I assume you read the OP, so I don't know what more you want.

So picking-up from where we left off ... :eyes:

Obviously to prove there are no gods... — Frank Apisa

Obviously, since "gods" is undefined, this statement is nonsense.

one would have to be everywhere in the universe all at the same time....and detect no gods in order to prove there are none.

Only because your use of "gods" is undefined, that is, the search parameters for any one or classification of your purported "gods" are undefined, which implies having to search "everywhere" for no-defined-thing. :roll:

And that, Frankie, proves you're just blowing nonsense out of your ass. Just merely confused, pedestrian, unbelief ... obviously, not even (Huxleyan) agnosticism.

All remains valid in terms of the athiest, the arguement is reasonable and sound.

In terms of agnostic, if the option is for or against the agnostic is sat well and truely on the fence so what is their arguement other than to "be" the arguement in the form of a slippery fish. I will digest. It is not actually practical to be able to live your life as an agnostic so its just a pointless conceptual mental arguement that has no ground.

Are there any other agnostics here with a view point? Is the view point of the agnostic one of refusing to answer the question?

180 Proof
821
So picking-up from where we left off ... :eyes:

Obviously to prove there are no gods...
— Frank Apisa
Obviously, since "gods" is undefined, this statement is nonsense.

one would have to be everywhere in the universe all at the same time....and detect no gods in order to prove there are none.
Only because your use of "gods" is undefined, that is, the search parameters for any one or classification of your purported "gods" are undefined, which implies having to search "everywhere" for no-defined-thing. :roll:

And that, Frankie, proves you're just blowing nonsense out of your ass. Just merely confused, pedestrian, unbelief ... obviously, not even (Huxleyan) agnosticism. — 180 Proof

Atheism is just a mirror image of theism. Both positions are just groups of people making blind guesses about the true nature of the REALITY of existence.

Theists, to their credit are honest about it. The acknowledge that they are operating in "belief" and "faith."

Atheists, for the most part, lie about it...pretend they are not doing "belief" and "faith."

Enjoy your self-deceit, 180. And don't mind me laughing at you.

Antidote...you should find a thread about TV shows...and give your opinion on the ones you enjoy most.

If you think that the position "I do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence" is fence-sitting...you are, as you claim, as dumb as a bag of wood.

Enjoy your self-deceit, 180. — Frank Apisa

This from a man who says, in effect, he neither believes nor disbelieves - neither knows nor does not know - whether &÷#@$% exists or does not exist. :roll:

And don't mind me laughing at you.

All you've got, Frankie, are vapid assertions absent supporting evidence or sound arguments. You're not laughing "at me" but with me at the forum trolls. Are you one of them? (Pardon the snark.) :smirk:

180 Proof
822
And don't mind me laughing at you.
— Frank Apisa
All you've got, Frankie, are vapid assertions absent supporting evidence or sound arguments. You're not laughing "at me" but with me at the forum trolls. Are you one of them? (Pardon the snark.) :smirk: — 180 Proof

No problem with the "snark" at all, 180. We all use it at times...and, no, I am not a troll.

I'm not even sure of what the point of disagreement is between us.

My position on the question of "Do any gods exist?" is fairly unambiguous: I do not know.

Not sure why that answer causes so much consternation with so many...but apparently it does.

My more complete answer is:

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.

What on Earth does anyone see wrong or wrong-headed about that answer?

My TV hasn't worked for some years now, but I am planning to fix it soon and perhaps you can recommend a show for me? My brother says, "Alaska: the final frontier" is quite good?

No, I said I was as dumb as a lump of wood (singluar) - you said, as dumb as a bag of wood (plural). In the very beginning of our example, I established such by saying the ground to start from was "I know nothing". Now back, to the example.

Our scientist did not have a good nights sleep last night, for he realised that having very carefully (and we kept reminding ourselves we needed to be careful) taken each step along the process, the agnostic position was not allowed for. You see our scientist was using reason to see if he could establish anything at all from the experiment. But, fortunately, our scientist (true to his word) said he established the ground for the purposes of remaining open. In this vein, we now need to include the view of the agnostic. He woke up very excited this morning because something new had been added, so perhaps we may be able to find a better answer than we did the first time. This is "buzz" a scientist gets when the learning takes place and we may discover something.

