R.M.S.

I'll try to give a - hopefully somewhat new - analysis of the problems in the debates between atheïsts and agnosticists. I myself am an atheïst, so of course I'll defend that position.

While Family Man argued that a logical possibility doesn't make a belief justified, I'd like to go a step further and argue that a theoretical possibility of something existing (including possibilities in non-logical worlds) doesn't imply that we should remain agnosticist about the issue. However, while most people rely on Occam's razor and the like, I'll try to explain why I believe that explanation doesn't suffice and offer an alternative which is similar but has some important nuances. The issue at hand is, of course, the christian God, but my reasoning can be applied to just about any 'possible' entity. I'm assuming that those who read this thread aren't theïsts of any form, it is a very specific issue I'm adressing, not the general "does he exist or not?".

Occam's razor and the burden of proof.
For many atheïsts occam's razor and the placing of the burden of proof on believers 'burden of proof' are prime reasons for disbelieving in a personal deity.

Occam's razor and the placing of the burden of proof upon someone are mechanisms in science. Science, although it's aim is (partly) discovering the thruth about various matter, another aim is just getting useful information. It has different aims than metaphysics. It's a pragmatist point of view, but one doesn't have to be a hard pragmatist (i.e. truth equals usefulness) to see how obvious this is. On top of that, we have to realize that scientific theories are to a certain extent constructs. That doesn't mean they are purely human and don't refer to an external reality, it merely means that it is man imposing structure to a chaotic universe. If there are no humans, there are, for example, no chairs, because there is not any logical reason why we should see atoms or molecules that are near each other and form a fabric that in turn forms an object as any more logically connected than random particles. This type of 'constructivism' is basically Kant's solution to problems posed by Hume: man imposes order on the world.

Occam's razor can thus be explained as follows: why order the world according to hundreds of different forces when a few variables will do? The simpler theory is more useful and will make it (in most cases) easier to combine with other theories. Fundamentally (metaphysically), however, it's not because God isn't necessary to explain common phenomena, that it is a logical mistake to introduce a variable 'God' into your theories. It is rather a methodological mistake that may (but not necessarily) lead to erronous thinking.

The same goes for a positive burden of proof. Metaphysically there is no case at all to say "If we have no evidence, it doesn't exist". But methodologically it is a very sound principle. (There are some exceptions, of course.)

Intermezzo: Merton's argument
The sociologist Robert Merton once said, concerning the sociology of science, that if a (historical or current) scientific conclusion can be supported with reasons (f.e. although belief x is wrong, the scientist had reasons to believe x in the light of the evidence available to him) there is no reason whatsoever to search for a sociological explanation.

This rule is basically in an A-xor-B form. If A fully explains a phenomenon, there is no reason to examine by means of B and vice versa. So then why did Merton choose A-then-not-B as his sociological rule (as opposed to B-t-n-A)? Because it's relatively easy to determine if somebody had of has good reasons for a view, in science this information is most of the time a given, while a sociological investigation would take quite some time and have no use whatsoever if the question why someone adopted a belief can be explained simple by referring to the reasons he or she had.

So then the relevance for this topic... One could construct a similar rule that said: if faith can be entirely explained by sociology and anthropology (i.e. by it's social function etc.), there is no reason whatsoever to go search directly for the truth-value of that faith.

But then, there is no reason whatsoever to assume those two elements are mutually exclusive: even if science can explain belief in all it's facets, it is not logically impossible that a God does exist anyway. There's just no reason to assume so.

A lack of logical certainty. Should we thus adopt an agnosticist view? Why not.
We might now conclude that the only reasonable position is a certain form of agnosticism. Theism as well as atheism are then "just opinions", as the poster Howard put it in another thread where I first presented my point of view on this matter, albeit only fragmentarily. I believe this is a wrong way to think about the issue. So I'd like to explain why I believe the 'invible unicorn' argument we're all so acquainted with still makes for a pretty solid argument.

There is one big issue clouding our thinking concerning the agnosticism versus atheïsm debate. And it is the disability to discern between doubt and not knowing with absolute certainty something isn't so.

