The only thing I can defend is that god is currently not known. — ArmChairPhilosopher

What does that mean?

It's a joke Jackson (referencing my Kantian thread) hence the wink emoji.

It's a joke Jackson (referencing my Kantian thread) hence the wink emoji. — Tom Storm

Yes, Foghorn Leghorn. "I said, that's a joke, son!"

I think it is the same. — Jackson

I don't think so. But it's a great metaphysical question, to say at least.

Of course it's interesting just what "existing" means as there are the intangible, the immaterial things that we do take to "exist". At least for their usefulness.

I don't think so. But it's a great metaphysical question, to say at least.

Of course it's interesting just what "existing" means as there are the intangible, the immaterial things that we do take to "exist". At least for their usefulness. — ssu

I think it is pretty straight forward for Christians. God as described in the Bible and supported by theology.

Faith gives you clarity.

And of course the Bible is pretty clear that the issue is of faith, not of reason. That couldn't be said more clearly.

Short version: Theists don't agree what a god is.

Slightly longer version: Knowledge is transferable. If I know something, I can teach you, show you the evidence or the proof. I.e. if there were any objective knowledge about the nature of god, after several millennia Theists would have come to an agreement. They obviously haven't. (There are 41,000+ denominations in Christianity alone.) Thus, they obviously don't know what they are talking about.

And of course the Bible is pretty clear that the issue is of faith, not of reason. That couldn't be said more clearly. — ssu

And that is my point. I do not think agnosticism is a legitimate position. They choose to be undecided.

Slightly longer version: Knowledge is transferable. If I know something, I can teach you, show you the evidence or the proof. I.e. if there were any objective knowledge about the nature of god, after several millennia Theists would have come to an agreement. They obviously haven't. (There are 41,000+ denominations in Christianity alone.) Thus, they obviously don't know what they are talking about. — ArmChairPhilosopher

Mormons asked me this morning if I believed in God. I said no. Not in the sense you understand it.

And that is my point. I do not think agnosticism is a legitimate position. They choose to be undecided. — Jackson

It would be so much easier if the Theists could decide what they mean when they say "god".

It would be so much easier if the Theists could decide what they mean when they say "god". — ArmChairPhilosopher

I know what they mean. I just don't believe it.

I think it is pretty straight forward for Christians. God as described in the Bible and supported by theology. — Jackson

Not at all. Christians are all over the place on theology or the Bible. I grew up in the Baptist tradition in Australia. We were taught that the Bible is an allegory and most of the stories myths. We were pro abortion, pro gay rights, pro feminism, etc. Christianity takes many forms and some, like theologian Paul Tillich even hold that we can't know god and he doesn't exist because by definition god is outside of the category of existence which is reserved for corporeal creatures.

Not at all. Christians are all over the place on theology or the Bible. I grew up in the Baptist tradition in Australia. We were taught that the Bible is an allegory and most of the stories myths. We were pro abortion, pro gay rights, pro feminism, etc. Christianity takes many forms and some, like theologian Paul Tillich even hold that we can't know god and he doesn't exist because by definition god is outside of the category of existence which is reserved for corporeal creatures. — Tom Storm

Tillich's definition is pretty mainstream. What are the theologies you see as conflicting?

Christians are all over the place on theology or the Bible. — Tom Storm

The properties of God Christians teach are:
1. All powerful
2. All knowing
3. Creator of universe
4. Spirit rather than physical entity

I know what they mean. — Jackson

I hate to break it to you but you don't. You may have an illusion of knowledge, just as they do but if you put your "knowledge" to the test, you'll find it lacking.

if there were any objective knowledge about the nature of god, after several millennia Theists would have come to an agreement. They obviously haven't. (There are 41,000+ denominations in Christianity alone.) Thus, they obviously don't know what they are talking about.

I think your idea of objective knowledge is too strict. We could also say philosophers have been arguing about the existence of the external world, other minds, whether moral realism is a thing, whether we have control/agency over our actions etc for thousands of years, and therefore philosophers obviously don't know what they are talking about. Maybe we don't.