So, having been presented with new information (the agnostic) and I must say, thank you to the patience of our agnostic because, recognising our scientist was a dumb as a lump of wood, he stuck with us until it finally got through his thick skull that the agnostic, even if presented as such, was not an atheist. The example was certainly sufficient for the "believer" or "non believer" so I wont repeat it.

Now, our scientist knows, thanks to his fellow scientist (Einstein) that the world "out there" is relative. He describes this much better than our dumb scientist can, so I won't repeat it, but the principle of such is very simple, thus:

Hot doesn't not mean anything without cold.
Fast doesn't mean anything without slow.

If we just had HOT, then it would just be, and temperature would have no meaning. Fortunately, everything in the outside world has an opposite. This is a dichotomy. Not to say it's only a dichotomy but this is evidenced in the outside world.

One pole we call "Hot", the opposite pole we call "Cold". The spectrum we call "temperature".
One pole we call "Fast", the opposite pole we call "Slow". The spectrum we call "speed".

And so on, and so forth.

Our original example had this automatically built into the example by having two poles. "Believer" and "non-believer". The spectrum could loosely be called "faith".

Now sadly, we only have one agnostic, so creating a relative link between to fellow agnostics would have helped us a great deal. Wiki, sadly, is not much clearer because what becomes apparent is that of the "fathers of agnosticism" presented there, none of them seem to agree much with each other. If we look at our atheists, they all agree very well. So do our believers, they all very much agree too.

So to this end, we are going to have to look at the "cornerstones" present by our one agnostic in the form of the 4 principles presented and see if we can find something there. A little more digesting, then we'll have a try. After all, our agnostic could indeed have a better answer than we, and perhaps their position is a better one. We will see.

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

Is there any chance of re-writing these principles in singular form, for the sake of ease? If not, we'll work with what we have.

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I do no know if gods exist
I do not know if gods don't exist

I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect gods cannot exist
I see no reason why gods could exist

I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I see no reason that gods must exist
I see no reason why gods would exist
I see no reason that gods are needed to explain existence

I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...
I do not see enough certainty of evidence to base a "best guess" that gods exist
I do not see enough certainty of evidence to base a "best guess" that gods don't exist

...so I don't.
So I don't make or form a view or opinion either way.

Please be patient with me, and please keep in mind I'm as dumb as a lump of wood so I get confused very easily. Can you please confirm where we have gone wrong on the above, so we can put it right, in the view of the agnostic so we understand better what the view point is.

Is there any chance of re-writing these principles in singular form, for the sake of ease? If not, we'll work with what we have. — Antidote

Work with what you have. The notion of just God...means working with just one idea of a god.

I prefer to use "gods."

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I do no know if gods exist
I do not know if gods don't exist

I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect gods cannot exist
I see no reason why gods could exist

I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I see no reason that gods must exist
I see no reason why gods would exist
I see no reason that gods are needed to explain existence

I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...
I do not see enough certainty of evidence to base a "best guess" that gods exist
I do not see enough certainty of evidence to base a "best guess" that gods don't exist

...so I don't.
So I don't make form a view or opinion either way.

Please be patient with me, and please keep in mind I'm as dumb as a lump of wood so I get confused very easily. Can you please confirm where we have gone wrong on the above, so we can put it right, in the view of the agnostic so we understand better what the view point is. — Antidote

The part highlighted makes no sense, Anti...and does not follow from what I said.

Gotta go to work right now. Will be back in about 6 hours.

Work with what you have. The notion of just God...means working with just one idea of a god. — Frank Apisa

Whether there is one, or more than one, will still firmly sit in the "exists" camp, if we can agree that?

The part highlighted makes no sense, Anti...and does not follow from what I said. — Frank Apisa

No problem, there's my stupidity again. I've highlighted the bit that I understood it relate. It would be easier (because I know nothing) if you could then re-define what you meant, but if not, we'll try and get there instead.

I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason why gods could exist

should this be:
I see no reason why gods would be impossible to exist

The notion of just God...means working with just one idea of a god. — Frank Apisa

Could you expand on this a little? You see, being careful with this and scientific, we cannot get to an "idea" of God, because we haven't yet established existence yet. Damn my stupidity, as a scientist, I understand the importance of Order and Disorder. I very easily fall out of order if I'm not careful.

