Time exists, but not in the way the would-be time travellers think. :D — Corvus

Fair enough.

If you established your own country or created your own world, then you could run it with that, suppose. — Corvus

My point was more that if we counted from the Big Bang time might have some relevance beyond social time-keeping. If the year we're using is based on the very first change that ever occurred, its much more palatable, I think, to take it as 'something'.

Really enjoying this.

I don’t see why this would be the case. We can induce what ‘the good’ is from its instances, just like how we induce what a triangle is from its instances; and we can use our current knowledge of ‘the good’ to make informed decisions about what can be classified as such. — Bob Ross

Doesn't this pre-supposes knowledge of the Good? As best i can tell, unless you're going to employ Platonic Forms, you can't induce what the Good is from instances. There is no concept for it to match to; just other like-instances based on your presupposition - which makes that induction false.
Triangles, on the other hand, can be understood a priori and an instance matches the concept.

The analogy i would use here (while trying not to ruffle feathers - its just extremely apt) is the definition of 'woman'. It has become popular for this exchange to take place:

A: What is a woman? (What is the Good?)
B: Anyone who identifies as a woman (Whatever you identify as The Good)
A: What are they identifying as? (What are you identifying 'it' as?)
B: A woman. (The Good)

Round, and round we go.

Non-moral intuitions are used to determine the category of ‘the good’, no different than how we non-morally intuit the concept or category of triangularity. — Bob Ross

I see these as very much different. The concept of a triangle is prior to intuition, allowing us to perceive a triangle. Morality has no such basis.

Think of it this way, — Bob Ross

Thank you; that made it very clear what you're saying. All of those attributes have moral valence to them. So, I'm finding it hard to understand how rejecting 'good' behaviour while acknowledging it is 'good' is not a moral choice. I realise you're trying to say 'Good' is not a moral category, but using your analogous example, it seems to be so.

acts which care about life to the maximal extent possible; and 'the bad' as the negation of it. However, I freely admit that inductions are not necessarily true and that this method of inquiry is sort of scientific. — Bob Ross

There we gooooo. Wasn't so hard, was it? ( i kid). Though, in light of the objections i've laid out, I can't see any reason to suspect the induction to Good and Bad is even serviceable. As you say, its grey, and there's no one-size-fits-all. So, in this sense, where's the fact? "X is good" wont be true for everyone - or even most people - I realize you've acknowledge the lack of normativity, but I can't even see how this gets us to moral facts per se. A fact is stance-independent right, but noting something is 'good' IS a stance. I think you're shoehorning a definition in(that of 'good' without moral valence) where it can't fit.

This means, that this view affirms #2 only technically insofar as we are talking about non-normative moral judgments; which means that this view is a sort of hybrid between realism and anti-realism, whereof it does affirm that there are moral facts, but none of them are normative. I am not sure what to make of it yet: it definitely exposes my deep anti-realist sympathies. — Bob Ross

As above, I am unsure that this is the case, as the theory is written. Also, as above, I note the non-normative nature of the theory - which certainly helps. You're not trying to establish oughts. Just good and bad, as moral facts.

However, the idea that someone can reasonably say "I will actively avoid doing good* things" and on your account, that would be A-moral - seems a bit incongruous. If something is objectively Good, how could we avoid the normative command to behave in line with the Good? I guess i'm finding it really hard to take that 'Good' is devoid of a moral stance - particularly if it means maximizing care about life (as murky as that concept is, i grok what you mean). It does not seem as if you could possibly have an a-moral stance on something objectively good or bad.

*I import your usage of 'Good' as someone objectively discernable.

:ok: Righteous.

I wonder though, if they can’t use language….or if they don’t do what seems to be congruent with the use of language….what do they use? — Mww

I'm unsure I grasp entirely what you're asking... But from what i can tell, thinking in images OR words is required for meaningful cognition. What else do we have? I do both, at different times.

haha. No. If you don't get it, far be it from me...

