.I do not myself know of any argument for the existence of God which I find convincing; in all of them I think I can find flaws. Equally, I do not know of any argument against the existence of God which is totally convincing; in the arguments I know against the existence of God I can equally find flaws. So that my own position on the existence of God is agnostic — Anthony Kenny (1983: 84–85)
(ax. 1) If theism is realist-cognitive, then its claims (e.g. "the Abrahamic Deity exists") are demonstrably true or not true.
(ax. 2) If theism is nonrealist-noncognitive, then its claims (e.g. "the Abrahamic Deity exists") are mere poetry (i.e. figures of speech). [from ax. 1]
(def. 1) In general agnosticism denotes knowledge, or a decidable truth-value, is lacking which therefore warrants doubt with respect to the claim at issue.
(def. 2) Specifically agnosticism, with respect to a claim that "the Abrahamic Deity exists", denotes warranted doubt in the absence of evidence to decide whether this claim has a positive truth-value or negative truth-value – whether "the Abrahamic Deity exists" is true or not true. [from ax. 2, def. 1]
(def. 3)The evidence is decidable (i.e. probable though not conclusive). Nature, I submit, provides sufficient evidence to decide the issue. [from ax. 1, def. 2]
(prop. 1) Any claim that "the Abrahamic Deity exists" entails that nature is "supernatural", or that its otherwise law-like regularities are arbitrarily, purposefully, changed (suspended). [from ax. 1]
(prop. 2) However, there has never been recorded in history any publicly – directly or indirectly – observed "supernatural", or arbitrarily, purposeful, changes to (suspensions of) nature's law-like regularities. [from def. 3, prop. 1]
(prop. 3) Yet there must be such observable evidence (e.g. corroborable scriptural "revealed" accounts) if "the Abrahamic Deity exists" is true. There isn't, and therefore "the Abrahamic Deity exists" cannot be true. [from prop. 1, prop 2]
(prop. 4) On these basic grounds (though neither exclusively nor exhaustively), it is considerably more reasonable (warranted) than less to assent to "the Abrahamic Deity exist" claim has a negative truth-value – is not true – and, therefore, that agnosticism, with respect to "the existence of the Abrahamic Deity", does not obtain. [from prop. 3] — (excerpts) QED & Other Stigmata
Agnosticism means uncertainty as you say, however, since atheism requires a lack of belief, these two are compatible. — Judaka
I'm not even sure if you're providing a stance on agnosticism vs gnosticism — Judaka
Which implies that upon learning more, we could switch from the default position to a position of gnosticism, as we learned more. — Judaka
Could you clarify, if a human values intellectual honesty, what exactly are you asking them to do? — Judaka
The purchase of lottery tickets cannot be accounted for by decision models based on expected value maximization. The reason is that lottery tickets cost more than the expected gain, as shown by lottery mathematics, so someone maximizing expected value should not buy lottery tickets — Wikipedia
(ax. 1) If theism is cognitive, then its claims (e.g. "the Abrahamic Deity exists") are demonstrably true or not true.
(ax. 2) If theism is noncognitive, then its claims (e.g. "the Abrahamic Deity exists") are mere poetry (i.e. figures of speech). [from ax. 1] — (excerpts) QED & Other Stigmata
If all (non-innate) human knowledge begins from a position of uncertainty emerging from ignorance, and a subset of humans value intellectual honesty, then the subset of humans must by default begin from an agnostic position. — Cartesian trigger-puppets
of a proposition is to admit uncertainty and thus take an agnostic position.. . .know of the improbability. . . — TheMadFool
All human knowledge begins with opinion. — Fooloso4
Im referring to humans on the individual level. — Cartesian trigger-puppets
At conception and birth we are blank slates — Cartesian trigger-puppets
Before your conception and subsequently your birth, you had no opinions. — Cartesian trigger-puppets
At conception and birth we are blank slates
— Cartesian trigger-puppets
We are not. Anyone who has children knows this. It has been a long time since I read the literature, but the last I looked the idea of a tabula rasa had been rejected by developmental psychologists. — Fooloso4
All human knowledge begins with opinion.
— Fooloso4
Im referring to humans on the individual level. At conception and birth we are blank slates except for some genetic precursors that predispose us to behave instinctively (innate knowledge). — Cartesian trigger-puppets
Before your conception and subsequently your birth, you had no opinions.
— Cartesian trigger-puppets
Children do not begin by doubting or with uncertainty, they begin by making associations, just like other animals. A bit later they then begin to tell themselves stories. They are quite convinced by their stories. — Fooloso4
Agnosticism doesn't function as the starting default — Saphsin
Of course, it may be rational for people to stay undecided before they explore the available evidence, but that's just "I don't know, I haven't read and thought about it enough yet" That isn't a philosophical position. — Saphsin
You can also choose to be agnostic about an issue and not rationally justified towards such position, if the topic at matter at hand for instance (going back to my previous post) poses concepts that can be shown to be incoherent or contradictory with available evidence. — Saphsin
The surprisingly contentious issue of how best to define the terms “atheism” and “agnosticism”. — Paul Draper
Replace agnosticism with agnostic atheism. — Judaka
there are some propositions whose truth it is not reasonable to be agnostic about. For instance, the proposition "I am thinking" and "I exist" and "there are reasons to believe things". — Bartricks
Premise 2 is demonstrably false. — Bartricks
There are two ways to address an argument: (1) criticism by analysis and (2) criticism by providing a stronger, alternative / counter argument. I chose (2), others have chosen (1). Yeah, it's your OP, Ct-puppet, but the topic is not about you.Do address the argument. — Cartesian trigger-puppets
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.