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

Another travel example. When you travel to India and ask a Hindu if they believe in God, do you think they will refer to the Christian God?

Another travel example. When you travel to India and ask a Hindu if they believe in God, do you think they will refer to the Christian God? — Jackson

1. You didn't answer my question.

2. Do you? Or are they more likely to ask back "which one"? Referring to a specific god as "God" at least propagates confusion. I will use the proper names of the gods I'm talking about, Odin, Zeus or YHVH when I mean a specific god. I will use "god" and "it" when I refer to the diffuse concept of godhood.

1. You didn't answer my question.

2. Do you? Or are they more likely to ask back "which one"? Referring to a specific god as "God" at least propagates confusion. I will use the proper names of the gods I'm talking about, Odin, Zeus or YHVH when I mean a specific god. I will use "god" and "it" when I refer to the diffuse concept of godhood. — ArmChairPhilosopher

Okay, got it.

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).

What you described isn't quite what I was thinking by "inner state" versus "position". If the former is "talking about how something is" and the latter is "how something could (not) be (potential)", then I don't see how this relates holistically to an inner state. Claiming "I can prove X could be Y or Z" is not equivocal to "I just think X could be Y or Z". The latter is almost, but not actually, noncognitive insofar as it is assumed that there's nothing to negate nor affirm (it is just what I think), whereas the former is something which still asserts potentiality (could/ could not be) but is actually open to criticism (more cognitive in a sense). I was thinking "inner state" would refer not just to a noncognitive claim, e.g. an emotion, but any claims that only indexically refer to the individual at hand. In other words, I was envisioning both my X examples as inner states, but it seems as though you may mean it in a more in the sense of the second example, is that right?

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.

I agree that the stronger position is that of a "hard" variant, but, as far as I am understanding so far, that would include some that refer to "could be" (as previously shown). On a separate note, I am not entirely sure how unified definition would disprove Agnosticism, but I am interested to hear why you think that is the case.

I was envisioning both my X examples as inner states, but it seems as though you may mean it in a more in the sense of the second example, is that right? — Bob Ross

Correct, it seems we are on one page now.

On a separate note, I am not entirely sure how unified definition would disprove Agnosticism, but I am interested to hear why you think that is the case. — Bob Ross

It wouldn't directly disprove Agnosticism but it would deprive me of my best Argument. The obvious existence of a myriad of contradicting descriptions of a god is evidence and proof that the believers don't know what they are talking about. (I discard atheistic views because they are biased.)

Possible answers to questions like "does God exist?"

1. Yes
2. No
3. Don't know
3a. Unknown because of limitations in methodology and information
3b. Unknowable i.e. neither is there a method nor will omniscience help in determining the truth. Interesting, oui?

The unknown can be effectively tackled if we mathematize possibility as probability.

Possible answers to questions like "does God exist?" — Agent Smith

Insofar as "God" is undefined, this perennial question is incoherent.

Insofar as "God" is undefined — 180 Proof

I'm having extreme difficulty to understand why do you consider is undefined?
What is you argument for God being undefined?

Answering these questions should be easy ... https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/690033 ... but apparently for you it's not.

What is you argument for God being undefined? — SpaceDweller

The inability of god believers to come up with a consensus of the properties of "god(s)". There are 41,000+ denominations in Christianity alone. I did the experiment on another forum to try to distil only the common properties imagined of a god from a handful of Christians and the result was an empty set.

I'm baffled, but I got around this by doing some additional research to make sure I got things right...

I did gave link to definition, but I suppose o-o-o and necessary existence are not valid properties for you,
I assume the kind of properties that you seek are physical properties or those which could be empirically measured or observed?

Sometimes the term "Attributes of God" is used to refer to God's essence.

https://www.gracenotes.info/documents/topics_doc/essence.pdf

God is the same as his essence

But you must be aiming at:

The "attributes", or the "essence", of God are His primary characteristics, so they cannot be completely communicated to man.
They can be described to a degree, but they cannot be fully defined.

https://philosophydungeon.weebly.com/definitions-of-god.html

There are 41,000+ denominations in Christianity alone. — ArmChairPhilosopher

I don't know how many denominations are there but these are all denominations of protestant church AFAIK, which is irrelevant for this discussion.

I don't know how many denominations are there but these are all denominations of protestant church AFAIK, which is irrelevant for this discussion. — SpaceDweller

How so? Don't they believe in a god? What makes them unfit to partake in the debate? Which religions and/or denominations are competent to define godhood?

How so? Don't they believe in a god? What makes them unfit to partake in the debate? Which religions and/or denominations are competent to define godhood? — ArmChairPhilosopher

I didn't say they don't believe in God and I don't know if they are unfit to discussion.