The concept of "god / creator" is as being of the First Order, assigning to "creator" acknowledges this position. Would you say there are potentially many gods appearing as the First Order?

I've just a had a look at history regarding "Gods" to see if there is any concept of the First Cause being "multi" and so far, cause I'm stupid, I've not seen any. I re-read the wiki agnostic views again, and some of them seem to reference "Gods" but not in context of a First Cause, instead they reference "God" as the First Cause (existent of not).

Again, please be patient, I'm sure we will get there, if you can help with this bit, we can move on to the next bit.

Whilst your working, I'll read up on the law of Cause and Effect so I understand that a bit better too.

Not sure why that answer causes so much consternation with so many...but apparently it does.

[ ... ]

What on Earth does anyone see wrong or wrong-headed about that answer? — Frank Apisa

This is what's wrong with it. Read for comprehension, Frank, as many times as it takes for you to get the gist. A hint: define the gods - classes or particular ones - at issue for you. :wink:

Anti...I do not think you are dumb or stupid.

I think you are an asshole.

And I suspect you are unable (or perhaps, unwilling) to compose a coherent sentence.

Just want to be sure we are not misunderstanding any of that.

180 Proof
824
Not sure why that answer causes so much consternation with so many...but apparently it does.

[ ... ]

What on Earth does anyone see wrong or wrong-headed about that answer?
— Frank Apisa
This is what's wrong with it. Read dor comprehension, Frank, as many time as it takes for you to get the gist. A hint: define the gods - classes or particular ones - at issue for you. :wink: — 180 Proof

What do you mean by "wrong?" Please define it.

Yes maybe so I'm sure but i can be an asshole like everyone at times.

So are you ready to carry on ?

Antidote
117
Yes maybe so I'm sure but i can be an asshole like everyone at times.

So are you ready to carry on ? — Antidote

Carry on?

I am willing to have a meaningful discussion with you if you knock off the bullshit.

Let me know that you intend to stop with the bullshit...and we can discuss a few things. (I'd prefer to discuss your apparent disagreement with something I have written.)

Excellent. Im not really sure what you mean by this, but i promise to remain neutral so i have a chance of learning your point of view. I wont be too long.

The notion of just God...means working with just one idea of a god. — Frank Apisa

Could you expand on this a little? You see, being careful with this and scientific, we cannot get to an "idea" of God, because we haven't yet established existence yet. Damn my stupidity, as a scientist, I understand the importance of Order and Disorder. I very easily fall out of order if I'm not careful.

The concept of "god / creator" is as being of the First Order, assigning to "creator" acknowledges this position. Would you say there are potentially many gods appearing as the First Order?

I've just a had a look at history regarding "Gods" to see if there is any concept of the First Cause being "multi" and so far, cause I'm stupid, I've not seen any. I re-read the wiki agnostic views again, and some of them seem to reference "Gods" but not in context of a First Cause, instead they reference "God" as the First Cause (existent of not).

Again, please be patient, I'm sure we will get there, if you can help with this bit, we can move on to the next bit.

Which Dialogue are the two of you reenacting? :lol:

Antidote
121
The notion of just God...means working with just one idea of a god.
— Frank Apisa

Could you expand on this a little? — Antidote

At first, I thought of responding to this with:

Sure.

T h e n o t i o n o f j u s t G o d...m e a n s w o r k i n g w i t h j u s t o n e i d e a o f a g o d.

But I figured that was too corny.

So instead, I opt to go with:

I would rather not expand on it.

I prefer to discuss the topic at hand using "gods" rather than "God" (which implies a particular God) ...so if that is a game stopper, perhaps it would be better for you to discuss it with someone else.

I actually hope it is not.

Pinprick
49
↪Antidote ↪Frank Apisa

Which Dialogue are the two of you reenacting? :lol: — Pinprick

Cute.

I am Glaucon.

Okay, so the agnostics position ultimately had to end as it has. And I will tell you, using reason, why this is the case. I'm calling in the scientist again, because I'm just tired. So here it is, tell me if this is wrong, and remember, I'm as dumb as a lump of wood so I need simple explanation, and not digressions, so we can keep straight.

So, we created an example of using reason to see if we could prove there was or wasn't a creator. That we did to its conclusion, we couldn't actually prove either, so we concluded both the Christian (believer) and Atheist (non believer) were actually on the same side because they were both on the side of "faith". It couldn't be proved, so each had to use "faith" to make the conclusion. Nice and simple.

