They might relate to that aspect of god but they would have more definitive qualities, more qualifiers, than that for god. “Existence beyond knowledge” is generic and unspecific enough to apply to more than just a god concept and so if you are using only that as your criterion for “god” then you aren’t qualifying a theistic definition of god, you aren’t reaching minimum requirements for a theistic god despite having this generic trait “existence beyond knowledge” in common. — DingoJones

Agreed. Perhaps I just continue to use ‘God’ because it keeps me connected to the overall journey - to my journey, in particular. I think that’s important, too. Thanks for your thoughts.

Likewise, thanks.

But are those truth claims really unwarranted? How can we possibly know? — baker

To be counted as warranted a truth claim requires either corroborable empirical evidence or logical necessity.

It depends on whether you view an atheist as someone who positively rejects the existence of any Gods. To me, I don't see atheism as simply a lack of belief. That's why I would label myself and others as agnostic if they do not affirm that God does not exist but also do not affirm that God exists.

I think everyone is agnostic subconsciously, regardless how considers oneself. We simply have no enough self knowledge to determine what we believe in. This is out of our control altogether. There’s no such thing as believer or non believer, only those who strive to believe they are believer or non believer.

SP

Doesn't sound very plausible. Maybe you could try to explain. People either believe or they don't. It's not complex.

The human mind is the most complex thing in the universe, at best case, only a few percent of it is consciously controlled. We will never be able to know the full objective reality even about ourselves. Much Everything in our subconscious is decided even before we would awaken to the real causes of our actions. Many people do not have much self-knowledge. Many people have low level of consciousness. There is a long way to go to gain self-knowledge, and requires openness. Those who consider themselves believers have often doubted the strength of their own faith, even according to their own confession. Many who consider themselves atheists began to believe in God at some point in their lives without being able to give a rational explanation. Many people like an idea but still feel the need to force it on their subconscious self, simply because we don’t just have a conscious self. So many people strive to believe in something desperately but eventually they fail to believe anything, just because they urge what cannot be, gaining self-knowledge. Trust me, it's much more complicated than anyone would believe.

SP

Trust me, — Art Stoic Spirit

I don't think so. Waffle.

Trust me, it's much more complicated than anyone would believe. — Art Stoic Spirit

Thanks for elaborating your ideas. I guess we differ on the question of individual certainty. If someone says that they believe a thing I'll accept that they do. Ditto with unbelief. I don't think people need to articulate an ontology of the transcendent to be called a believer.

Have you read much phenomenology?

Trust me,
— Art Stoic Spirit

I don't think so. Waffle. — Banno

The fundamental problem with agnosticism seems to be that it can't be used to guide our actions, make decisions, to name a few.

Take prayer for instance. The decision to pray or not is a question of whether you believe God exists or doesn't. Being an agnostic - to hold that one doesn't know if god exists or not - can't in any way help to take a stand on prayer.

It appears that agnostics are in some kind of ontological cum epistemological limbo that precludes any sort of decision-making on other related beliefs/actions.

Thus, necessarily that the agnostic has to pick a side - become an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist.

It's kinda like not knowing what's inside a cage, recently arrived from Africa. Is there a full-grown, hungry, lion inside it or not. That uncertainty will not allow you to decide how to deal with the cage and its contents. You'll have to assume either that there's a lion or not to inform your approach towards the cage. In other words, being agnostic about what's inside the cage is a dead end insofar as your subsequent actions are concerned. You'll have to be either a lionist or an alionist.

Have you read much phenomenology? — Tom Storm

Not yet, I just keep my eyes open, and use common sense. If saying aren't in line with emotional reactions, I would seriously reconsider whether that they know what they are talking about. If the emotional harmony is given with the spoken words, I'm ready to believe that they believe that they believe anything. We can never be sure of anything.

SP

Thus, necessarily that the agnostic has to pick a side - become an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. — TheMadFool

Would be necessary indeed in certain situations. However, the strangest agnostics are the solipsists. According to this there may not be anything outside of your own mind. The view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist.

SP

The fundamental problem with agnosticism seems to be that it can't be used to guide our actions, make decisions, to name a few.

Take prayer for instance. The decision to pray or not is a question of whether you believe God exists or doesn't. Being an agnostic - to hold that one doesn't know if god exists or not - can't in any way help to take a stand on prayer.

It appears that agnostics are in some kind of ontological cum epistemological limbo that precludes any sort of decision-making on other related beliefs/actions.

Thus, necessarily that the agnostic has to pick a side - become an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist.

It's kinda like not knowing what's inside a cage, recently arrived from Africa. Is there a full-grown, hungry, lion inside it or not. That uncertainty will not allow you to decide how to deal with the cage and its contents. You'll have to assume either that there's a lion or not to inform your approach towards the cage. In other words, being agnostic about what's inside the cage is a dead end insofar as your subsequent actions are concerned. You'll have to be either a lionist or an alionist. — TheMadFool

Agnosticism CAN be used to guide our actions, make decisions, etc - it’s just not as obvious to everyone else.