Honestly, when it comes to metaphysical claims about God, the existence of the external world, etc our traditional idea of "knowledge" comes into question. For instance, what does it mean to "know" whether God exists? Now, J J C Smart describes it in terms of probabilities

Let us consider the appropriateness or otherwise of someone (call him 'Philo') describing himself as a theist, atheist or agnostic. I would suggest that if Philo estimates the various plausibilities to be such that on the evidence before him the probability of theism comes out near to one he should describe himself as a theist and if it comes out near zero he should call himself an atheist, and if it comes out somewhere in the middle he should call himself an agnostic. There are no strict rules about this classification because the borderlines are vague. If need be, like a middle-aged man who is not sure whether to call himself bald or not bald, he should explain himself more fully.

But how would one be able to assign a probability with any confidence about their belief in something, especially as it relies on other assumptions that may also have probabilities assigned to them? Furthermore, this probability is going to be conditioned based on whether or not I accept the existence of miracles, how I define god/God, whether I am a naturalist, etc.


Another way you can think about this is as a spectrum of god/God's knowability as well as one's position based on their belief on knowability.
[img]https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-d6e2454572b02492b1a53526f0b81d28-lq/img] Under this definition, I would be a De Facto theist or an agnostic theist. I don't think God's existence is even knowable/provable to humans (in the traditional, empirical sense) but I do believe in a God. For instance, there is a difference between me saying "I believe in God" and me claiming "God Exists" as a philosophical claim. There are interesting arguments on the theistic side as well as good rebuttals on the atheistic side so I do think the reasonable position is to be somewhat unsure unless you claim to have had a religious experience.

I hate to break it to you but you don't. You may have an illusion of knowledge, just as they do but if you put your "knowledge" to the test, you'll find it lacking. — ArmChairPhilosopher

Fine, tell me what I do not know.

The possibility of god is an equally untenable belief, in my mind. — NOS4A2

How so? Only because it can't be proved?

The properties of God Christians teach are:
1. All powerful
2. All knowing
3. Creator of universe
4. Spirit rather than physical entity — Jackson

Those are superficial generalities. What differs is how we understand god's nature - what god wants from people, what behavior is moral, the extent of god's judgement. That's where the vast differences are located and the source of many conflicts between creeds.

Those are superficial generalities. What differs is where we take god's nature - what god wants from people, what behavior is moral, the extent of god's judgement. That's where the vast differences are located and the source of many conflicts between creeds. — Tom Storm

Ok.

Fine, tell me what I do not know. — Jackson

How many gods there are.
If it has the properties omnipotence, omniscience, omni benevolence, omnipresence.
If it is (perfectly) just, (perfectly) merciful, unchanging, jealous, ...

Most Theists wouldn't agree on those properties, not even most Christians and they won't be able to teach each other.

and therefore philosophers obviously don't know what they are talking about — Paulm12

Yep.

For instance, there is a difference between me saying "I believe in God" and me claiming "God Exists" — Paulm12

An important difference. "I believe in god(s)" is not a debatable assertion. I could reply "I don't" but that would be the end of the conversation.

How many gods there are. — ArmChairPhilosopher

None.

If it has the properties omnipotence, omniscience, omni benevolence, omnipresence. — ArmChairPhilosopher

No.

Only truth/falsity are relevant to decisions. — Agent Smith
I agree.
And neither Theism nor Atheism are well formed propositions, thus can't have truth values. — ArmChairPhilosopher

Your original P1: "Clapton is god" is a definition and as such is not a well formed proposition and doers not take a truth value.

The word "god" gets defined by P1. "Clapton is god" is short for "I define god as Clapton." — ArmChairPhilosopher

OK. So we can re-phrase your syllogism to this:

P1: ArmChairPhilosopher defines/uses the word "god" to be equivalent to the word "Clapton".
P2: ArmChairPhilosopher (along with most folks) uses the word "Clapton" to refer to a existing person - in this case a well known English musician.
P3: When ArmChairPhilosopher uses the word "god" it is understood that (s)he is referring to the well known existing English musician.

