I just want to ask an agnostic if he believes it is possible for a god to exist or not. — NOS4A2

But asking a single agnostic that question won't make any difference in the bigger picture. Just because one agnostic likes Marmite, that doesn't mean that they all do.

Not sure that’s the greatest analogy. They would know whether cars and Main Street exist, whether it was possible they parked there or not.

They would know whether cars and Main Street exist, — NOS4A2

Not necessarily. You might be able to discover the information, but you don't necessarily know when you're asked and when you respond. It can be the case that you don't know/you don't even have an opinion on whether it's possible. That's all that you need to understand.

But asking a single agnostic that question won't make any difference in the bigger picture. Just because one agnostic likes Marmite, that doesn't mean that they all do.

Quibbling again.

If you or S or someone were to ask me this right now, I'd not be able to know whether it's even possible, especially if you don't tell me where you live, where you've been, whether you have a car in the first place, and if there's no way for me to verify any of that info (you might just be making something up), etc.

Not necessarily. You might be able to discover the information, but you don't necessarily know when you're asked and when you respond. It can be the case that you don't know/you don't even have an opinion on whether it's possible. That's all that you need to understand.

One can’t say “I don’t know” to an either/or question without maintaining the possibility of either side might be right.

One can say “I don’t know” to an either/or question without maintaining the possibility of either side might be right — NOS4A2

Right--without having a belief in possibility either way. That's just the idea.

One cannot say “I don’t know” to an either/or question without holding on to the idea that one or the other might possibly be true.

In my own case, I don’t believe even in the possibility of a god, so saying I don’t know to the question whether god exists or not betrays my underlying belief.

I don't understand for the first part why you were basically writing the same thing just with a "cannot" instead of a "can."

At any rate, sure, if you believe that it's not possible for a god to exist--which is my view, too--then you wouldn't say "I don't know if a god exists."

But if you say "I don't know if a god exists," you might also think, "I don't even know if it's possible for a god to exist."

Quibbling again. — NOS4A2

It has become clear that that's your "go to" hand wave.

But if you say "I don't know if a god exists," you might also think, "I don't even know if it's possible for a god to exist."

But that leads to an infinite regression. It’s “I don’t know” all the way down.

But that leads to an infinite regression. It’s “I don’t know” all the way down. — NOS4A2

No, that's a slippery slope fallacy.

No, that's a slippery slope fallacy.

What? No, it’s like this: if someone don’t know whether it is possible whether a god exists, then he thinks it is possible that it is possible that a god exists, and so on to infinity.

this is what I've been questioning all along, why have a belief about something whose state you think is unknowable? — Philosophical Script

It's probably because many people don't actually have a clear idea on what the god is that they are (not) believing in. Peoples ideas on gods float around between an actual physical entity (where the answer would be easily obtained by applying the scientific method) and some metaphysical concept. The problem is that it's unclear how you could even be said to "know" anything about god as a metaphysical concept, so people come up with agnostic belief.

But that leads to an infinite regression. It’s “I don’t know” all the way down. — NOS4A2

I'm not sure what the regression is. You know that you don't know if you think that it's possible for a god to exist or not.

if someone don’t know whether it is possible whether a god exists, then he thinks it is possible that it is possible that a god exists, — NOS4A2

No, they precisely DO NOT think this. They don't think it's possible for a god to exist. That would be knowing that it's possible. They do not know if it's possible. They don't have an opinion on it.

Aren't you familiar with not having an opinion on something? For example, I don't know if it's feasible that Trump could be impeached.

That doesn't imply that I think it's feasible. And it doesn't imply that I think it's not feasible. Rather, I don't know.

↪S

No, that's a slippery slope fallacy.

What? No, it’s like this: if someone don’t know whether it is possible whether a god exists, then he thinks it is possible that it is possible that a god exists, and so on to infinity. — NOS4A2

No, that's just an assumption on your part. It's an understandable assumption, but it's not necessarily the case. Your logic is invalid.

