P1. 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.
P2. All (non-innate) human knowledge begins from a position of uncertainty emerging from ignorance, and a subset of humans value intellectual honesty.
C. Therefore, the subset of humans who value intellectual honesty must by default begin from an agnostic position. — Cartesian trigger-puppets
As far as reasoning to 'play or not play' a lottery goes, the agnostic does not play because s/he can't decide whether or not its worth the risk, the theist plays because "with g/G everything, including the jackpot, is possible" and the atheist plays because, no matter how improbable, it remains possible to "win" an extraordinary return on a deminimis investment – white swans do happen! :smirk: :up: – otherwise, not winning is an absolute certainty guaranteed by not playing. The agnostic, seems to me in this instance, is the least rational actor. — 180 Proof
Does your argument also support agnosticism in regards to Russell's teapot? — Tom Storm
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. — 180 Proof
Ignoratio Elenchi, according to Aristotle, is a fallacy that arises from "ignorance of the nature of refutation". To refute an assertion, Aristotle says we must prove its contradictory; the proof, consequently, of a proposition which stood in any other relation than that to the original, would be an ignoratio elenchi. Since Aristotle, the scope of the fallacy has been extended to include all cases of proving the wrong point ... "I am required to prove a certain conclusion; I prove, not that, but one which is likely to be mistaken for it; in that lies the fallacy ... For instance, instead of proving that 'this person has committed an atrocious fraud', you prove that 'this fraud he is accused of is atrocious'"; ... The nature of the fallacy, then, consists in substituting for a certain issue another which is more or less closely related to it and arguing the substituted issue. The fallacy does not take into account whether the arguments do or do not really support the substituted issue, it only calls attention to the fact that they do not constitute proof of the original one… It is a particularly prevalent and subtle fallacy and it assumes a great variety of forms. But whenever it occurs and whatever form it takes, it is brought about by an assumption that leads the person guilty of it to substitute for a definite subject of inquiry another which is in close relation with it. — Arthur Ernest Davies,
On a side note, if you were to formalize your critique of the second antecedent in the conditional conjuntive statement of P1 of the main argument, which is asserted again in P2, then you would realize flaws in your own reasoning. One, it is in the form of modus ponens which is tautological in nature, so it is actually just a specialized construct of logical syllogism rather than pedanticism on my part. — Cartesian trigger-puppets
(ax. 1) If theism is cognitive, then its claims (e.g. "the Abrahamic Deity exists") are demonstrably true or not true — (excerpts) QED & Other Stigmata
(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
(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] — (excerpts) QED & Other Stigmata
To
. . .know of the improbability. . .
— TheMadFool
of a proposition is to admit uncertainty and thus take an agnostic position.
I find theology uninteresting, I reference agnosticism in a much broader scope. I am almost entirely uninterested in whether or not there is a god. Would you care to challenge the argument? — Cartesian trigger-puppets
the question is whether theism is true or not true (and N O T "whether or not (which g/G?!) exists")? — 180 Proof
I can't think (failure of imagination?) of what better evidence there could be of the "supernatural" than the natural world itself which is purportedly affected by a "deity"; such affects cannot, even in principle, be explained as natural occurrences or explained away as misrecognitions / frauds, but only accounted for as uniquely inexplicable exceptions to, or arbitrary violations of, (at least known) natural laws – that is, "divine fiats" as "revealed" in sacred scriptures as signs ("miracles") of a theistic (e.g. "Abrahamic") deity. Theism cannot be true without such truth-making evidence, can it? And lacking evidence in the natural world entailed by theism, (1) this entails that theism is untrue and, (2) therefore, that agnosticism does not obtain. — 180 Proof
Yeah, but which g/G? Truisms but red herrings. The "divine predicates" ("revealed" in sacred scriptures) entail claims about the world which can be investigated and falsified. This approach digs down to the bedrock issue of what you can know about the / any theistic deity at issue. Where theism is noncognitive, g/G need not exist in order to warrant 'belief in g/G' (vide Don Cupitt, Paul Tillich, Ludwig Feuerbach, Immanuel Kant, et al).Theism is trueiff G/g existsand falseiff G/g doesn't exist. — TheMadFool
Yeah, but which g/G? Truisms but red herrings. The "divine predicates" ("revealed" in sacred scriptures) entail claims about the world which can be investigated and falsified Where theism is noncognitive, g/G need not exist to warrant belief in g/G. (vide Don Cupitt, Paul Tillich, Ludwig Feuerbach, Immanuel Kant, et al).
The rest of your post ... :roll: — 180 Proof
I find the OP both unsound & irrelevant to the question of 'theism's truth-value'. — 180 Proof
But okay, you disagree with my argument; third-parties, I suspect, are more able to disinterestedly assess the relative merits of our divergent positions than either of us can, Ct-p. — 180 Proof
I've no interest in persuading you or anyone of anything (that's sophistry), just in presenting reasons as needed for supporting the positions I take on a given topic where a position of mine differs from someone else's (in this case, yours). If my reasons are faulty, fallacious, incoherent, irrelevant, unsound, etc, then so be the dispassionate "guilty" (invalid) verdict of the jury. — 180 Proof
We know that God is possible according to agnostics but "what is the mathematical probability that God exists?" is the question whose answer can help us make the best possible decision in re adopting theism or atheism. — TheMadFool
If I say "the sun goes around the earth" and you say "the earth goes around the sun", — 180 Proof
No real need to have a debate about semantics, but if what you call atheism means gnostic atheism and what you call agnosticism means uncertainty without coming to any conclusion, then when I say agnostic atheism, I mean uncertainty with a lack of belief. If you take agnosticism to mean agnostic atheism then we agree. Can you clarify your stance on agnostic atheism? — Judaka
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.