Which religions and/or denominations are competent to define godhood? — ArmChairPhilosopher

Just because somebody says "I'm Christian" doesn't mean they are automatically fit to answer your questions.
Ask some theologian for answer, they will surely know it better than you or me or some random believer.

Insofar as "God" is undefined, this perennial question is incoherent. — 180 Proof

:fire:

God as undefined. You mean like how Rober M. Pirsig writes a 418 page novel titled Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance on quality but never really defines it anywhere in the book? We must, it appears, on occasion, beat around the bush.

Possible answers to questions like "does God exist?"

1. Yes
2. No
3. Don't know
3a. Unknown because of limitations in methodology and information
3b. Unknowable i.e. neither is there a method nor will omniscience help in determining the truth. Interesting, oui? — Agent Smith

You omitted another option
4) The question is incoherent. See here earlier in the discussion

180 Proof already alluded to that point! Merci nevertheless.

I did the experiment on another forum to try to distil only the common properties imagined of a god from a handful of Christians and the result was an empty set. — ArmChairPhilosopher

Isn't there at least agreement that God had the ability to create a life-permitting universe?

I view "agnostic" as an internal epistemological-psychological belief state of "not knowing", where "knowing" is in the strict philosophical sense of justified-true-belief (non-Gettier). Based on this view, we're all agnostic.

Isn't there at least agreement that God had the ability to create a life-permitting universe? — Relativist

Not very inspiring. I can read god's report card now, from when he was a little god at school. 'He has ability, but lacks discipline to complete tasks properly.'

I agree that the notion of god is incoherent and I think that this is the idea's strength for a lot of believers. You can fill the gap with whatever you need or may be lacking in your life. God then becomes a reflection of your personal preferences, like the ultimate invisible friend. God is whatever believers want it to be, which explains why believers are all over the place and so inconsistent in terms of doctrine and dogma and morality.

Isn't there at least agreement that God had the ability to create a life-permitting universe? — Relativist

That question somehow didn't come up. I guess they would have agreed about that god could or did create the universe but they were already fighting over the how and when.

I agree that the notion of god is incoherent and I think that this is the idea's strength for a lot of believers. — Tom Storm

I'd call it more of a fuzzy concept: having a vague set of vaguely defined properties. One (fairly popular) vague property is the ability to grant wishes.

fuzzy concept — Relativist

Ok. Not much different from saying it is incoherent. Incoherent meaning it is unclear, contradictory and muddled or fuzzy. :smile:

Correct, it seems we are on one page now.

I am glad I am understanding you correctly (:

It wouldn't directly disprove Agnosticism but it would deprive me of my best Argument. The obvious existence of a myriad of contradicting descriptions of a god is evidence and proof that the believers don't know what they are talking about.

I am not sure how contradicting descriptions of god proves that, on an individual level, that one doesn't know what god is. At best, I would imagine that ample contradicting views would prove that society hasn't come to a consensus, but I don't see how that has any relation to whether or not someone can accurately describe god. As of now, although I'm sure your argument goes deeper than your brief explanation, I think it is totally possible that someone can describe accurately what "god" is and yet societally no one agrees. Just like how someone could have an elaborate grasp of Einstein's general relativity whilst the vast majority (1) have contradictory views to the real theory and (2) can't agree with one another.

(I discard atheistic views because they are biased.)

I am not sure I am understanding you correctly here. What do you mean by "atheistic views"? Do you discard all of them? Why? I understand that every position possibly conceivable has bad arguments, but they tend to also (generally speaking) have much stronger ones (with at least some merit worth contending with).

I am not sure how contradicting descriptions of god proves that, on an individual level, that one doesn't know what god is. — Bob Ross

Someone once defined knowledge as "justified, true, belief". Not the best definition but it will do for the argument. The other important thing is that knowledge is transferable. You can argue about a fact and you can convince an open minded interlocutor as is done in science all the time.
Theology had thousands of years to come to a consensus. The fact that it didn't shows that what you think is knowledge isn't justified.

What do you mean by "atheistic views"? Do you discard all of them? Why? — Bob Ross

It is mostly a concession towards the theists. They might complain that atheists have a straw man vision of god. I don't require that theists convince atheists to acknowledge that they might have knowledge about god, just that they come up with a consensus among themselves. I think that is a fair criterion to falsify my position.

Is the OOO (omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent) god consistent?