Before I respond to this with anything substantial, please do something other than hit-and-run - WHY is it nonsense? Give me an example that exceeds the global birthrate, which could reduce suffering in any meaningful way?

I don't believe the States are united anymore, or should be — Vera Mont

Can elaborate on what sense in whcih you think this is the case? cause, like.. they are the United States?

In other wods, antinatalism as speculation or (voluntary) policy does not positively affect the quality of the lives of those who are suffering here and now.Thus, what's the point of opposing (human) reproduction (which can ony make most sufferers suffer even more (e.g. despair))? :mask: — 180 Proof

Hmmm, I don't think this goes through.
I recognize AN fails to address current suffering, but it's not intended to. Anti-natalists in my experience harbour fairly extreme sympathy for current suffering, outside of their AN views - and that's actually what lead/s to the view.

If there are 8bil people currently suffering, I want that number to stop growing - otherwise, dealing with current suffering is futile - because it necessarily just racks up, and racks up and racks up with every new birth(is the position.. im not at all claiming that as capital T true). The position says that every new birth increases suffering. So, your point is somewhat moot. There's nothing to be done about current suffering.

Appended, and asking something different:

Choosing (as I inadvertantly have, btw) to defy one's biological drives, or genetic programming, in order not to breed ... — 180 Proof

Good to hear ;)
I have inadvertently fulfilled mine LOL. I feel, and have never felt any drive whatsoever to have any children and have to psychologically prepare myself every single day for parenthood. I regret it, and feel bad for my child every single day. This is my burden.
My wife, however, wants ninety kids (exaggeration - but is physically unable to have any more than the one she has (we have one each from previous relationships). That is her burden.

Is there a catch to this?

↪AmadeusD You might like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAB21FAXCDE&ab_channel=TheoriesofEverythingwithCurtJaimungal — RogueAI

Awesome, thank you! Getting it to while i work. Very long, so don't expect me to come back any time soon - or at all LOL

fair enough. I'm just responding to these specific comments - I'm not making an argument for or against physicalism. I was just pointing out that language can't be utilized by everyone in their mind - as with 3D abstraction.

Then i cannot see what the futility is in relation to?

I get your point, but it can’t be a dialogue. It’s just the brain keeping you informed that it’s still working. — Mww

I'm not quite sure what you're addressing 'internal dia/monologue' is definitely a metaphor - but many people are unable to form sentences in their mind at all https://www.iflscience.com/people-are-weirded-out-to-discover-that-some-people-dont-have-an-internal-monologue-54881

is pulling your leg. — Banno

Or their own... which i find to be the case with those types of answers. Tail chasing.

:ok: Bang on IMO. But, once again, this is a 'poetical' take. It's fun in that light.

Why can’t everyone do it? What’s the catch? — Mww

Thats the kicker, huh? Why can't everyone do it. Same with internal dialogues..

so I'll post a revised version for you to check out and poke at — Philosophim

Ok, fair enough - will keep an eye out.

The idea is that we don't know if there is an objective morality. If there is though, I find all moral questions boil down to needing the foundation of "Should existence be" or "Should nothing be"? — Philosophim

Agree (though i have further thoughts.. heh).

Bold: Cripes; yeah fiar enough. My initial thought was 'that's incoherent' but i reflected a few minutes and I actually think this is very, very reasonable and a problem not-oft dealt with. Thank you for that.

all other moral questions are moot — Philosophim

Do you mean by this, that they are ipso facto immoral given that being is immoral? Or that they just don't matter because there's no possible way to answer accurately?

Your New List
(im not great with any kind of formal logic, so bear with any serious mistakes in my comments here please!)
I would understand the claim 'nothing should exist' as better repped. by "existence shouldn't be". Otherwise, I find room for existence to me moral, but anything existing to be immoral (including the statement). But if existence itself shouldn't be (as an objective moral claim) we are already too far gone to make a comment on it. We exist :)

If it is F that nothing should exist, and something SHOULD exist, how can we get to a moral agent from 'something'?

