Yahzi

But that's just irrational. How can you assert that knowledge is impossible, and then claim knowledge anyway?

I concede my definition did not leave room for the self-contradictory.

Agnostic Theist

Perhaps there are two (as far as I am able to deduce) answers to this:

1. To employ the atheistic position. Based on the consequential assumption that God does not (or rather, may not) exist, it becomes impossible to know, simply due to the fact that one cannot prove a negation. (especially if x is untangible, or beyond our sensory experience, then how do we prove ~x?)

2. To adopt the theistic position with consideration for what the predicates of God (apparently) must be for the being to qualify as God. It is the moment we reach the predicate 'infinite' (sometimes treated synonymously with eternal, but that's semantics and a separate issue) that we may claim God is unknowable, based on this argument

P1. The mind is finite

P2. That which is finite cannot extend to the infinite

P3. God is infinite

C God is unknowable (to the finite mind)

This does not assume knowledge of God, but rather a concept of godliness. The difficulty here, of course, becomes the definition of 'knowledge'. Does holding a concept equate to knowledge? Do agnostics mean any or complete knowledge? If that concept is not based on any true, justified knowledge (other than assertions or what WE believe a God must be) can it be deemed valid as knowledge and can the agnostic (or indeed anyone) use it in an EoG. (Putting that last question simply, can we use any aspect of God in an argument for/against God if we do not know God?)

Would I be correct in assuming you are both atheist and aagnostic? (spelling deliberate)

Pyrrho

First of all, many people have a very high tolerance for contradictions and absurdity; just look around you. Second, saying that one does not know does not mean that one does not believe. Take a look at:

http://www.ethicsofbelief.com/

Have you never heard of the concept of taking a "leap of faith"?

One need not claim knowledge to claim belief (or to even have belief).

Agnostic Theist

I think Yahzi's position more more apropos of the stand 'can not' rather than 'do not' know.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

fishbulb

In a general context, I can see some validity in this. I was thinking specifically in the context of being asked, "do you believe in god," or a similar question. In that situation, to respond by saying that we cannot have absolute knowledge of anything is a dodge: an attempt to answer a different question from the one that was asked.

But not necessarily with a belief in karma, or alien spaceships hiding behing Haley's Comet on a mission to take suicidal believers on a trip to some alien paradise. In any case, the practical consequences of holding a belief should not have any bearing on one's conclusions regarding whether or not one can know for certain whether or not that belief is true.

But if we presume that god is a supernatural entity then we just beg the question. A supernatural entity is, by definition, unknowable: since it doesn't follow the natural laws of the Universe, we have no way of knowing if it is what we suppose it is or if it is something different altogether (or nothing at all). With the supernatural, it is not just a case of not being able to know for certain, but a case of not being able to know at all. It is pointless to argue whether or not we can know for certain whether or not a particular supernatural entity exists because we cannot even know at all whether the supernatural exists in general.

Gurdur

You're prejudging the respondant.
Replying to the question of whether one believes in a god or not with the answer "You cannot know if a god exists" might well be an unsatisfactory answer to you, but if the respondant simply wants to say that he or she doesn't have enough info to decide, that's quite a valid answer and not a dodge at all.
Youn think because in practice they are saying they don't have enough info to believe, therefore they should say they don't believe; they think that simply saying the question is not answerable with meaning is quite enough.
That's their stance, and it's a valid one, even if not likeable.
Why not ?
You're prejudging the "to know".
A modern fideist theist would simply say they feel God, or a god's works or presence.
That would confirm my points.

fishbulb

It is an unresponsive answer. "You cannot know if a god exists," does not mean, "I have no firm belief one way or the other." One's belief with respect to whether it is possible to know whether or not god exists is orthogonal to one's belief in whether or not god does exist. It is possible to firmly believe that the likelihood that god exists is too remote to take seriously and yet to acknowledge that it is impossible to know for sure whether or not god exists. It is also possible to firmly believe that god does exist and yet acknowledge that it is impossible to know. Both positions, in fact, seem to be common. A declaration that it is impossible to know for certain does not imply that one has no beliefs--weak or strong--on whether god exists. Therefore, to answer a question about whether one believes in god with a statement about the limits of knowledge is to decline to answer the question as asked. To say that there isn't enough evidence to form a meaningful belief would be a direct answer to the question. To say that it is impossible to know would not. The two responses are not equivalent.