External/Internal Inconsistencies:

1. All 3 attributes, together, are incompatible with (the problem of) evil. The Riddle of Epicurus.

2. Omniscience is at odds with free will (connected to 1).

3. Omnipotence is self-contradictory (the stone paradox).

-"The position that the existence and Nature of god is not known / can't be known."
The main problem of this "definition" is that it includes a claim and a logical fallacy. (argument from ignorance). It uses the ill defined man made concept of "god" as an excuse to make a positive statement.

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

-Well what we do know about the god claim is that its an idealistic concept of an ultimate agent/entity. So the only actual nature(conceptual) we are aware of this claim is constantly excluded and ignored.
If we are aware and accept the criteria by which we define the existence of entities, then that concept doesn't exist in the world as a real one, like none of the idealistic concepts we strive for (morality, justicy, equality, etc) exist as entities in the world.

In order to render the existential claim of god unknowable, we cheat(special pleading). We don't use the same standards and criteria of existence that we would use in any other case. We even go further and suggest unfalsifiable realms to tuck the concept away from "public eyes".
So the one unwarranted assumptions brings another one and very quickly they start to pile up.
So we end up with a begging the question fallacy on a heavily poisoned well....by using the unattainable made up concept of Absolute Knowledge as an excuse and a faux facade of "epistemic humility".

Every Philosophical inquiry starts(should start) by getting familiar with our epistemology, what we know and how we know it. Agnosticism doesn't do that. It ignores how humans came to be "living" with this concept (the only nature that we can study) and uses the qualities of an unfalsifiable premise to promote an argument from ignorance.
Agnosticism is not a humble or virtuous position...its a red herring and an attempt to justify a begging the question fallacy on a Universal Negative. Its "I don't know if you stop beating your wife" type of scenario.

IT hides behind an other made up idealistic concept, already mentioned, that of Absolute knowledge, when the only type of knowledge accessible to us is limited by definition. Knowledge is an evaluation term. We accept as knowledge any claim that is in agreement with current facts and has instrumental and practical potentials (informs our syllogisms and actions).
We can only evaluate a claim based on the practical version of knowledge and this is the only meaningful way...if we want to avoid all the above fallacies.

-Well what we do know about the god claim is that its an idealistic concept of an ultimate agent/entity. — Nickolasgaspar

Do we? There have been a plethora of gods in the past (and some in the present) that are claimed to be real. We don't have to look farther than Christianity which claims god (or some aspect of it) has been real in the person of Christ. So far for idealistic concept.

Every Philosophical inquiry starts(should start) by getting familiar with our epistemology, what we know and how we know it. Agnosticism doesn't do that. — Nickolasgaspar

Agnosticism does exactly that. It questions the epistemology of itself and that of the believers. I'm OK with either convincing evidence for a real god or a consistent framework of an idealistic god. I'd even allow for a construct, given there is consensus. But the believers can't even agree on the category.

The fault in your logic is that you assume to know what god is. You don't.

Do we? There have been a plethora of gods in the past (and some in the present) that are claimed to be real. We don't have to look farther than Christianity which claims god (or some aspect of it) has been real in the person of Christ. So far for idealistic concept. — ArmChairPhilosopher

Yes there have been, thousands of gods. Most of them are claims motivated by that same idealistic concept on an Ultimate agent. Others, like jesus, are attempts to unsuccessfully tie that concept on entities with a known existential status.( that is an indirect existential god claim more of an False equivalence).
The "plurality" of a claim(ad populum) doesn't benefit the epistemic or philosophical value of it.
I think you are arguing in favor of the narratives humans produced in their efforts to provide support to that initial idealistic concept. None of them has objective foundations or epistemic support or meet the criteria of "what it means to exist" or refer to the practical and real nature of knowledge (as a value).

Agnosticism does exactly that. It questions the epistemology of itself and that of the believers. I'm OK with either convincing evidence for a real god or a consistent framework of an idealistic god. I'd even allow for a construct, given there is consensus. But the believers can't even agree on the category. — ArmChairPhilosopher

-Not really, if it did it would be forced to adopt the default position set by the Null hypothesis. Because it ignores our epistemology and the scientific evaluation of god claims and basic rules and principles of logic, and embraces the unattainable goal of Absolute Knowledge, agnosticism gets to enjoy a place in our "philosophy".

The fault in your logic is that you assume to know what god is. You don't. — ArmChairPhilosopher

- First of all I assume nothing about what god is. I can only address the claims about that concept. I only need to know what those who accept the concept think about.
You are confusing the territory with the map.
I don't have to assume anything about the territory ...I can only evaluate a map which has things on it that aren't compatible with how we define a territory or their identified properties.

Someone once defined knowledge as "justified, true, belief". Not the best definition but it will do for the argument.

