Soul Invictus

I was thinking about the definitions of atheism,agnosticism, and theism, and came to the following thoughts.

Throughout life, mankind has more than likely been brought to bear a position on the EoG. Theism positively asserts that a god(s) exist. Atheism gets a little tricky. One atheist positively asserts that a god(s) do not exist and the other lacks a belief that a god(s) exist. Either way, the atheist position does not adopt an affirmative stance on the EoG. Now agnosticism throws a monkey wrench in the discussion because, to the best of my knowledge, agnosticism's position is that we do not know or can't know - so the belief that there can be no proof either that God(s) exists or that God(s) does not exist.
But IMO, this does not address the question of whether or not God(s) exists. It does address the question of Can/will/do we know if/that God exists?. What do you think? I think "Does God(s) exist" is a factual claim, and it's my understanding that in argumentation, that factual claims offer only an affirmative/positive position or non-affirmative/negative position. I think that "Can/will/do we know if/that God(s) exist has to be a value claim, which is not limited to a yes or no position.

Long story short, the question is does God exist. Saying that we don't know or can't know isn't an appropriate answer. If you maintain that it is, then I would ask if you embrace the value claim that knowledge (of existence) is necessary to advocate existence.. I'm sure this this could be worded better, but if you do embrace this claim then it would appear to follow that you would have to be atheist.

I look forward to your thoughts...

Pyrrho

Two points:

First, you are right that agnosticism is about epistemology rather than ontology or metaphysics.

Second, saying, when people are arguing about something, that we cannot know the answer to the question being argued, is a very appropriate thing to say, if one has good reasons for that position. After all, if something is unknowable, then us arguing about it is pointless and stupid, because we literally would not know what we are talking about.

Yahzi

If you have no knowledge of God, then you cannot believe in God.

Not all atheists are necessarily agnostic: many atheists believe you can have as much knowledge about God as you can anything else.

But all agnostics are necessarily atheists. So, to call oneself an agnostic is perhaps a bit misleading: what one really means is the agnostic version of atheist.

Soul Invictus

I could agree with this. To restate my closing sentence, does agnosticism accept or refute the claim that knowledge is necessary to purport existence? If so, I'm inclined to say that we must confirm what constitutes evidence. Atheists contend that there is no objective, quanitifiable or substantive evidence to support the existence of God. If the agnostic answers this question, wouldn't it follow that the agnostic has an ability to accept/decline the assertion of whether God exists or not? -

Thank you for your comments

Soul Invictus

I think you hit it right on the head. I think that this sums of the agnostic label well.

Howard

If we know nothing about God, as agnostics suggest, how can we know that he is unknowable?

Perhaps the reason we know nothing about God is that there is nothing to know.

Pyrrho

This is manifestly false. Just take a look at the posts at this web site, and you will find many believers who know nothing about God.

No, one can be an agnostic, believing that they cannot know whether there is a god or not, but believe anyway. It is often said that one should have faith, though there are others who disagree; see this.

Pyrrho

One might believe something without knowing if one was right. See this. So an agnostic could either be a theist or not. An atheist might not necessarily agree that there is no evidence for the existence of God, though most I have met would accept that. One could, for example, believe that there is evidence both ways, but that the evidence favors the non-existence of God, and therefore be an atheist.

Pyrrho

You might want to ask that question of an agnostic who believes that we cannot have evidence one way or the other (as opposed to an agnostic who merely says that he or she does not know).

I would say that belief in God is equivalent to belief in Santa Claus. Some people want to believe, and have been told to believe, but there really isn't any good reason to believe. And, depending on what version of "god" one is talking about, I would go further and say that we can have reason to believe that such a god is impossible (e.g., the problem of evil, incoherent/contradictory concept of "god", etc.).

Garnet

To me the simplest definitions of the diiferent viewpoints of whether or not God exists is, theist yes, atheist no, agnostic don't know.

I've been trying to think about this in terms of other things that were not known at some point, but are known now. I keep thinking of the existence of the atom. Previous to confirmation that atoms existed, some scientists said there was no evidence, some scientists said they existed, some scientists said "I don't know."

I think that for an agnostic, the jury is still out. And to accept or decline the assertion of whether or not God exists would mean that they were now an atheist or a theist.

*chuckle* I decline the assertion that God exists...but I'm still piss poor at this kind of discussion...so be gentle with me.