Then the agnostic appeared. Now, our scientist had no idea about this, because he thought the "atheist" and the "Christian" were polar opposites (in relativity). But it turned out the question was really, "Faith" or "No Faith". And the Atheist had faith, as did the Christian. It was the Agnostic that had "no faith". Bear with me please.

Now, unknown to our agnostic, he wasn't using reason. In fact he didn't understand reason, but what he did understand was "logic". What we know about "logic" is this. Firstly, it was a system created by the Ancient Greeks (Plato and the like), the system was created because the Ancient Greeks did not have "faith", far from it. They actually attempted to destroy faith, for whatever reason. The weapon of choice for the Ancient Greeks was "logic".

Now, using the Law of Cause and Effect, we know a few things about Order. That is, a cause creates an effect, creates a cause, etc. The law states, ONE cause creates an effect, it is not possible for a cause to be more than one, because Cause and Effect works like a tree and branch and creates a hierarchy. The "faith" question is always one of "First Cause".

So we look to the beginning of "logic". It was created. In fact, it was created just before 0 AD, dates aren't important. The system of "logic" was created using "reason". We can now say, Reason came first, and gave birth to Logic. Logic therefore can never be the First Cause because it is already an "Effect". As "Logic" was created, it is bound by relativity. You cannot create a logical argument with only one side (I've been telling my wife this for years). Hence why an agnostic needs an "opposite" in order to create an argument. The principles presented were just twisted logic so he could move position as he needed to. Otherwise the agnostic has no position. It is all "logically" good, but as people kept noticing, it is not reasonable.

If you look at wiki, you will see, the starting point for anything in "logic" is "Argument". Those Greeks were clever, but fortunately they weren't clever enough to beat reason. But then they couldn't, because "Reason" gave birth to Logic. The "son" does not come before the "father" that's just plain insanity if it did.

The agnostic's don't realise that "logic" is flawed against reason. Reason is always above logic. Plato - Republic is a classic example of this. Reason, like Growth, Love, Light, etc. are potential attributes of a creator. So, like the soul, as Plato highlighted, reason is unbeatable. The Ancient Greeks attempted to use the system of logic to debunk the faith. And this has worked for over 2000 years, to a degree because if you look at the statistics, its not "atheism" that has grown, its "faithlessness" that has grown. And the agnostic represents the "faithless". If the agnostic had a ground to stand on, they could tell us but they can't because the starting point in "logic" requires 2 sides or more.

Logic has two aspects to it, it is relative, because it was created. It has "expression" that's the outside appearance of it, and it has "definition", that's the inside appearance of it. Plato, like the agnostic, plays a little game, using a single letter in the language (remember the Ancient Greeks invented the language we now use, albeit via Latin). The letter in question is "s". This is the difference between "singular" and "plural". Now our scientist couldn't understand why it was so important to keep re-stating "gods" not "god", even when our scientist hadn't mentioned "God". But this is why.

If you mix "singular" definition with "plural" expression (or switch them), you have a mess because the expression and definition have to match otherwise it is illogical. Or disorder, or chaos or whatever, it doesn't matter what its called, what you don't have it order or logic. Now if there is a creator, one very obvious trait is "Order". Everything of the creator is in order.

What struck the scientist was that agnosticism mentions "Gods" in one breath, then describe "God" in another (splitting expression and definition). I don't think this twisted logic is limited to the agnostic. They only been around for a few hundred years, so everything that ascribes to the Ancient Greek logic, will incorporate the error or splitting that which cannot be split. It can be manipulated.

If there is a creator (it will be by division), the effect of this is "multiplication". In terms of a creator, the plural is always in the effect whereby the cause will always be singular.

So the logic system was framed without a first cause, that was it's intention (logic is faithless). So it is impossible for logic to answer the question of "is there a creator" because logic itself was obviously created. Reason however, has an opportunity to answer the question. That was why we were very careful to stick to reason, and not let logic get in the way and introduce the fundamental error.

I have created another thread "Ancient Greek, Logic and Reason" for those who are interested or have a view on that. Because the Ancient Greeks knew what they were doing, they switched around the positions of "reason" and "logic" in the education system they created.

