About this word, "Agnosticism", (and its derivatives: agnostic, agnost, agnosta, etc.)

god must be atheist

It is no use explaining to me what it means. I know perfectly well what it means. (A) "Agnostic" means a person who believes that god is capable of existing, but the person has no knowledge or decisional capability to tell whether god exists or not. (B) Some others add to this, that the agnostic therefore is sitting on the fence, so to speak: the agnostic not only does not know what to believe in the matter of god's existence, but the agnost also has not decided whether to believe in god or not; the agnost has no belief either way.

According to the member on whose knowledge I rely on when claiming this, "Agnosticism was coined by Thomas Huxley as an alternative to theism and atheism (in the traditional sense). He said that neither theism nor atheism have conclusive evidence, therefore the rational position is abstention. He defined his position as a form of skepticism."

This lead to the general acceptance that agnosticism means no faith in god and no faith on the lack of god.

This is sense (B) as per my first paragraph, and I find a stance like that impossible.

The proof is simple.

God ether exists or does not exist.

People therefore are not in a position to believe BOTH that god exists and god does not exists.

If you negate both claims in an "and"-connected claim, it becomes a "not (... or...) " claim.

The faith's logical expression looks like this:
Faith in god = (believe that god exists) xor (don't believe that god exists)
Which is necessarily true; a person either believes or he does not believe in god, he can't both believe AND not believe at the same time and in the same respect. This expression is only true if god exists or does not exist. it can't be true when god neither exists nor does not exist, and it can't be true when god exists and not exist.

Thus, if you deny your faith in both: that god exists and god does not exist, then your claim will look like this:

faith in god = Not ((don't believe that god exists) xor (I believe that god exists))

(C) Which can only be true when god neither exists nor does not exist, and when god exists and not exist.

But (C) is necessarily false. Therefore it is false to propose that one does not believe in gods and in no gods.

----------------

What it boils down to is that all agnostics believe in a god or in gods, or alternatively but not at the same time they don't believe in a god or gods.

Although it sounds like it, Aldous Huxley's claim and definition of agnosticism definitely did not include sense (B) as defined it in the first paragraph of this post. It did not include that, because it would have been a necessarily false claim as part of the definition.

In this sense, everyone is a believer (in god, or alternatively, in no god), and everyone is an agnostic.

This proof does not contradict the meaning of "agnostic". A gnostic is a person who knows. An agnostic i a person who does not know. Faith over the unknown can only be belief, exercised by believing in that thing or not believing in that thing. Faith and belief can always be present when knowledge is absent.
----------------

Frank Apisa

Unless I am misreading your OP...I disagree completely.

I'm going to take my disagreement in bits and pieces...rather than take such a big bite, neither of us can chew.

First...an obvious truth: There are people in this world who "believe" there is at least one GOD...and there are others who "believe" there are no gods. (I am not saying ALL people are either in one group or the other, merely that those two categories do exist.)

As for the people in the group who "believe" that at least one GOD exists: I am not one of those people.

I do NOT "believe" at least one GOD exists.

As for the people in the other group who "believe" that no gods exist: I am also not one of those people.

I do NOT "believe" that no gods exist.

So I am saying that I do NOT "believe" that at least one GOD exists and I do NOT "believe" that no gods exist.

You seem to be saying that there is an inconsistency in that.

Could you speak more to why you see that as inconsistent?

deletedusercb

It is no use explaining to me what it means. I know perfectly well what it means. (A) "Agnostic" means a person who believes that god is capable of existing, but the person has no knowledge or decisional capability to tell whether god exists or not. — god must be atheist

I don't think that is necessarily the case at all. An agnostic need not assert that a deity is capable of existing. On the other hand the agnostic can say 'I cannot rule it out. For all I know one might exist and/or for all I know it might be possible. Again, I cannot rule that out.' To say that they believe a deity is capable of existing means they have a positive beliet that given the ontology of deities and the make up of reality, God's are capable of existing.