Personally, I don't hold the contemporary epistemic views. As you kind of alluded to, it is an incredibly ambiguous definition and, subsequently is full of paradoxes. For the sake of conversation, I will likewise address your points in terms of that view.

The other important thing is that knowledge is transferable. You can argue about a fact and you can convince an open minded interlocutor as is done in science all the time.
Theology had thousands of years to come to a consensus. The fact that it didn't shows that what you think is knowledge isn't justified.

I think the problem I would have here (even in the sense of using the contemporary epistemic views) is that knowledge doesn't have to be transferable. In terms of the contemporary view of knowledge, I don't think there's anything defined in it (traditionally) that necessitates that "justification" requires a tenant of "being transferable" (correct me if I am wrong though).

But I would presume that when you state "knowledge is transferable", it is implying (1) that you are arguing for that as an amended tenant of "justification" and (2) that it is transferable to quantitatively equivocal recipients in relation to the sender. For, I would presume that it would be a straw man to your argument that obviously knowledge cannot be transferable from, hypothetically, the sole human in existence to a rock: if one human remained on the planet, then that person wouldn't know anything (if we are taking "knowledge needs to be transferable to be justified" literally). At a deeper level, since I am presuming that is not what you mean, I still am not quite seeing yet why knowledge would need to be transferable, even amongst equivocal recipients: even if the last two humans on the planet disagreed on some subject S, one could possibly be right and other wrong even in the situation where they could be proven to have the same IQ (for example). Moreover, it is possible that one human obtains a legitimate proof of S but, due the major disparity between themselves and every other human being on the planet, no one agrees with them. Would they not "know" it then?

Likewise, "transferability" only necessitates that a message can be transmitted from a sender to a recipient, which has no bearing on (1) whether the recipient accepts the received message as true nor (2) that it be transmittable to multiple recipients. What I am gathering you to mean (if I am understanding you correctly) is more that it be transferable to the point of majority consensus within a given in-group, which I don't think is the same thing as "knowledge being transferable".

It is mostly a concession towards the theists. They might complain that atheists have a straw man vision of god. I don't require that theists convince atheists to acknowledge that they might have knowledge about god, just that they come up with a consensus among themselves. I think that is a fair criterion to falsify my position.

I think I was misunderstanding you: I was thinking "atheist views" in terms of epistemic positions traditionally voiced in terms of atheism, but you seem to be referring simply to the fact that you do not require a consensus amongst in-group and out-group, just in-group. Is that right?

The "plurality" of a claim(ad populum) doesn't benefit the epistemic or philosophical value of it. — Nickolasgaspar

Yes, it does. If not theoretically, then practically. In science we see a theory as accepted when there is a consensus. We don't require 100% acceptance but a reasonable threshold. And I wouldn't call it "ad populum" because we require the consensus among experts not the populus.

But I would presume that when you state "knowledge is transferable", it is implying (1) that you are arguing for that as an amended tenant of "justification" and (2) that it is transferable to quantitatively equivocal recipients in relation to the sender. — Bob Ross

Yes. (See above: consensus among experts.)

obviously knowledge cannot be transferable from, hypothetically, the sole human in existence to a rock: if one human remained on the planet, then that person wouldn't know anything (if we are taking "knowledge needs to be transferable to be justified" literally) — Bob Ross

You are confusing transferable (potential) with transferred (actual). True knowledge could be potentially transferred from the last human to the next sapient recipient (alien or evolved rat) in writing.

Moreover, it is possible that one human obtains a legitimate proof of S but, due the major disparity between themselves and every other human being on the planet, no one agrees with them. Would they not "know" it then? — Bob Ross

"If you can't show it, you don't know it." as AronRa would say.
Suppose you wake up and you remember dreaming about raiding the fridge. Then you are not sure if that was real. Then you are convinced it was real. Do you "know" you raided the fridge or do you have an illusion of knowledge? To be sure, you have to show it (if only to yourself).
Another example: you have studied for a maths test. You think you know the formulas and how to use them. Do you "know" or do you have an illusion of knowledge. You will be sure after the test.

The principle works reasonably well in science.

Not really, if it did it would be forced to adopt the default position set by the Null hypothesis. — Nickolasgaspar

There is no Null hypothesis is philosophy. And as long as we don't know if we have to tackle the god problem with science or philosophy, we can't require to use the Null hypothesis.

First of all I assume nothing about what god is. — Nickolasgaspar

You did when you assumed that god is an ideal.

I can only address the claims about that concept. I only need to know what those who accept the concept think about. — Nickolasgaspar

Exactly. And since I only get contradictory claims from the believers, I don't know how to address the claims. What I do know is that the claims are inconsistent. And I can't conclude that they must be talking about different things as one of the claims is that there is only one god.