However, the universal law of Cause and Effect shows us, Reason came first, Logic came after. As the switch is done right at the beginning, or hidden in a tiny letter (devil is always in the detail) most people never even notice it and incorporate it into their thinking / logic. However, our thinking is, and always has been based on Reason, then logic arrived from 0 AD onwards.

Reason = Cause, Logic = Effect. If you have logic without reason, you are in the realms of insanity and the golden rule with that is "you cannot reason with insanity". You can bin them both off (Atheist) or you can have just "reason" Christian, but you cannot have just Logic because we already know, logic was created from reason, and that means its below reason in the causality chain.

The position of the Christian = There is a God (by faith).
The position of the Atheist = There is no God (by faith).
The position of the Agnostic / Antagonist = Logic is God or I am God if I win the arguement (faithlessness).

The agnostic position explains why the Ancient Greeks were very interested in Justice and guilt and the like, because they firmly believed they were God / Gods.

If anyone knows any really clever people (because I'm dumb as lump of wood) pass it on to them and ask them if it's right? Maybe its not, our scientist got it wrong (ish) last night.

Antidote
122
Okay, so the agnostics position ultimately had to end as it has. And I will tell you, using reason, why this is the case. I'm calling in the scientist again, because I'm just tired. So here it is, tell me if this is wrong, and remember, I'm as dump as a lump of wood so I need simple explanation, and not digressions, so we can keep straight.

So, we created an example of using reason to see if we could prove there was or wasn't a creator. That we did to its conclusion, we couldn't actually prove either, so we concluded both the Christian (believer) and Atheist (non believer) were actually on the same side because they were both on the side of "faith". It couldn't be proved, so each had to use "faith" to make the conclusion. Nice and simple.

Then the agnostic appeared. Now, our scientist had no idea about this, because he thought the "atheist" and the "Christian" were polar opposites (in relativity). But it turned out the question was really, "Faith" or "No Faith". And the Atheist had faith, as did the Christian. It was the Agnostic that had "no faith". Bear with me please.

Now, unknown to our agnostic, he wasn't using reason. In fact he didn't understand reason, but what he did understand was "logic". What we know about "logic" is this. Firstly, it was a system created by the Ancient Greeks (Plato and the like), the system was created because the Ancient Greeks did not have "faith", far from it. They actually attempted to destroy faith, for whatever reason. The weapon of choice for the Ancient Greeks was "logic".

Now, using the Law of Cause and Effect, we know a few things about Order. That is, a cause creates an effect, creates a cause, etc. The law states, ONE cause creates an effect, it is not possible for a cause to be more than one, because Cause and Effect works like a tree and branch and creates a hierarchy. The "faith" question is always one of "First Cause".

So we look to the beginning of "logic". It was created. In fact, it was created just before 0 AD, dates aren't important. The system of "logic" was created using "reason". We can now say, Reason came first, and gave birth to Logic. Logic therefore can never be the First Cause because it is already an "Effect". As "Logic" was created, it is bound by relativity. You cannot create a logical argument with only one side (I've been telling my wife this for years). Hence why an agnostic needs an "opposite" in order to create an argument. The principles presented were just twisted logic so he could move position as he needed to. Otherwise the agnostic has no position. It is all "logically" good, but as people kept noticing, it is not reasonable.

If you look at wiki, you will see, the starting point for anything in "logic" is "Argument". Those Greeks were clever, but fortunately they weren't clever enough to beat reason. But then they couldn't, because "Reason" gave birth to Logic. The "son" does not come before the "father" that just plain insanity if it did.

The agnostic's don't realise that "logic" is flawed against reason. Reason is always above logic. Plato - Republic is a classic example of this. Reason, like Growth, love etc are a potential attributes of a creator. So, like the soul, as Plato highlighted, it is unbeatable. The Ancient Greeks attempted to use the system of logic to debunk the faith. And this has worked for over 2000 years, to a degree because if you look at the statistics, its not "atheism" that has grown, its "faithlessness" that has grown. And the agnostic represents the "faithless". If the agnostic had a ground to stand on, they could tell us but they can't because the starting point in "logic" is 2 sides or more.