deletedusercb

↪Frank Apisa

Yes, you're right and I think it should be pointed out also that there is a slide between the definition of agnosticism - as a belief in the capability of God to exist (early on in his post) and his later definition of agnostic. And that first rendition of agnositism

Agnostic" means a person who believes that god is capable of existing, but the person has no knowledge or decisional capability to tell whether god exists or not. — god must be atheist

Is an incredibly convoluted belief to have. That 'agnostic' would have an extremely complicated positive belief about ontology and metaphysics. This person would feel they know that the nature of things means that gods are capable of existing, they just can't tell if they do or not. Wow! How does one know that the universe or reality is such that gods are capable of existing? What are the criteria for that?

god must be atheist

that a deity is capable of existing. On the other hand the agnostic can say 'I cannot rule it out. — Coben

I don't see any difference between the two. "I cannot rule it out" is the same as "Not impossible" which also means "potentially"

To say that they believe a deity is capable of existing means they have a positive beliet that given the ontology of deities and the make up of reality, God's are capable of existing. — Coben

...and that's what agnostics precisely state, without the italicized part. If you take out the italics (your addtition) then you get back to precisely what I said.

I said nothing of ontology of deities. god may be totally different or similar or the same as our imagination has dictated. But all of god's nature is mere conjecture. One thing is only sure: it exists or it does not exists. What it's like is yet another can of worms.

god must be atheist

Is an incredibly convoluted belief to have. — Coben

That's why most atheists say they are also agnostic, whereas a religious person never says that. It is not possible for a religious person to comprehend anything more complex beyond "let's have a drink".

That 'agnostic' would have an extremely complicated positive belief about ontology and metaphysics. — Coben

He does not have to. He just can't both believe and not beleive in god. That's the simple version for the benefit of the religious.

Wow! How does one know that the universe or reality is such that gods are capable of existing? — Coben

Can you name something that is NOT capable of existing? I challenge you to name anything that can't exist (outside of god).

deletedusercb

That's why most atheists say they are also agnostic, whereas a religious person never says that. It is not possible for a religious person to comprehend anything more complex beyond "let's have a drink". — god must be atheist

That's demonstrably false. Like off the top of my head Newton, say. And there are many modern examples who not only are smarter than your summation, but smarter than most of the participants in this forum, like, say, Gerhard Ertl. I am sure you're just expressing some bile and don't mean for that to be taken literally, but jeez, why bother.

He does not have to. He just can't both believe and not beleive in god. That's the simple version for the benefit of the religious. — god must be atheist

You're not responding to the argument I made.

Can you name something that is NOT capable of existing? I challenge you to name anything that can't exist (outside of god). — god must be atheist

This doesn't fit my argument either. I am saying that if an agnostic makes the positive claim: God is capable of existing, that is an extremely strong ontological statement. And it has nothing to do with agnostics I know where they would say something more along the lines of 'the cannot rule out that a god exists (and implicitly, that they cannot rule out that a god could exist). Not being able to rule out is NOT the same as saying that something is the case. Here that not being able to rule out that a god could exist is not the same as saying a god is capable of existing.

Frank Apisa

↪Coben

↪god must be atheist

Here is how I state my agnosticismt...and I see no logical protocols being violated.

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

god must be atheist

You're not responding to the argument I made. — Coben

I fully responded. You don't comprehend complex thought. That's not my fault.

Like off the top of my head Newton, say. And there are many modern examples who not only are smarter than your summation, but smarter than most of the participants in this forum, like, say, Gerhard Ertl. — Coben

Fallacy of "Appeal to authority". Go home already

This doesn't fit my argument either. I am saying that if an agnostic makes the positive claim: God is capable of existing, that is an extremely strong ontological statement. — Coben

No, it's not The reply to this, is for you to name something that is not capable of existing. You demonstrated that you can't name such a thing. You even deflected the challenge as not part of the argument. But it is a very essential part of the argument. Becasue EVERYTHING is capable of existence. God included, whether it is existing or not.