One can take the position that there can never be any evidence (let alone certain knowlegde) of the existence or non-existence of any supernatural phenomenon, but that position does not imply a belief that a supernatural entity is just as likely to be real as it is not to be. Once again, arguing that there are limits to what can be known does not imply a particular level or orientation of belief in whether those things do or don't exist.


To argue that it is meaningless to talk about believing whether or not god exists because, for example, the definition of god is incoherent, is a reasonable argument to make, but it also implies that one does not believe in god: the belief that a concept is incoherent precludes any rational belief in the "truth" of that concept.

Once again, the fact that we cannot know if something is true does not preclude us from forming reasonable beliefs about whether or not that thing is true. (For example, many if not most astronomers believe that there is life on other planets. We have no direct evidence that this is true, and so few astronomers will say that we know there is life on other planets, but many believe that, given what we know about life in general and the nature of the Universe, we can be almost certain that it must exist elsewhere.) Recognizing that it is impossible to know something for certain does not imply that one holds no beliefs one way or the other.

Because the truth of a preposition is independent of any consequences of that preposition being true or false. It is a fallacy to appeal to the practical consequences of a particular preposition in order to argue for the acceptance of that preposition.

He might well say that, but he would just be begging the question: one cannot know that one's feelings are caused by the presence of god unless one already knows not only that god exists but also what effects its presence has on people's feelings. How does he know that these feelings are not caused by Satan or magic elves or the natural release of endorphins? In any case, the belief that god is real and the belief that it is actually possible to know this for certain are two separate beliefs. Our theist could change either one and yet still hold on to the other.

What it means is that to claim that it is impossible to know whether or not god exists is redundant: if god belongs to a class of things whose existence can never be verified or refuted, then we already know that god's existence cannot be verified or refuted. But that does not answer the question, "do you believe that [insert your god here] is real?"

Soul Invictus

You're basically stating what I'd concur with. As noted, an agnostic could be a theist or not, but that's my point - being a theist or not, is the essential question.

Soul Invictus

Gurdur,

slight derail -
I'm back from the weekend of bliss. It was great. My friend got married and it was a marvelous affair.

derail ended -

Back to the discussion.

I noted the rest of the thread. I'm willing to conduct a debate. I'm not sure how to formulate the setup. Do we need to go to that forum?

I recognize your positions and I think that I understand them. Fishbulb has hit on some elements that I agree with, so I'll post a response and let me know what you think about the debate and/or continuing in this thread.

I agree.

I agree with your opinion on the decision to become an agnostic is pragmatic. I don't think I agree with number 1, unless I'm reading this wrong. I'm more inclined to believe that many theists and atheists are inclined to be basing their position due to the information/proof/evidence (or the lack thereof) at their disposal, thus making their position a decision of pragmatic purposes. Both would be a reflection of the information that they have at their disposal...not necessarily tied to the completeness of the information available. About number two - I do believe that the presumption of the existence of God is a pragmatic one, but per my earlier post, this is the essential question asked.

You're prejudging the respondant.
Replying to the question of whether one believes in a god or not with the answer "You cannot know if a god exists" might well be an unsatisfactory answer to you, but if the respondant simply wants to say that he or she doesn't have enough info to decide, that's quite a valid answer and not a dodge at all.
Youn think because in practice they are saying they don't have enough info to believe, therefore they should say they don't believe

I'd like to address the last comment. I recognize the tricky part of assumptions. If the agnostic does not have enough info to believe, then doesn't that mean they either lack belief or do not believe?

Somehow it seems like a more confusing topic as we go on, but it is interesting. In closing, I'd like to state that I believe that the following question should be answerable. I believe that information is key for decisions that we make. We are inclined to behave and act based on information that we do and don't have...as well as for beliefs we do and don't hold. The question that I would ask is Based on the available information/evidence at your disposal, and your personal requirements of adequate information for decision making purposes, does the assertion that "God exists", currently meet your burden of proof?

I'm going to try to jazz this up better...