Logic has two aspects to it, it is relative, because it was created. It has "expression" that's the outside appearance of it, and it has "definition", that's the inside appearance of it. Plato, like the agnostic, plays a little game, using a single letter in the language (remember the Ancient Greeks invented the language we now use, albeit via Latin). The letter in question is "s". This is the difference between "singular" and "plural". Now our scientist couldn't understand why it was so important to keep re-stating "gods" not "god", even when our scientist had mentioned "God". But this is why.

If you mix "singular" expression with "plural" definition (or switch them), you have a mess because the expression and definition have to match otherwise it is illogical. Or disorder, or chaos or whatever, it doesn't matter what its called, what you don't have it order or logic. Now if there is a creator, one very obvious trait is "Order". Everything of the creator is in order.

What struck the scientist was that agnosticism mentions "Gods" in one breath, then describe "God" in another (splitting expression and definition). I don't think this twisted logic is limited to the agnostic. They only been around for a few hundred years, so everything that ascribes to the Ancient Greek logic, will incorporate the error or splitting that which cannot be split.

If there is a creator (it will be by division), the effect of this is "multiplication". In terms of a creator, the plural is always in the effect whereby the cause will always be singular.

So the logic system was framed without a first cause, that was it's intention (logic is faithless). So it is impossible for logic to answer the question of "is there a creator" because logic itself was obviously created. Reason however, has an opportunity to answer the question. That was why we were very careful to stick to reason, and not let logic get in the way and introduce the fundamental error.

I have created another thread "Ancient Greek, Logic and Reason" for those who are interested or have a view on that. Because the Ancient Greeks knew what they were doing, they switched around the positions of "reason" and "logic" in the education system they created.

However, the universal law of Cause and Effect shows us, Reason came first, Logic came after. As the switch is done right at the beginning, or hidden in a tiny letter (devil is always in the detail) most people never even notice it and incorporate it into their thinking / logic. However, our thinking is, and always has been based on Reason, then logic from 0 AD onwards.

Reason = Cause, Logic = Effect. If you have logic without reason, you are in the realms of insanity and the golden rule with that is "you cannot reason with insanity". You can bin them both off (Atheist) or you can have just "reason" Christian, but you cannot have just Logic because we already know, logic was created from reason, and that means its below reason in the causality chain.

The position of the Christian = There is a God (by faith).
The position of the Atheist = There is no God. (by faith).
The position of the Agnostic = I am God (faithlessness).

The agnostic position explains why the Ancient Greeks were very interested in Justice and guilt and the like, because they firmly believed they were God / Gods.

If anyone knows any really clever people (because I'm dumb as lump of wood) pass it on to them and ask them if it's right? Maybe its not, our scientist got it wrong (ish) last night. — Antidote

μαλακίες

The position of the Christian = There is a God (by faith).
The position of the Atheist = There is no God. (by faith).
The position of the Agnostic = I am God (faithlessness). — Antidote

I asked 1 clever person, who said the following, not verbatim, because I can't remember rote stuff:

The positions of the Christian and the of the Atheist are rightly asserted.

The position of the agnostic as written in the proposition is the only position an agnostic can't claim or assert. If I am agnostic, I claim no knowledge of god. But god would certainly have knowledge of god. So to claim that an agnostic thinks he or she is god while he claims no knowledge of god despite being god himself or herself is the stupidest conclusion anyone could draw.

Thanks very much for the help on this, I've update the 3rd position with a little more description as the Agnostic is very much the "antagonist" which no view but full of arguement. That's good the same conclusion was drawn :)

What do you mean by "wrong?" Please define it. — Frank Apisa

This is what's wrong with it. Read for comprehension, Frank, as many times as it takes for you to get the gist. A hint: what is wrong is that you have not defined the gods - classes or particular ones - that you claim not know whether or not they exist; saying "all gods" says nothing definite.

For example, I'm agnostic about a class, or concept, of divinity termed 'pandeism' and another 'animism' which are conventionally defined; on the other hand, I believe - as you insist that I have a belief - that the 'negation of theism' (also defined) is true, which makes me an anti-theist and only by implication also an atheist.

I provide the above link again to a prior post where I argued that what is wrong with your alleged "agnosticism" is that it's incoherent because your use of "gods" is wholly undefined.

proposition is the only position an agnostic can't claim or assert. — god must be atheist

How about this now,
The position of the Agnostic / Antagonist = Logic is God or I am God if I win the arguement (faithlessness).