Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe. Consequently, agnosticism puts aside not only the greater part of popular theology, but also the greater part of anti-theology. On the whole, the "bosh" of heterodoxy is more offensive to me than that of orthodoxy, because heterodoxy professes to be guided by reason and science, and orthodoxy does not. — Thomas Henry Huxley
[ ... ] given that g/G is so underdetermined as to be objectively indistinguishable from a fantasy or hallucination or rorschach blob, how can the question of finding explaining or justifying - modes of knowledge - even be raised without begging the question? To say "I don't know whether or not g/G exists" says nothing but "I don't know whether or not z$&p@ exists" - just an evasively articulate grunt, or babytalk. — 180 Proof
180 Proof By equating g/G with z$&p@ you're implying that g/G is meaningless which is incorrect. — TheMadFool
Like g/G. Thus, isn't it incoherent to claim whether or not to know that "g/G exists"? — 180 Proof
Apparently you see the question of "God" in terms of "Yes or No", with no room for doubt. Yet, like Socrates, I tend to doubt the completeness and accuracy of my own knowledge. If you claim to have the final word on the ancient mystery of "God", then you must either have some direct knowledge of his existence or non-existence, or you have faith that makes knowledge unnecessary. But, how do you know non-existence?I believe that there is no reason to be "agnostic" because saying that you would become theistic if presented with evidence or saying that you are open to the idea of god is non-practical. — nr2004
Do numbers exist? — ssu
Does beauty/value/morals exist? — ssu
Does inflation, money, value, countries exist? — ssu
Theists believe in at least one god — Pfhorrest
Not actually at all, because the examples just show how complex existence is.The rest of this is really off-topic — Pfhorrest
You're mistaken or have misread me. — 180 Proof
Meaning is use', as Witty shows, so words, however nonsensical, derive or convey meaning from the context in which one uses them. Like Abracadabra ... Awop-bop-a-loo-mop alop-bam-boom ... Goo goo g'joob ... etc. Any utterance or expression can be meaningful even if it lacks informational content (e.g. I AM, I AM) or there are no facts of the matter to which it can be used to refer (e.g. round square). Like g/G. Thus, isn't it incoherent to claim whether or not to know that "g/G exists"? — 180 Proof
So everything that is abstract are only words? That sounds like classic straightforward physicalism to me.To say that God exists only abstractly and not concretely is only to say that you have some definition of a thing you've named "God" — Pfhorrest
Exactly. But I was talking about reasons for agnosticism, not about the overtly dogmatic reasoning of theists / atheists.None of these things seem to be what your ordinary run-of-the-mill theists are talking about, — Pfhorrest
However if we're to put g/G in the context of a language game I believe it makes any and all claims about g/G immune to criticism. Am I right? If so then you really can't accuse anyone of incoherence. — TheMadFool
So everything that is abstract are only words? That sounds like classic straightforward physicalism to me. — ssu
Exactly. But I was talking about reasons for agnosticism, not about the overtly dogmatic reasoning of theists / atheists. — ssu
How can one be agnostic of the existence of some thing when that thing hasn't been adequately defined? It seems to me that "agnosticism", "theism" and "atheism" are only coherent terms when there is a consistent definition of the thing that one can be a theist, atheist, or agnostic about. This is why all discussions about g/G are pointless unless someone can provide a consistent and coherent definition of what it is that they are talking about. — Harry Hindu
Exactly what I said.Theism/atheism and gnosticism/agnosticism purport to be views about the same thing though: God. If they’re talking about different conceptions of God, then someone could simultaneously be a theist and an atheist, a gnostic and an agnostic, all of them at the same time in different senses. Before one can say which of these positions one takes on the existence of “God”, one had to decide what “God” means. And if you take “God” to mean something different than what theists and atheists disagree about, then you’re just going to confuse everyone when you state your position on it. — Pfhorrest
That tells a lot then.I never said I wasn’t a physicalist. — Pfhorrest
Really?In any case abstract objects don’t have any concrete effects on the world we’re a part of — Pfhorrest
But they aren't talking about that. It's about the existence of God, not what God is. And as I've done now for a long time, I've tried to explain that existence isn't such a straightforward thing as it is to a physicalist / materialist.Theism/atheism and gnosticism/agnosticism purport to be views about the same thing though: God. If they’re talking about different conceptions of God, then someone could simultaneously be a theist and an atheist, a gnostic and an agnostic, all of them at the same time in different senses. — Pfhorrest
You don't think our actions that are can be based on abstract ideas don't have any concrete effects? — ssu
But they aren't talking about that. It's about the existence of God, not what God is. And as I've done now for a long time, I've tried to explain that existence isn't such a straightforward thing as it is to a physicalist / materialist. — ssu
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.