1 of 5
1
Agnostics are Illogical
Posted: 14 January 2011 05:37 PM   [ Ignore ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  32
Joined  2011-01-11

I’m atheist, not agnostic. To say that god is unknowable is to say that god is.

 Signature 

I’m atheist, not agnostic. To say that god is unknowable is to say that god is.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 January 2011 05:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1201
Joined  2009-05-10

Unless by “unknowable” they mean his existence is unknowable.

 Signature 

“What people do is they confuse cynicism with skepticism. Cynicism is ‘you can’t change anything, everything sucks, there’s no point to anything.’ Skepticism is, ‘well, I’m not so sure.’” -Bill Nye

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 January 2011 06:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  32
Joined  2011-01-11
domokato - 14 January 2011 05:58 PM

Unless by “unknowable” they mean his existence is unknowable.

What I’m saying is that agnostics believe that in order to be a deity,one of its properties is that it(s existence) must be unknowable.  I say it mustn’t.  It can be a deity and not have this one super-power property (or “superproperty”) of being unknowable, why not? It’s a god. You can make it have whatever god properties you want. They’re all made up.  If it wants to be knowable, it can be knowable…. but I’m an atheist so I argue that all seeming superproperties are just a misunderstanding of the way we think regular properties work.

 Signature 

I’m atheist, not agnostic. To say that god is unknowable is to say that god is.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 January 2011 12:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  34
Joined  2008-09-29

“To say that god is unknowable is to say that god is.”

Technically speaking, that’s more of an ignostic statement, isn’t it?

We should be clear to differentiate between the thing, and the concept of the thing.  We can form concepts of things that don’t exist, such as a pointy circle (a reasonable mistake, considering circles are the limit of regular polygons as number of sides increase).  We can form concepts of things that might exist, such as atoms in the first century BC, for which there was no direct proof until last century.  Even when chemists were satisfied with atoms as a useful concept, physicists still needed proof.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 January 2011 12:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  32
Joined  2011-01-11
Randy - 15 January 2011 12:28 AM

We can form concepts of things that don’t exist, such as a pointy circle (a reasonable mistake, considering circles are the limit of regular polygons as number of sides increase).  We can form concepts of things that might exist, such as atoms in the first century BC, for which there was no direct proof until last century.  Even when chemists were satisfied with atoms as a useful concept, physicists still needed proof.

We cannot form concepts of things that do not exist.  If we form a concept of it, it exists (as a concept).  A circle has been defined as you stated, and by adding any kind of pointyness to it, it is no longer a circle.  It is a new shape, and although it might look like a pointy circle, it has lost all of its “circleness.”  No coherent concept can be formed unless we define all of the properties of this new shape (ie how many points does it have?  What is the angle of each of the points?  Is it symmetrical? etc).  Once we have defined the shape (let’s call it an egranogon), it is no longer “like” a pointy circle.  It is an egranogon.

... and what I am saying is that agnostic deities exist like egranogons - they are merely an arbitrary mix of properties, but the concept is real.  Or, the concept is.

Agnostics have chosen to believe that deities are unknowable, just as I have chosen how many points an egranogon has.  What this is saying is that agnostic gods are unknowable.  So let’s make up a word for them too.  Unknowable, agnostic gods are called egranogods.

Agnostics believe if there is a deity, it is an egranogod, and they reject the concept of other deities on this basis. Agnostics would not “believe” any evidence for god (because he is unknowable).  For example, if there was a deity, and he made himself known, agnostics would argue that this cannot be a deity.

 

...also:
The reason we were able to form rational concepts of atoms in 1st century BC is because they did (and still do) exist.

...and I’ll look more into this ignosticism thing, too.  Thank you.

 Signature 

I’m atheist, not agnostic. To say that god is unknowable is to say that god is.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 January 2011 04:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  191
Joined  2010-10-09

Seems to me that NO-ONE who has posted on this thread so far understands what agnosticism really means.

An agnostic doesn’t say “God is unknowable.”

An agnostic says “I DON’T KNOW whether god exists, or not.”

The subject of the FIRST sentence is “God”.

The subject of the SECOND sentence is “I”.

The real agnostic doesn’t make an unprovable statement about “God”, but is simply reporting his/her mental response to the concept of “God”. 

Sorry to belabour the point, but what seems very clear to me is apparently befuddling to everyone else. 

Theflyingsorcerer.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 January 2011 07:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  637
Joined  2010-07-01
Theflyingsorcerer - 15 January 2011 04:13 PM

Seems to me that NO-ONE who has posted on this thread so far understands what agnosticism really means.

An agnostic doesn’t say “God is unknowable.”

An agnostic says “I DON’T KNOW whether god exists, or not.”

The subject of the FIRST sentence is “God”.

The subject of the SECOND sentence is “I”.

The real agnostic doesn’t make an unprovable statement about “God”, but is simply reporting his/her mental response to the concept of “God”. 