Doubt is a position where there are reasons to believe in either position (theism, atheism) but where none of the arguments are conclusive. When making judgments about something you doubt, it's usually best to postpone judgment: agnosticism. "Not knowing with absolute certainty something isn't so" is a whole other position. How there!, one might say, why shouldn't we label this as agnosticism as well? It is not uncommon to call such a vision strong agnosticism, or in some cases even weak atheism (lack of belief). While not wrong per sé, I will argue why the strong atheist position (belief in lack, as Wikipedia puts it) is just as sensible, if not more. I'm not attacking agnosticism or weak atheism, it's more the idea that strong atheism is based just as much on belief as is theism. That claim is plain false - at least that's what I'm trying to show.

Imagine somebody comes up to you and asks, for no reason in particular, if there is a bulldog walking around your house. Hm. If you are in doubt you might want to prepare yourself a bit, so nobody gets hurt in case there is a dog walking around your house. How you should act, I don't know - but it's probably wise to act with your uncertainty as a basis for that action.

On the other hand, if nobody in your neighbourhood keeps any animals and you don't live in some crummy neighbourhood where there is always trouble of some sort, there is no reason to asumme there is one. You can never be absolutely sure until you are home and see for yourself, but seeing there is no reason to believe there could be one, you have no reason not to follow your usual course of life. Every single day you are at work, there could crash a Boeing into your house, but if you'd have any doubt if that is the case, it would generate quite a bit unnecesarry stress - every single day.

Battling uncertainty
Generally, the best and most useful reply to this 'fundamental unknowing' position about something, is to consider yourself absolutely sure that that 'something' isn't the case, unless there is any evidence to the contrary. This will all probably sound quite dated or obvious. The essence, however, is the following: you will act like that 'something' (God) does not exist and it's a sensible position. So why not just call yourself an atheist if you act exactly like one? This isn't a silly abuse of language, it's the way language is commonly used. Saying you "don't know" something always indicates doubt. So saying "I don't know" if you adhere to the 'fundamentally unknowing' position is rather weird, since it doesn't convey the meaning you want it to convey. One could say it's a loss for our language that there isn't a sharper line between doubting and fundamentally not knowing. Yet on the other hand, 'fundamentally not knowing' isn't a very useful concept, is it? Functionally it's exactly the same as 'not existing'.

(On the other side of the issue, humans just as well believe things with evidence that is 'non-fundamentally supportive': that is, it provides evidence, but not enough for absolute certainty. It is for example always the case with inductive reasoning. I see nothing wrong with that.)

So my proposition is: keep the metaphysical terminology in academic discourse, and not in everyday language. That's not so say the 'fundam...' terminology should be abandoned, just that it's a rather different discussion with a much broader scope than merely the existence of a God. On top of that, I ask myself the question, can a strong agnosticist (those who fundamentally don't know) be consequent in his vision? Because it not only pertains to gods, but to every possible object that is not in your direct vision! And even for that, you'd have to trust your senses. Like Dennett says in Freedom Evolves: Hume proved that we can't know what tomorrow brings - for all we know - the universe stops existing. But why not take the bet? - It's exactly in that way the human knowledge acquisition works. Babies quite rapidly learn that objects that go out of vision don't just stop existing. Is there any absolute proof for that? No. But, again as Dennett puts it (quite cynically): animals or humans who thought otherwise have been long excluded from the evolutionairy chain.

Conclusion
So, the argument about the disbelief in 'invisible unicorns', as seen often on this forum, is a valid one, but not exclusively because of a positive burden of proof as some assert. Yes, some form of burden of proof plays an important role in the argument, but it must be combined with an idea of how humans reason and should reason and how language is commonly used when expressing belief of thruth or falsity. In the end, yes, one can't but be a 'metaphysical agnosticist' towards the existence of a God. But it's a type of agnosticism that hasn't much useful meaning and can even in some cases be positively misleading. The biggest difference between the two parties is not the general point of view, but rather different conceptions of what it means for something to be true or what it means to deny the existence of something. If one wants to carry on the discussion, it will be those concepts and the metaphysical framework that are important, not faith in general. The direct question "does a God exist, or can you deny He exists?" can only lead to more confusion. How merry then, because if I'm right, it means strong agnosticists (although not weaker agnosticism characterized by doubt) are really pretty close to atheists - in it's strong and in it's weaker form.

I hope I've brought forward some interesting points. Critique highly welcome.

KleinGordon

R.M.S.,
That was a good read! I just wish I had more time right now to comment.