Thank you :)

Is the position such that the failure to address current or past suffering is somehow invalidating the attempt to prevent future suffering? Or is it a way of saying 'the present is inescapable' such that looking at the future to prevent suffering is futile?

The excess of consciousness is the "Human".. So to me, it is about bad faith trying to constantly keep away from the existential implications of this.. that we need to deliberate our way into being "caught up", that we know of our own dissatisfaction and must find ways to cope with it. — schopenhauer1

I hear your point (i think) and that's reasonable... But what i quoted seems to contradict, and place this effort in the 'not-human' category. Unsure what to make here, as I grok what you've said but it doesn't seem to follow from the material quoted.

Unlike other animals, we are self-reflective, ripped asunder from a mode of being that other animals have access to. We instead have as I said:
That is to say, unlike other animals, we are not "being" but having to make concerted efforts to "get caught up in being". It is not our natural mode, which is rather, a mode of deliberation. This is part of that ever-discussed "human condition"- the excess of consciousness.
— schopenhauer1 — schopenhauer1

This doesn't make any sense to me: 'being' isn't a choice. We can't get 'caught up' in being. It is the case that we 'are'. If we don't engage in any of these practices, is the suggestion that we 'aren't'? Realise there's poetics here, but it seems incomprehensible without a bit of translating.. and maybe im being cynical about that.

Just emphasizing our unique isolated condition as opposed to the rest of nature. We developed self-reflection which puts an extra level of burden and responsibility upon us- one where we have to choose which mechanism to give us ballast. — schopenhauer1

Again, I just don't understand how this is anything but an existential whine. I agree, we have a unique condition - but I have no idea why this imports any kind of extra responsibility or a 'need' to choose any kind of mechanism. As noted, I don't think these things are needed. It seems you might?

Again, the "exile from Eden" imagery. — schopenhauer1

I guess from here, I would just restate my conclusion on the passage. Appears divorced from anything really beyond fictional sentimentality.

What would have to be done to live this new mode of being, cut off from being "in the moment", a fully existential being. Self-reflective, wholly different in kind, even if evolved from the same mechanism. — schopenhauer1

Sorry? I guess, if you feel there's a 'need' to overcome the human condition this makes sense to you. It doesn't amke sense to me.

Older times, being a mode of being like how other animals live. — schopenhauer1

Sure. I would just restate my take. It appears to be an extension of New-Agey nonsense about a Golden Age. That somehow lacking self-awareness was better, and we're jettisoned into self-consciousness (from where?) as if set adrift on an ocean with no oars. Seems silly to me.

Ok, so I need to read Kastrup. I did not know about the analogy with pipes/water but I already felt the way the intended intuition about pipes/water as computational feels - but about the brain/neural networks. Viz....:

But this is magical thinking. You'd have to ask yourself the question: how, precisely, does the mere addition of more of the same pipes, valves and water, lead to the magical jump to conscious inner life? Unless you have an explicit and coherent answer to this question, you are merely engaging in hand waving, self-deception, and hiding behind vague complexity." — RogueAI

Bravo Kastrup. Has also jumped my hitlist, along with Ryle.

To inject myself here, I'd say Kant IS alive in 1776.

my own conclusion that 'anitnatalism is futile' — 180 Proof

Hey mate - would you mind bumper-stickering your basic reasoning here? I am an anti-natalist and so am interested in objections - particularly as you're saying it's 'futile' rather than like illogical or incoherent or something 'defeating'.

I don't think Ligotti / Zapffe is suggesting it's not human. — schopenhauer1

The tragedy, following this theory, is that humans spend all their time trying not to be human.

Really? I find that hard to parse from the material you've quoted.

The epoch had passed when the whole of their being was open to the world and nothing divided them from the rest of creation. — Thomas Ligotti- Conspiracy Against the human Race

What?

that which should not be — Thomas Ligotti- Conspiracy Against the human Race

A further, what?