Sorry to belabour the point, but what seems very clear to me is apparently befuddling to everyone else. 

Theflyingsorcerer.

Agreed, but unfortunately too many people on this forum are absolutionists. It’s getting hard to find people who are more objective and less black and white.


edit subjective changed to objective.

[ Edited: 15 January 2011 08:16 PM by ExMachina ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 January 2011 07:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

Agreed, flyingsorcerer.  I made the point of defining agnostic in a related thread so didn’t want to repeat it here.

Quoting Egran078:

We cannot form concepts of things that do not exist.

  Nah, the whole fiction section of public libraries deal with things that don’t exist.  Examples could be Frankenstein’s monster or Sherlock Holms.  We have all sorts of stories about aliens but no evidence that they exist.  (Agreed that we may be agnostic about aliens. LOL

And Randy had a very good point (pun???).  A circle can easily be defined as a polygon with an infinite number of sides and therefore, an infinite number of points (vertices.)

Hey, E-M.  I’m not black and white.  I’ve always commented that I’m pinky beige and objective (although some would prefer to replace the -ive with -ionable.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 January 2011 07:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2423
Joined  2007-07-05

I decided I was an agnostic when I was 12.

I also decided that the definition of agnostic in my dictionary was STUPID.

it said, “A person that believes it is impossible to know whether or not there is a God.”

Believing is STUPID because it really just means accepting something as true or false without sufficient evidence to determine either way.

With a universe upwards of 20 billion light-years in diameter when we can’t even get out of the solar system how can anyone know what is IMPOSSIBLE?

Some people just can’t tell their egos from their intellects and simply admit that they JUST DON’T KNOW.

It just occurred to me yesterday that atheists consider religion to be more important than science because the sole purpose of science is to beat on religion.  LOL

I tend to regard religion as beneath the notice of science.  Somewhat below psychology.  Psychology is the study of not thinking.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 January 2011 08:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  32
Joined  2011-01-11
ExMachina - 15 January 2011 07:06 PM
Theflyingsorcerer - 15 January 2011 04:13 PM

Seems to me that NO-ONE who has posted on this thread so far understands what agnosticism really means.

An agnostic doesn’t say “God is unknowable.”

An agnostic says “I DON’T KNOW whether god exists, or not.”

The subject of the FIRST sentence is “God”.

The subject of the SECOND sentence is “I”.

The real agnostic doesn’t make an unprovable statement about “God”, but is simply reporting his/her mental response to the concept of “God”. 

Sorry to belabour the point, but what seems very clear to me is apparently befuddling to everyone else. 

Theflyingsorcerer.

Agreed, but unfortunately too many people on this forum are absolutionists. It’s getting hard to find people who are more subjective and less black and white.


But the question to you is: which god do you not know exists?  What makes it a god?

 Signature 

I’m atheist, not agnostic. To say that god is unknowable is to say that god is.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 January 2011 08:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  637
Joined  2010-07-01
Occam. - 15 January 2011 07:19 PM

Agreed, flyingsorcerer.  I made the point of defining agnostic in a related thread so didn’t want to repeat it here.

Quoting Egran078:

We cannot form concepts of things that do not exist.

  Nah, the whole fiction section of public libraries deal with things that don’t exist.  Examples could be Frankenstein’s monster or Sherlock Holms.  We have all sorts of stories about aliens but no evidence that they exist.  (Agreed that we may be agnostic about aliens. LOL

And Randy had a very good point (pun???).  A circle can easily be defined as a polygon with an infinite number of sides and therefore, an infinite number of points (vertices.)

Hey, E-M.  I’m not black and white.  I’ve always commented that I’m pinky beige and objective (although some would prefer to replace the -ive with -ionable.

Occam

OC - I don’t see you as negatively objectionable. You don’t object to arguments just to make yourself seem more intellectual. You do it if you see an inaccuracy in someones point and do your best to point out it’s fallacy. You can say you’re objectively objectionable :D, but not everyone is so fortunate. There are many people here who are egoistically objectionable and delusionally absolutional.  That is if absolutional is a word. My spell checker is going crazy with that one. LOL

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 January 2011 08:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  637
Joined  2010-07-01

But the question to you is: which god do you not know exists?  What makes it a god?

You’re caught under the idea that Agnostics rely on one group to be correct in order for there to be a possibility for a God to exist. A Deity can exist and be completely beyond anyones comprehension, so though many people could write about God, doesn’t promise that anyone would know anything about him.

If you have to ask what makes a God, then you really need to read up. You’re second question really diverts everything from the main point here. A God may or may not exist. I’m Agnostic because I’m not a person who believes that we can be 100% about anything, but I’m an Atheist, because I see little to no reason for there to be a God in this universe. I also understand from a psychological perspective why people believe that a God exists, so when I say I’m an Atheist, I’m saying it as a person who firmly believes and has little doubt.