I think that there is a problem with positive existential statements in general - they should be either true by definition (What I feel I'll call "love". So "love" exists for me) or observable in principle ("There is a rock. Rocks exist." or "Rocks exist. In principle, I could go outside and find a rock") but never purely axiomatic ("X is not true by definition, X is not observable in principle, but clearly we assume X exists.") I do think that positive existential statements have a special status even in logic - indeed they have historically caused problems in formal logic. There is always a possibility that you erroneously posit a member to an empty set and proceed to derive silly things. Anyway, just musing for now.

Herb26

I personally don't think occam's razor applies(burden of proof never should. . .but if you want to use it. It's on the theists). It does make strong atheism a bit more likely than basic theism though.

You can't simpify what is. I said this once before on here:

That was in the "Requesting Feedback on my argument in favor of atheism" thread.

Herb26

"So saying "I don't know" if you adhere to the 'fundamentally unknowing' position is rather weird, since it doesn't convey the meaning you want it to convey."

Yes it does. Very much so.

This is the question "Do invisable unicorns exist?". Here's my answer.

If invisable unicorns don't exist then the consquense is that they just don't exist. That's it. . .so who cares I'm happy to be an a"invisable unicorn"ist as the world makes perfect sense and can be proven to be possible without them. So unless new evidence shows up its safe to assume they don't exist.

Here's the real question "How did the universe come to be?"(I've changed my mind on something given this question both atheists and theists make a claim and burden of proof rests on both groups)(atheists make the claim the answer is "natural causes" and theists make the claim that the answer is "God")

Now as for God if it doesn't exist then the consquence is the universe is here and doesn't have enough proof to show this to be possible. It must be uncaused and maybe infinite and have popped into existance quite magically(with a magical big bang maybe. . .or by the effects of an even more magical quantum probabity).

To say I'm an Atheist in my mind is to make the claim that I KNOW the universe came about by one of these natural causes which I can't prove. Or even safely assume(because as a consquence the universe is currently impossible to explain).

Now as for saying God exists. A consquence is I'm ignoring the possibility that this universe could have come about by agodgenesis(kind of like abiogensis on a multicelled scale). Agodgenesis is at least 50% possible so denying it completely would be foolish.

I think the atheists using occam's razor scores them a few percentage points on the possibilty curve. I'll be generous and give them 5%. So now its a 55% to 45% toss up.

And you want me to just say I'm willing to throw out a 45% possibility. That would say I'm incredibly ignorant and as a result I find the idea of being called atheist offensive.

Please don't ask me to call myself ignorant again. Prove your claim atheists. Then we'll talk. Until then stop insulting us for holding the more reasonable position. I'm refering to strong athiesm here. I don't consider weak atheism a valid term. They are all definable by other terms so seeing as no one specifies which(strong or weak). . .its an unspecific and useless term.

Plus I can't see how you can claim atheism is a stronger position against theists. . .when they claim I can't prove there is no God either I say "I know, that's half my point". To understand and change their minds they just have to believe their position is unprovable. When the talk to you they think your saying their positon is wrong. You've got further to bring them, start off by insulting their beliefs/intelligence and give them a lot more ammo to use against you.

KleinGordon

I know you weren't talking to me Herb, but I found your comments interesting so I thought I would respond. I think of it from the skeptics standpoint:

Assumption: there is one truth and many falsehoods. It is a priori likely that "unicorns exist" is a falsehood. It is therefore assigned a close to zero probability and we are justified in not believing in unicorns until we see more evidence. Evidence of unicorns is a unicorn. Note that we are not justified in saying, "A horse with a horn is impossible", just unlikely.

I don't think that is the fundamental question. The fundamental question is, "Why is there something and not nothing?" There is only one answer to this question as far as I can tell: something always existed. If I am correct, then your choice would be about which is more parsimonious - an intelligent God or something else.

If God doesn't exist then obviously there must be another reason and we have hope of describing that reason mathematically. God on the other hand lies so far outside human understanding that we can not really speculate on his nature. So, if you posit a God you are left with an even bigger problem!

Since I define atheist more loosley, I disagree with your statement. I am an atheist because I think god is an improbable solution to the question.

Assuming there is one truth and many falsehoods, then the possibility that "agodgenesis" is the answer is in far more dire straights than 45%. Assuming a "supernatural" creator one can show that the probability that we find ourselves in a natural universe and God does not exist is high.