The whole of their being was closed to the world, and they had been divided from the rest of creation. — Thomas Ligotti- Conspiracy Against the human Race

Getting into 'wtf' territory...

what would have to be done — Thomas Ligotti- Conspiracy Against the human Race

This sounds like the need you mentioned. I'm unsure why, then, I was asked to defend that position?

This would not revive among them the way things had once been done in older times; it would only be the best they could do. — Thomas Ligotti- Conspiracy Against the human Race

This passage seems to be some kind of chimera of Theistic creation thinking and the fallacy of pretending the past was a golden age (ironically, given the 'ideal past' concept from the OP). Obviously, this passage is out of it's wider context so i'm not able to say more than how the passage itself strikes.

I'm not suggesting there is. I don't think there's any need to overcome anxiety about life and death. It's also part of human behaviour.

Of course, some people run to these things for comfort - But i would posit theism is a much, much, MUCH more ripe example that, according to some (even atheists) fulfills a 'human need'. My point is merely that these behaviours are human, and do not release or jettison humanity in the subject (imo).

Zapffe's view is that humans are born with an overdeveloped skill (understanding, self-knowledge) which does not fit into nature's design. The human craving for justification on matters such as life and death cannot be satisfied, hence humanity has a need that nature cannot satisfy. The tragedy, following this theory, is that humans spend all their time trying not to be human. The human being, therefore, is a paradox.

Huh. This seems to apply to a 'large middle' of humans while assuming positivism. Both seem aspects seem a bit shaky to me. I don't think its reasonable to dismiss Zen, true Stoicism, meditation etc.. as somehow arbitrary attempt to 'not be human'.
These things are human behaviours.

Great image!

:ok:

Any other NZers on here?

6. Looking at existence, it cannot be destroyed. It simply “is”. There is no “ought” or “should”.
7. Looking at what is, we can come to a conclusion of what “ought” to be. Existence is good. — Philosophim

Im not seeing a connection between (6.) and (7.). We can only conclude that it is from (6.).

8. This conclusion is a choice, not forced. Existence could very well one day “not be”. But since existence “is”, and we are composed of what “is”, we act with the will of existence “to be”. — Philosophim

However, the above is very helpful in terms of supporting why you've made that conclusion. However, i'm unsure how the underlined obtains other than as another choice, not logically necessary. I am an anti-natalist, and so 'being' to me, is not a good thing. The fact is exist is a metaphysical burden i have to mitigate. So, moving to your second set of premises, I reject them all on that basis... I can't get from your first set to your second set.

If the point is that once the choice is made, it all flows, sure. But that butters no bread for meeeee :)

:ok: Noted

But can we take the idea that existence is better — Philosophim

I don't see how we can do that..

You say year 2024 1990 ... but this is just some contingent contract of the human civilisations. It doesn't exist in the real world. It could be year 0 tomorrow if we all agreed. — Corvus

This is true, and a serious problem for discussions of time as currently being explored.

But this doesn't mean 'time doesn't exist'. It means are symbols for it are arbitrary. I'm not trying to say it does or doesn't exist - just that this doesn't go to that question i don't think.

It may be that it's actually the year 14,564,335,235 AT (all time).

Does that take away from the plentiful evidence that the categories do exist? Certainly not. — Bob Ross

(yes, there's some incredulity in this question) Are you seriously comparing 'ethical views' to the reality of categories of triangle?

There being no formula of what is exactly wrong or right in any given situation does not make the categories empty. — Bob Ross

(response to first quote, in light of the above quote:) because this lack of formula does essentially mean you cannot predict 'which' category an act falls into at all, rather than imprecisely. Your moral intuitions only can do so. They are your categories. This seems to suggest that vague ranges of moral culpability apply to acts - and that seems reasonable, but still not a realist position. My understanding is that realism entails that whether an act is good or bad can be established as a 'fact' in any given instance.

Are good looking people nicer than average looking people, or are good looking people less nice than average looking people? — Agree-to-Disagree

Interesting question. In my experience, 'good looking' people are less nice.. to me. But that's almost certainly a bias about my desires.

