ex-xian

To malpensante: Your comment reflects a common misconception.

From Webster

Quote:

Agnostic-Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos known -a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; -broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

Pay special attention to the etymology of the word. It comes from the "unknown, the unknowable." The first definition is the conventional one used in philosophical discussion. The second reflects popular conotations in the usage of the word.

Phanes

Just because no one has mentioned it yet, I've been reading George Smith's Atheism: The Case Against God recently [] and he had something of an interesting take on agnosticism (the original Huxley sort). For instance, he says the agnostic must know exactly what it is he doesn't know anything about, i.e. he must have some definition of God, which presumably includes some of the properties of God, which the agnostic is not supposed to know. That is a bit weird. Of course Smith probably doesn't do justice to the agnostic position, but then he thinks a lot of self-proclaimed agnostics are atheists, as they lack belief in a God or gods (his definition for "atheist").

On a more personal note, I agree with those who have said it is perfectly rational to deny something exists - given no evidence of its existence - regardless of whether it is theoretically possible. It may be that this world is nothing more than an incredible simulation run by robots, but seeing as how that sort of claim is impossible to falsify... well, no point in hoping a stranger with colored pills will show up on the doorstep.

ex-xian

Phanes: That sounds really interesting, and I'd like to get that book. My take on agnosticism is basically Kantian.

Bumble Bee Tuna

Yay for my charming wit! I got my first worshipper smilie. I feel like one of the cool IIDB members now... After trying for months to be witty enough to garner praise...My rapist wit just isn't as clever when up against such heated competition.

On a more serious note, I take issue with the OP because even assuming infinite universes... That doesn't mean each individual probability of god existing in a universe is in an equal number of universes. For instance, you could have infinite universes, and in 99.9999% of them, it is 100% probable that God doesn't exist. The infinite universes idea really does nothing to further the idea.

-B

Violent Messiah

So you'd rather have you're country not led by any President than to have one which you do not trust......YOU do not trust?

Because you don't trust both candidates...you think your nation would be better off without a leader? IS this your point?

Darth Dane

"imagine that there is a whole set of possible universes, in one of them it is 100% probable that god exists, in another it is 0% probable. in the rest of universes,which are infinite in number, there is every value within 1 & 0 of probability. it is infinitely more probable that we live in one of these universes than in any one of the formers. thus, agnosticism is infinitely more probable than atheism and theism to be an accurate view of reality.

no one knows if god exists."

If I follow your premises, I concur. if I imagine that there is infinite number of universes, then your logic is good.
Some say you can get direct knowledge of God, but it is not empirical.
I dunno if it is true. But it makes sense.

"The problem with your logic is in the assumptions that you make at the begining.

First you assume that there are infinite universes. This is unsound reasoning."

he was making you imagine that the first is true!
Given that it is true that there are many universes, is teh following then logical.

"Second you are assuming that if there was an infinite number of universes that there would be at least one in which a god exists and at least one in which a god does not exist. This is unsound reasoning."

I agree, God must be everywhere.

"Third you are assuming that any given universe can have a probability that is not either 1 or 0. It seems to me that the laws of a universe would either necessitate or abhor the prescence of a god.

Thus no conclusion can be made from your line of logic."

See above.


"It should be also be noted that agnosticism is also not really a position on the matter at all. Either God exists, or he doesn't, and there is no middle ground. "I don't know" does not address the issue."

True, and do we need to address it? Do we need to check reality on this issue?
No, it is there to be checked, but you don't have to, it's an option.
Until such time where someone have decisive proof either way, I cannot talk about God, I can have my proof, but an emprical one...? I don't think so.
So you can choose to believe either way, or wait until such time, where the proof you have been waiting for, shows itself.





DD - Show Spliff

Philosoft

[emphasis mine]

Um, I think I might see your problem.

aelyn

I am here today because yesterday I decided to figure out if I really was an agnostic, which is what I have been calling myself. I read through this thread and became totally confused. If asked point-blank, "Do you believe in God?" my answer would have to be yes, but my concept of that "God" is very vague. Also I cannot logically argue in favour of my belief, because it is just a feeling I have and is not backed up by any sort of proof. Conversely, no one can argue me out of that belief or feeling with logic because FOR ME my feeling will always trump your logic. However I have absolutely no desire to convince people I'm right because, hey, I might not be.

What I do know is this: Any form of organized religion makes me cringe. How a group of people choses one set of myths over another, vehemently believes that they are truth and dismisses all the other myths as heresy, is beyond me. I can't be bothered with that nonsense. I'm too busy creating my own myths.

So, er, am I an agnostic, or what?

Wendy

Bumble Bee Tuna

bah it's just a joke, I know, it's supposed to be "rapier". Oh well, it's not actually funny but it has a long history.

-B

David Bowden

Hi aelyn/Wendy, and welcome to II!

I think that the way the words "atheist," "theist," and "agnostic" normally get used on this forum is more technical than the way they're used in everyday conversation. (Not that we're snobs; we just need those precise definitions in order to keep ourselves accountable in a long discussion!)

If we say that a person fits into one of these categories because they have concluded that the arguments for that position are the strongest, then I would say that you don't technically fit into any of them, because as you said, "I cannot logically argue in favour of my belief, because it is just a feeling I have and is not backed up by any sort of proof."

Now it's a fact that a lot of people refer to themselves as theists, atheists, agnostics, etc., without having checked out the arguments for each position versus all the others. They don't have reasons, in any formal sense, for holding to their belief - perhaps the vast majority of people are like this. It sounds to me like this describes you pretty well, based on your post.

You are what you are, and you are comfortable with your beliefs, and that's perfectly okay; you don't need one of those three labels to apply to you - but if you were to try to persuade someone else to adopt your belief, then you might find that the existing arguments in favor of one of those labels comes very close to supporting your beliefs. In which case, you could call yourself by that label, knowing that pretty much everything that it stands for, applies to you.

Since you do believe in some sort of a god, I would call you a "believer in a god, with a lot of room for speculation about god's attributes." I don't think you're agnostic with regard to the existence of a god - you do believe that one definitely exists.

But I wouldn't use the term "theist" in your case, since I (perhaps most people here at II) think of that word as describing someone who believes in a particular kind of god (Judeo-Christian-Islamic omnipotent/omniscient/creator/savior/judge/etc), whereas it seems like you don't accept all of those beliefs about God, since you don't desire to be held to any organized religion's creed.

But that's coming from my viewpoint; I maintain that the really important thing is not the label, but the content. As long as you're interested in checking out the content of people's beliefs, you'll fit right in here, regardless of any label you might wear.

If you're interested in how people have tried to define agnosticism, theism, atheism, etc., here are some articles from the II library that cover this ground:

The Essence of Agnosticism by our very own Bill Schultz.

The Agnosticism Page in II's library - has several articles listed.

What is Atheism Really All About? by II's Richard Carrier.

II Library's "About Atheism" page with several articles.

Arguments for the Existence of a God, if you're interested in seeing how theists try to support belief in a god with reason and evidence.

Hope this is useful to you (if you're even interested!) and, again, welcome to the discussion boards!

-David