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...son/bayes.html

The exception to this is the somewhat less supernatural deistic God that doesn't interact with the universe at all. For the god of the deist's I would start at 50%, but I would give Occam's razor a bit more weight reasoning as follows. This is a false dichotomy: either God created the universe or the causes were natural. Why not god(s)? Why not an advanced alien race? How about both God and natural causes? Why not include several different natural causes (white holes, colliding branes, etc.)? None of these things are a priori more ridiculous than God; some, like god(s), are inherently less likely, but exactly how much is hard to say. All of these possibilities beg the question in some why: why did it happen that way and what came before?

But I don't give God a special status among the possibilities. If God is defined beyond just intelligent it becomes even worse for him - what does omnipotent mean? How does that effect the probability? Omniscient? Omnibenevolent?

And for the statement, "God created the universe" to be meaningful, the theist does need to define what they mean by "God".

I think this is a bit unfair to people like me who are weak atheists. I identify myself as such whenever it is necessary to distinguish my position from that of the strong atheist or "pure agnostic".

Herb, saying "God exists" carries a great burden - intellectual and epistemic. It is utterly beyond our experience and, perhaps, beyond our possibility to experience. Other things of that nature - black holes say - can be predicted and, in principle, inferred from observation. Further, when we meet the criteria for a black hole, we call that thing a black hole. We cannot observe nor even really understand what God is and, so, we cannot point at any thing and say, "Let us agree to call that God". How will we know him when we see him?

On the other hand, saying "God does not exist" is not quite the same thing. If I say, "electrons don't exist", it is foolish because, in principle, I could go and measure the thing that we have agreed to call the electron. If I say, "unicorns don't exist", it is not foolish because there is an understanding that, in principle, I could search the world and find no unicorns. So, what is the status of "God does not exist?" if by "God" I mean a supernatural being that I can not even in principle find? Worse, I know what I am looking for in a unicorn and I don't with God.

What the theist does is posit a thing that we can never measure and never really know. I cannot, in principle even, do anything when they say "God exists" (save have faith). Their statement is equivalent to saying, "God, an intelligent, necessary being that you cannot find, observe, or measure, exists."

To me, "exists" is a statement about a phenomenon in the natural world. So where is God?

Herb26

Not justified but it is a safe assumption. There is no evidence and if they don't exist it doesn't complicate things. No God would because without him the universe seems impossible to exist. With him it seems impossible that both he and the universe came to exist some how. But logically these are the only options(well maybe not but each new option just makes them both less likely). I see by occam's razor god is a little less likely but its still way to much of a leap to assume he doesn't. I personally think the universe existing and the fact it has laws and is convenient enough to allow life to exist and develop consciousness does make God at least an undeniable option. Not necessary but very possible.

It's still two choices(each a separate claim as to why something exists, burden of proof is on both sides). That's at first glance a coin toss. I did include uncaused because Volker has proven that very well and on some level something must be.

True I don't think we'll have any chance of discovering his nature for a very long time if ever. But his existence might be provable in some way. I think we should work on it. Not just assume. And I'd like to add our ability to describe aspects of the universe as more suggestion of a God its very convenient(think how many other ways the universe could be). It could really suck. . .but it seems we have a chance to survive indefinitely. Too lucky? maybe.

You’re an agnostic atheist or secularist then(or agnostic but I think this is unlikely). I think weak atheist is a term that confuses things. Everyone just says atheist and most assume Strong. . .maybe not here on this board but in general. I generally think of weak atheists as agnostic atheists(I think this is what you are. . .it'd be nice to know definitively but people use that useless term), secularist(if your general disbelief in god doesn't have any agnostic reasoning at all behind), or agnostic.

I don't think so. God is nothing like an "invisible unicorn". There is only one truth. And we can't prove it . . .therefore agnosticism. Granted we know a lot but not enough to answer this one. Why is light the speed that it is and the upper limit? Why does gravity act consistently? etc. There are many "rules" the universe adheres to what enforces that? Why of those the rules?

So your making God less likely with more unprovable possibilities? More reason to assume a "unknowing" position and start looking for new information until we do "know".

As an agnostic. I'd rather get a definitive answer as to whether or not he exists before defining anything. . .those terms come from religion. I'd put just individual religion in the same boat with the "invisible unicorns" as they conflict with each other and not only suggest an unprovable thing but claim to define it.

They just need to show a need for the being. Defining something you can't prove is usually impossible to do.