It's probably because many people don't actually have a clear idea on what the god is that they are (not) believing in. — Echarmion

But then it seems weird to me to have a belief one way or the other. I would think those folks would instead say, "Let's figure out what we're even talking about first."

I think you are confusing yourself with the semantics here. Being agnostic means you either do not think the question of gods existence can be answered at all or that you think the question cannot be answered with the information currently available. im not sure how this effects whatever argument you are making but thats what it means.

I did state that that is what it is. That's just a suspicion of mine as a somewhat unapologetic atheist. You don't really have to feel like you're not entrenched enough even though making you feel that way is something that I was sort of doing. The baggage of atheism honestly kind of isn't worthwhile. I sort of wish that I was agnostic. I just simply think that there is no God, though.

In a different thread, I was partially defending the new atheist position against religion, but now I think that they could just be off base and that the thing to do is really to just move away from religion. Agnosticism is interesting because it states that it is impossible to know either way. There's no positive or negative claim to go along with the belief system. It poses the question as the belief. It's kind of cool.

I wonder if I, myself, aren't becoming more of a non-theist as opposed to an anti-theist. I don't see non-theism as an alternative to atheism, but it could be an alternative to anti-theism. Atheism already kind of describes such an approach.

I'm not sure what the regression is. You know that you don't know if you think that it's possible for a god to exist or not.

It’s difficult to formulate, so thanks for the good faith. I might have to express it in more formal logic for it to make any sense, which I will do in time. But for now the argument is yours.

I think you are confusing yourself with the semantics here. Being agnostic means you either do not think the question of gods existence can be answered at all or that you think the question cannot be answered with the information currently available. im not sure how this effects whatever argument you are making but thats what it means.

I appreciate that clarification. But I still think that to believe the question cannot be answered is still to hold on to the assumption that either/or might possibly be true.

It’s difficult to formulate, so thanks for the good faith. I might have to express it in more formal logic for it to make any sense, which I will do in time. But for now the argument is yours. — NOS4A2

It won't make any difference. If you don't know whether or not it's possible that God exists, it simply doesn't follow that you think that it's possible that it's possible that God exists, nor does it mean that you'd be inconsistent if you did not think that it was possible that it's possible that God exists, and there are a number of possible explanations if this were the case.

"Let's figure out what we're even talking about first." — Terrapin Station

this is now ignosticism, and i think this is also a sensible view..it states that the word 'god' itself doesn't have an inherent meaning so we don't even know what exactly we're opposing or defending in the first place to get to a sensible argument

That wouldnt be an assumption. You are right that the possibilities become wide open when you dont know, the answer could be anything but there is no assumption being made, an assumption is accepting something as true with no proof. I understand you are alluding to the commitment to a possibility but calling that an assumption is incorrect.

look up ignosticism, i think you'll love its concept

Whoa. This is pretty sweet.

On some level I think that ignosticism can be considered to be more atheist than atheism itself.

That wouldnt be an assumption. You are right that the possibilities become wide open when you dont know, the answer could be anything but there is no assumption being made, an assumption is accepting something as true with no proof. I understand you are alluding to the commitment to a possibility but calling that an assumption is incorrect.

Fair. I was speaking of underlying assumptions mainly, but point taken.

On some level I think that ignosticism can be considered to be more atheist than atheism itself. — thewonder

Not really. In practice, it's absorbed into atheism, hence why hardly anyone generally identifies their broader position with that term.

I think that the existence of God is meaningless can be interpreted as proceeding from what Nietzsche meant by "God is dead." To say that "God is dead." was, in my opinion, to say that God is no longer philosophically relevent. You can interpret ignosticism quite radically as suggesting that the question of God's existence is meaningless from an ardent atheist standpoint. I'm not suggesting that that is what the ignostics do; I'm just stating that that is a possible interpretation of Ignosticism.