Why should we take a permanent stand on prayer? Does it make a difference if I take a moment to declare my private wishes to the open possibility of existence, or to any potential or actual being that I believe will hear me?

The agnostic picks a side based on the sum of experience at the time. Being an atheist/theist is like assuming there’s a lion in the cage or not, and stating this claim well before approaching the cage. The agnostic stays aware of changing conditions, and is open to continually revising their prediction on approach.

The agnostic picks a side based on the sum of experience at the time. Being an atheist/theist is like assuming there’s a lion in the cage or not, and stating this claim well before approaching the cage. The agnostic stays aware of changing conditions, and is open to continually revising their prediction on approach. — Possibility

II get what you are saying but 'm not convinced by this. I think that metaphor is off the mark. For one thing, lions exist and we can readily test if they are in a cage or not.

You either believe or you don't believe. The 'don't know' option doesn't address belief, it addresses knowledge - a separate dimension to this matter. Like many others I would consider myself an agnostic atheist. I don't believe in God, but I am agnostic about its existence.

But in the end labels are not all that important. Most agnostics are effectively atheists in their lifestyle - there is no contemplative prayer, no devotional ritual or worship, no transcendent experience of being or bliss. Some agnostics may well be more open to theistic possibilities than some atheists, but I doubt the distinction is useful. There are atheists I know who are into astrology and fortune telling. It's a broad church. :joke: I'm certainly open to revising my views on theism if the evidence/information changes. Or if I change. Not all atheists are Richard Dawkins...

How do you make decisions when you don't know (something)?

Say you don't know whether it'll rain tomorrow or not. How will you plan for the morrow? You have to assume either that it'll rain or not, right?

Okay, you're agnostic; but do you believe in g/G or not?

Agnosticism? It's lazy, even stupid. — 180 Proof

:death: :flower:

I get what you are saying but I'm not convinced by this. I think that metaphor is off the mark. For one thing, lions exist and we can readily test if they are in a cage or not. — Tom Storm

I agree with you - the metaphor wasn’t mine, I was just messing with it.

You either believe or you don't believe. The 'don't know' option doesn't address belief, it addresses knowledge - a separate dimension to this matter. Like many others I would consider myself an agnostic atheist. I don't believe in God, but I am agnostic about its existence. — Tom Storm

The point is that we don’t have to know - it doesn’t stop us from making decisions or from acting as if we believe one or the other is true.

How do you make decisions when you don't know (something)?

Say you don't know whether it'll rain tomorrow or not. How will you plan for the morrow? You have to assume either that it'll rain or not, right? — TheMadFool

There’s no final decision either way to be made here. As you say, either it’ll rain or not. You can plan for only one outcome, taking a calculated risk, or choose to include both possibilities in your plans. And all of this regardless of what you believe, which could well change every time you ask yourself the question, or check the forecast. Why lock yourself into a plan until you have to?

No one is a master of his or her own belief system. We have as humans no capacity to decide what we want to believe in, rather we have a capacity to explore what we believe in. If it's possible in full depth. So no one can be able to pick a side directly of being either atheist or agnostic, or theist agnostic or atheist agnostic whatever. It's just a game of words. It's not up to you. You have to accept that something is out of your control. Many things, including the ninety percent of your own mind.

And to make my phrase less intimidating, I don't say trust me. Instead believe me:)

SP

It is impossible to be an atheist. Because, to say that God does not exist, one must know what God is. If one knows about God, then God must exist, because one cannot know what does not exist.

It follows when one says, God does not exist, it it same meaning as God does exist.

apparent — Banno

If there is a god, shouldn't his presence be overwhelmingly apparent?

What about the world and all creatures living in it?

does — Corvus

It follows when one says, God does not exist, it it "same meaning as God does exist."

Ëxactly! :)

It is impossible to be an atheist. — Corvus

It is impossible to be an atheist but in the other hand, it is "possible" to believe in something you do not have proofs about as God.
The world does not show us proofs or principles to believe in God at all... It is just our interpretation about life and beliefs about what could happen after death.

about — javi2541997

"The world does not show us proofs or principles to believe in God at all"

What about the world itself? God(s) created it and the universe being there is proof of that.

God(s) created it and the universe being there is proof of that — Prishon

There is no proof that God created the universe.

God — javi2541997

The existence of it is proof.

The existence of it is proof. — Prishon

Universe and earth exist and can exist even without the human awareness. I mean, we are the ones responsible of giving them a "meaning" beacuse humans tend to search what is going on around us. But both Earth and Universe will be there without depending on humanity's existence.

Lll

without — javi2541997

"Universe and earth exist and can exist even without the human awareness. "

I didn't say they couldn't. I said their existence is proof of God(s).

exist — Prishon

Which is not to say I need god(s) in whatever I do. They cant tell me what to do, they can't tell me what's right or wrong, they dont inspire me, and they can't tell me or know what's in store, or how to think, etc. I can curse them, talk to them whenever I want, and they might even listen to all of us. But I wont go to hell, that's a place I don't want to go. Nor heaven. I just wanna come back in a new universe and god(s) provide...