Agnostic atheist, secular or agnostic seems to cover all weak atheists. I've never heard any other positions. . .but every time someone says atheist I need more information to know where they stand. It’s a term that confuses things I'm technically a weak atheist. . .but really don't like what it implies.


I think it is the same. You can't show he doesn't or even demonstrate the "natural" way the universe came about with certainty.

Agreed but I have little trouble converting theists to agnostic by explaining that to them. I was strong atheist for about two years and it was impossible to move people that far. They'd bring it up. . .I'd explain the atheist way and they'd take it as an attack on them(even barely religious people). After converting to agnostic, when I explain they usually agree they can't prove anything. In short they are open to this position and have nothing to shoot back(or feel offended about, or angry about. . .I'd probably just start telling everyone I was catholic again if I started thinking of myself as atheist). . .they don't argue they just agree. And usually in 3 months or so(without me talking to them) they'll tell me I was right and start calling themselves agnostic.

I don't see why the word "exist" would be limited to the natural world. Good question though but there are just as many to toss but at the atheists. I was kidding about the ignorant bit by the way. That was just for effect. Trying to make the agnostic/atheist divide seem stronger for this thread. . There is a divide though. . .but I don't find being called atheist offense just inaccurate and not useful.

Edit: I read that link I've done something similiar. The differences never came out anywhere near that great. The Universe following "rules" for no reason gives the creationist view a big increase(in its most basic sense). Why be atoms behave as they do consistantly. . .and why must the mass of the earth pull me towards it? Its way to convenient. For the universe to be so controled and consistant from natural causes is unlikely. Pretty much as unlikely as it being created. But with a creator. . .all those rules seem to make sense. We can define them all we like. . .but we can't prove why there are as they are.

KleinGordon

[QUOTE=Herb26]Not justified but it is a safe assumption.[QUOTE]

If there are more than one "truth" on any proposition, then the world is not logical at all; so why does it appear so and yet you think it is "not justified"?

If it is a false dichotomy - and it is - then the probability assessment would change. Moreover, one burden keeps being met every day - science marches on, M-Theory gets extended, and one side of the burden lightens. Where is their God? Where is their model on how to find him? Burden of proof, indeed, but someone is shirking theirs.

Have you read the disproofs of God? The rest of what you suggest is just what people have suggested since there have been people: argument from ignorance.

And I would suggest that proving his existence is not the first step - defining him at all is far more problematic.

Umm...no. I'm an implicit or weak atheist.

God is very much like the IPU - proofs of both fail in the same way. The idea itself is incoherent and not understandable. In the same way that God can be made necessary, so can the IPU. If you mean that the IPU and God can be equivalent then you are correct, but doing so transforms both into a sort of deistic God that doesn't interact with the universe it created. Agnosticism is the correct stance to take with such a god...except one might wonder in that case, "Who cares?"

Agnosticism in its purest form is actually not a tenable position in my opinion. How can you know you can't know God exists? And if you know, don't you know something about God? If you switch to the weaker meaning of agnosticism - one of doubt - then you might as well call yourself an atheist rather than run from the stigma.

Do you understand what is wrong with that statement? God himself is not only unprovable, we don't even know if he is necessary. Tell me about your god and I'll show you an even more complicated thing that needs to be explained. Why is agnosticism the answer? It is just saying "I don't know" to a question that isn't even relevant yet.

So let's see...you are an "agnostic" on an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God that lacks a morally sufficient reason for evil?

Your an agnostic on the Christian conception of God and all its alleged contradictory properties?

Or are you just agnostic on the deistic God? In that case, who cares? Saying, "God exists - he is what created the universe" is completely useless to ever answering anything about him. What is more, its like saying I'm going to explain X with something else I don't understand.

Yes, and that is exactly what they haven't shown. Not one bit. The first thing you do is subtract the voodoo background: "We don't know therefore god". Once that is removed, the proper answer is: we don't know. The proper place to look is not the supernatural (what the hell is that anyway?) but the natural and what we know. That is how we get started on the problem.

I wonder what "proofs" of God you have found so convincing that you give this theistic idea so much weight?

Sigh. Sorry, I'm personally tired of having to talk about the "correct" definition of atheism. I'm a weak atheist because I feel there is more than enough information to judge all but a non-interacting deistic God very improbable. The Christian/Muslem God is right out. I am not a strong atheist because I don't commit to 100% certainty. Unfortunately, our community is highly schizo about the definition - probably because every new author sees fit to define it her own way.

You have set the bar too low in my opinion. Let us suppose that, tomorrow we suddenly are able to answer all questions - let's say we find the Theory of Everything. Would the theist change his mind? Would you? From what I can tell, the answer to both would be no. The theist will always be able to hide the dragon by hijacking the current science and positing something extra - something irrelevant and unparsimonious. It sounds like you will go along on the off chance that they are correct. Basically then, your position is one of agnosticism all the way down. O.K., fine, but you are letting the theist set the bar.

My goal is not to convert theists so I have little sympathy for this position - I'm not looking for an argument that will win them over.

You show me the supernatural world and then you can use "exists" all you want to talk about it. Until then I am well within my epistemic right - and the theist is well outside his - to claim that "exists" refers to the natural world.

Herb26

Right. . .define then discover. You can't define what you don't even know exists. First you discover then you define. . .don't jump the gun like the theists. First you establish the possibities then you try to discover then you define.

Mind telling me your basic beliefs/stance. . .and your reasons for them?

They aren't equivalent. And "who cares?" is a secularist view. But for day to day life I still live by that. But my responce is "I can't know" not "who cares"

I follow it in its purest form. If your atheist and add in the "doubt" part why not go agnostic atheist you are aware you can't prove a thing and just believe it.

If he's necessary. Then we've proven he exists. I'd be a theist then. If you could prove he's unnecessary I'd be atheist. . .its not that complicated. Your repeating things where the reverse is also true.

No, Religion is justifable to toss. Each one on its own is like the unicorn. . .A lot of this is a repeat of stuff I've answered and your first post.

I answered this, yup. Who cares about the christian God either? who cares enough to even say you don't believe in a God?. That's what both atheists and theists do. . .I don't explain X I don't need to think I know everything. I just don't define it. You're talking to me like I'm a theist. Are you following your appeal to athority so much that you can't modify the arguement? Your much better off defending your position. . .you can't really attack my position with questions. . .that's why I hold my position. :banghead: Your supporting it not taking it down.


"We don't know" is my position? Yes that's the correct answer. . .and just earlier you said it was "not a tenable position" lmao. And looking in the natural sounds very secularist of you to say.

Evidence of a possibility. . .not proof and I stated some of it.

Secularism "in philosophy, the belief that life can be best lived by applying ethics, and the universe best understood, by processes of reasoning, without reference to a god or gods or other supernatural concepts.". (from answers.com)

Agnostic Atheism: disbelief in gods without claiming to know for sure that none exist.(from about.com)

:banghead:


I would change my position. . .I've already said I tossed out the unicorn and the religions. I've said a few reasons why "god" as a whole is different.


Then your on the wrong board. Me either by the way. I was just stating a few facts, the idea of atheism makes them cling stronger to their faith. If I were letting them "set the bar" I doubt they'd believe my position so easily. I'm not even letting them say I'm in the game(atheism vs theism:who will win?). They have no agruments for me. How often do theists post attacks on the agnostic position?

Exists is a word, man. It's not like numbers in the set of something. If the supernatural exists the word has to apply. By restricting the word you aren't even making it possible. Plus you said supernatural not me. Exists doesn't apply to the natural how about that? . . .now nothing exists. Occam would be happy.

R.M.S.

No it doesn't Saying you don't know something is strongly linked to doubt, and doubt linked to specific a psychological reaction that differs from the reaction when one "fundamentally/metaphysically doesn't know" (in my terminology). A strong agnosticist doesn't "doubt", only a weak agnosticist does.

My argument for this is in my original post, so if you don't agree, why don't you refute it?

Herb26

I'm agnostic. Yes it does(its more of a "can't" then "don't" btw, and maybe only for the time being, depending on the agnost). Atheism doesn't say what you want to say. It says there is no God. A definitive statement like that is linked to 100% certainity you don't have 100% certainty. A strong atheist has complete certainity, a weak atheist doesn't. Hey we have those. Maybe your point is we should have both strong and weak agnostics too? Is that it.

Doubt is the point. A weak agnostic would have some certainity not doubt. The more doubt the stronger the agnosticist. The more doubt one has the clearer it should be that it is unknowable.

And my first two posts refute a couple of things you said. Can't simplify reality and the unicorn agrument doesn't apply. I've also said burden of prove is on both groups. With the unicorn there is only one claim it exists. . .with God there are at least two. I explained in my second post.