This is a well formed syllogism. Both P1 & P2 are true propositions and P3 logically follows from P1 & P2. But this is obviously very different from your original syllogism.

On top of this you are using lower case "god" - not upper case "God" - and this whole conversation is about the upper case version. So even if you could reformulate your original P1 & P2 into expressing your original conclusion (P3), this particular line of reasoning has no relevance to the actual topic under discussion.

Exactly. (And for the agnostic there is no way to claim that s/he and only s/he is unable to gain that knowledge without special pleading. So there are no "hard" agnostics.)

I think I am slowly starting to understand what you mean (and the meaningful distinction therein). I am not sure though how it would be special pleading for an "agnostic" to claim they cannot know God exists, while still refraining from postulating that is true of all other humans. Maybe another person's intellectual capacity greatly surpasses there own? Maybe someone has access to information that they will never obtain. These are all worthy considerations (albeit hypotheticals) that, I would say, at least at face value, would not be special pleading.

I realized that Agnosticism is a stronger position (really, a position instead of just an inner state) than mere atheism.

Without a doubt, claiming to know (or even believe) that (1) no one can know, (2) no one currently knows, or (3) "I" cannot know whether God exists is a position that produces a burden of prove (and, in that respect, is stronger for sure), but I am not really sure how this isn't a distinction of "hard agnostic atheist" vs "soft agnostic atheist", or something along those lines. Admittedly, I am starting to see how the two-dimensional labeling system needs a bit of refurbishment to more concisely and accurately represent such views as yourself (or maybe potentially a new labeling system may be required), but "soft" vs "hard" would accomplish such a distinction: wouldn't it? Or am I missing something? I think the only hiccup would potentially be your agnostic "inner state" distinction, but wouldn't that just be a "soft agnostic atheist" (or something like that)?

Also, on a separate note, I am still not sure why your terminology is "colloquial" vs "philosophical" agnosticism: although this is merely semantics, why is that?

(It also makes me lonely. Neither atheists nor theists know how to handle my arguments so they just ignore me.)

Well that is disheartening indeed. I think I still need to really hone in on what you mean in relation to your terminology, but thereafter I would love to hear what those arguments are if you would like to share them.

On top of this you are using lower case "god" - not upper case "God" - and this whole conversation is about the upper case version. So even if you could reformulate your original P1 & P2 into expressing your original conclusion (P3), this particular line of reasoning has no relevance to the actual topic under discussion. — EricH

"God" is not the name of any god, it is more like a title. Monotheists often forget that fact as their only god is identical to all titular gods they believe in. The gods of the Bible have names, El and YHVH (which got retconned into one when Judaism switched from henotheism to monotheism) specifically.

Or am I missing something? I think the only hiccup would potentially be your agnostic "inner state" distinction, but wouldn't that just be a "soft agnostic atheist" (or something like that)? — Bob Ross

I'm not sure but you seem to confuse the distinction of "inner state" versus "position" and "hard" and "soft". They are orthogonal. The former tells whether you are making a statement about yourself or the world, the later is talking about how something is (actuality) versus how something could (not) be (potential).
The stronger position would of course be the "hard" variant (we don't know and we will never know). I can't defend that position. In fact, I see my position being falsified one day. When the last-but-one theist dies or de-converts there is only one (valid) definition of god left and soft Agnosticism would be wrong.

"God" is not the name of any god, it is more like a title. Monotheists often forget that fact as their only god is identical to all titular gods they believe in. The gods of the Bible have names, El and YHVH (which got retconned into one when Judaism switched from henotheism to monotheism) specifically. — ArmChairPhilosopher

"God" is a proper name. In a Christian culture everyone know it refers to God in that tradition.

"God" is a proper name. In a Christian culture everyone know it refers to God in that tradition. — Jackson

When you travel to another country, lets say Sweden, does your name change into "Hansson"?