Frank Apisa

Can you name something that is NOT capable of existing? I challenge you to name anything that can't exist (outside of god). — god must be atheist

How about "a four sided triangle?"

Or..."a circle with corners?"

god must be atheist

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't. — Frank Apisa

So you don't believe in god.

You either believe or you don't. If you are not venturing a guess in either direction, then you don't. There is no middle ground. It's dictated by the law of the excluded middle.

A few Corollaries:

"I will go to Teheran. Or I won't. I don't know it yet. I won't venture a guess." So you don't go to Teheran.

ETC.

god must be atheist

How about "a four sided triangle?"

Or..."a circle with corners?" — Frank Apisa

Haha... those are not things. Name a THING.

There are many arguments why those figures can't exist... I won't go into that as there are many arguments already on this very same forum. Short-and-long of it, if you define something that violates the law of the excluded middle (a circle which has no corners which has corners) then you define something that necessarily is false, and therefore not a thing.

Frank Apisa

So you don't believe in god. — god must be atheist

"Believe in god?"

I do not even use that grammatical form when dealing with the question.

When someone says "I believe in..." my guess is they are unable (unwilling) to actually express the idea they are attempting to express using clear language.

For instance, if someone were to ask me, Do you "believe" in Democracy?...I would say, "If you are asking me if I prefer a democratic form of government over a dictatorial one...why not just ask the question that way ?

My response to the second rendering would be, "Of course I would prefer a democratic form of government over a dictatorial one."

You did not ask the question, but rather made a statement. (So you don't believe in god.) I would ask you: "Are you asking me if I 'believe' that at least one god exists"...which is to say, "Are you asking me if I blindly guess that at least one god exists?"

If you are, my response would be: "No, I do not blindly guess that at least one god exists."

Having obtained that response, would you logically be able to assert, "Therefore you do blindly guess that no gods exist????"

I cannot conceive of why you would...IF YOU WOULD.

Do you see my dilemma here?

deletedusercb

↪Frank Apisa

I think that fits with my description and with my experience with agnostics and their beliefs. And it does not fit with his op.

Frank Apisa

god must be atheist
1.9k
How about "a four sided triangle?"

Or..."a circle with corners?"
— Frank Apisa

Haha... those are not things. Name a THING.

There are many arguments why those figures can't exist... I won't go into that as there are many arguments already on this very same forum. Short-and-long of it, if you define something that violates the law of the excluded middle (a circle which has no corners which has corners) then you define something that necessarily is false, and therefore not a thing. — god must be atheist

A basketball with corners!

deletedusercb

Fallacy of "Appeal to authority". Go home already — god must be atheist

That was not an appeal to authority.

It is not possible for a religious person to comprehend anything more complex beyond "let's have a drink". — god must be atheist

I metioned two theists, Newton and Erti, as counterexamples to your ludicrous claim. Let me explain what an appeal to authority would be: if I said God existed because Newton was a theist. That's an appeal to authority. I gave a couple of examples to show that your idiotic claim was not the case. Not an appeal to authority.

No, it's not The reply to this, is for you to name something that is not capable of existing. You demonstrated that you can't name such a thing. You even deflected the challenge as not part of the argument. But it is a very essential part of the argument. Becasue EVERYTHING is capable of existence. God included, whether it is existing or not. — god must be atheist

So God has a capablity even though God may or may not exist? How do you know God is capable of existing?

capable
adjective: capable

1.
having the ability, fitness, or quality necessary to do or achieve a specified thing

Perhaps you mean some other word since only things that exist are capable of anything.

180 Proof

Is g/G a possible object of knowledge (as distinct from mere fiction)?

What makes it so?

Because if it is not, then 'agnosticism with respect to g/G' does not obtain (i.e. makes no sense to claim one neither knows nor does not know if a fiction (or e.g. babytalk) is a fact of the matter).

About this word, "Agnosticism", (and its derivatives: agnostic, agnost, agnosta, etc.)

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions