known if our limitations were surpassed? Then they are still in the realm of the potentially knowable.

Since I do not anticipate that I will ever be something other than a human being, the limitations of human cognition are what concern me. It is possible that something else might be able to know whether or not "God" exists, but I do not believe that I (or any other human) can know it.


If a thing is not even potentially knowable, is that the same as something that does not exist?
No.

we don't enter into it. whether we can observe a particular characteristic or not matters not at all to the existence of that characteristic.

A characteristic serves to identify a thing. If it's not being identifyed to us, within the context of our languages, then to whom? Intelligent mice?

why would something have to actually exist in order to be a thing? what sort of things would you say non-existent things are?

Because existence isn't a necessary condition of being something. If it were, we could not speak coherently of what does and does not exist, because we would have no means of speaking of the non-existing things.

But being is a requirement of existence. Existence is "to be." It's opposite is "nothing" or non-existence. If something isn't, i.e. doesn't exist, then it is "no thing."

Things exist. They do not not-exist. There are no "things" that do not exist and to speak of them is incoherence. (Of course, that doesn't prevent us from doing it.)

Since I do not anticipate that I will ever be something other than a human being, the limitations of human cognition are what concern me. It is possible that something else might be able to know whether or not "God" exists, but I do not believe that I (or any other human) can know it.


No.

Cool.

What God is is a matter of definition, not something that can be empirically observed. If empirically we somehow observed something else, we would know that, but since it would not be God, it would be beside the point.

What about knowing through reasoning, such as the way we know a circle?