[ Edited: 15 January 2011 09:12 PM by ExMachina ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 January 2011 10:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6098
Joined  2009-02-26

I am sorry, all I hear is the word god in connection to agnosticism, while no one knows anything about god at all!
IMO anything that comes close to a concensus theist view about god is that it is credited with “purposeful intelligence” and that it exists outside (is removed from) from the physical universe.
But the introduction of an “alien intelligence” outside of the known universe is logically almost totally impossible. The concept introduces too many scientific obstacles which are logically impossible to solve. Personally I trust the scientific concepts more than I do mythical scriptures, which are the only references available in support of a notion of purposeful intelligence (ID).

Scientifically I can understand and form an opinion about a pre-universal condition, devoid of intelligence. This condition is subject to scientific inquiry as we have evidence that there was a Beginning (BB). As this event was so violent that it would be impossible to predict or guide events as they developed during inflation, even for an intelligent god. But if we substitute a “mathematical condition” which inevitably led to the emergence and evolution of the universe as we know it, then inquiry about that condition is scientifically allowable.
But note, no scientific theory looking into the origins of the universe, credits its causality with having or needing intelligence.

IMO Agnosticism is seen by most as spiritual (unknowable god) in nature. Can one even apply the term agnostic to a scientist who rejects ID, but is researching creation on scientific terms?

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 January 2011 10:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  637
Joined  2010-07-01

Types of agnosticism
Agnosticism can be subdivided into several categories. Recently suggested variations include:
W4U our perception of Agnostic has nothing to do with it’s true meaning. Just because you have a spiritual concept of the word Agnostic, doesn’t mean that it’s just limited to that one idea.

Check out Wikipedia and you’ll see the wide variety of Agnosticism that exists.

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

Types of agnosticism

Agnosticism can be subdivided into several categories. Recently suggested variations include:

Agnostic atheism
Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not have belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they do not claim to know that a deity does not exist.[15]

Agnostic theism
The view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence.[15]
Apathetic or Pragmatic agnosticism
The view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic.[citation needed][16]

Ignosticism
The view that a coherent definition of a deity must be put forward before the question of the existence of a deity can be meaningfully discussed. If the chosen definition is not coherent, the ignostic holds the noncognitivist view that the existence of a deity is meaningless or empirically untestable.[17] A.J. Ayer, Theodore Drange, and other philosophers see both atheism and agnosticism as incompatible with ignosticism on the grounds that atheism and agnosticism accept “a deity exists” as a meaningful proposition which can be argued for or against. An ignostic cannot even say whether he/she is a theist or a nontheist until a sufficient definition of theism is put forth.[18][not in citation given]

Strong agnosticism (also called “hard,” “closed,” “strict,” or “permanent agnosticism”)
The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, “I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you.”

Weak agnosticism (also called “soft,” “open,” “empirical,” or “temporal agnosticism”)
The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if any evidence is available. A weak agnostic would say, “I don’t know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day when there is evidence we can find something out.”

Even Richard Dawkins the devout Atheists admits a scale on the issue, and admits that even he can’t say for 100% that he is right. The problem with this world though is that people want to hear absolute yes’s or no’s and when it comes to perception, you’re never going to have that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxwBtfkv9ns

[ Edited: 15 January 2011 10:28 PM by ExMachina ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 January 2011 10:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6098
Joined  2009-02-26

You just confirmed my point. Every definition is in relation to the unknowable but possible existence of a god or a deity (see [17] in Ignosticism).
Nowhere did I see the definition that scientific inquiry into the factual origins of the universe is an exercise or expression of agnosticism of any kind. Science is not trying to prove or disprove a god or deity, science is trying to discover what really caused the universe.

[ Edited: 16 January 2011 12:01 AM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 January 2011 12:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  32
Joined  2011-01-11
Occam. - 15 January 2011 07:19 PM

Agreed, flyingsorcerer.  I made the point of defining agnostic in a related thread so didn’t want to repeat it here.

Quoting Egran078:

We cannot form concepts of things that do not exist.

  Nah, the whole fiction section of public libraries deal with things that don’t exist.  Examples could be Frankenstein’s monster or Sherlock Holms.  We have all sorts of stories about aliens but no evidence that they exist.  (Agreed that we may be agnostic about aliens. LOL

And Randy had a very good point (pun???).  A circle can easily be defined as a polygon with an infinite number of sides and therefore, an infinite number of points (vertices.)

Occam


Yes but the fiction section is filled with creatures and characters that are defined.  Most importantly they are defined as fictional characters.  So this facet of them - being made up - allows us to make them whatever we want. Just as god is made up - we can add whatever characteristics we want, but it doesn’t make his existence any more possible.

 Signature 

I’m atheist, not agnostic. To say that god is unknowable is to say that god is.

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 5
1