I would say though, traditionally ugly people seem on avg to me more truculent and quick to argue and then dismiss than are people who don't see themselves as somehow already at a disadvantage aesthetically.

You can't justifiably believe there is such a rock, and you can't justifiably believe there isn't. — Relativist

Yes. I am 'atheist' in relation to the rock. I do not commit one way or the other. Yet....

Your wife could be a alien, but there's no evidence of it- so you should believe she's not an alien. — Relativist

Prima facie, No. No i shouldn't. And prima facie, these above two quotes are contradictory. If i can be 'agnostic' to the rock, i can be agnostic to my wife's potential alienality. I have no evidence one way or the other. I cannot make any reasonable conclusion. I have no reasons.

However, I know my wife. I can observe and experiment to ascertain whether she has any inhuman properties in some way to deduce whether there's an alien element to her. I do not need to take either conclusion on faith without reason.

The rock - on the other hand - I cannot. I do not have a sufficient reason to reject OR accept the fact of the rock (until I turn over every rock on the Moon - which i shan't). I simply have absolutely no intuition as to whether it exists, despite it being logically possible. So i abstain. Not seeing an issue here, other than a bully-ish determination to force me into a position I do not hold and have no reason to support. At least, in this case, it could be established. As with Deism.

But consider unicorns. — Relativist

Similar to my delineation above, this is entirely different from the case of a Theistic God imo. A physical, observable object (Unicorn) which has never been observed (other than in the mind) can, as you rightly say, be relegated to 'non-existent'. It's reasonable to 'believe' it does not exist because the evidence WOULD be there if it did (which is the case with a Deistic God).
Something, the existence of which, could not be observed in that same way requires a different process to establish as 'extant' to my mind. This is why your 'deism' cannot be agnostic. It admits of a discoverable God (but this goes to the wording issue I re-traverse below).

If I can be agnostic as to economic theories, why can't I be agnostic as to the existence of an impersonal, non-interacting deity? — Relativist

"given the above". 'agnostic' is an useless term in any arena if all it means is *shrug*.

"Agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God"

If you're a Deist, you are not able to use the term above. Point blank period. Argue the definition all you want, but to my mind you're just confusing yourself.

If you're going to label me a "deist", based solely on the fact that I think it's worth considering,... — Relativist

I am not. Sorry if that wasn't clear. My point is that is the only word that assists in labeling you at all, since you're precluded from using 'agnostic' as it relates to God. Your point about 'agnostic' being essentially a field-less word is a matter of misusing the word in other areas- and is an example of the problem i went over at the end of my post with a suggestion as to how to solve that issue. Huxley specifically coined the word to apply to mystical and mystico-religious issues. It has been hijacked in other areas as an imprecise analogy.
So this isn't an actual objection to my position - just a restating of the problem I had identified. I would prefer new words to discuss 'Deism' since the word 'Atheist' literally doesn't touch it - therefore, using Agnostic to refer to both deism and theism is really unhelpful.

My position is that worthwhile discussions depend on going much deeper than the meaning attached to labels. — Relativist

Agreed, in principle but I would point out that if we cannot understand what each other is saying given the words are not helpful, I can't actually see the discussion as worthwhile. This exchange may be an example. You are not making logical sentences about your belief manifest. Maybe peculiar to me, but I have no interest in going deep into people's views without a reasonable understanding of their language and knowing it is consistent with the meaning of the words they are using. It makes every exchange feel like a Twitter war. And that is absurd in the highest, as i'm sure you're aware.

It's a fact that these terms are not understood consistently by everyone. — Relativist

But it is a fact that these words have definite meanings, overwhelmingly subscribe by our institutional sources of meaning. That people misunderstand them is the entire thrust of my point. That is a serious obstacle to even beginning a meaningful discussion. I cannot discuss your 'agnostic deism' because those terms are contradictory. New Agey nonsense is the biggest peddler of this shit, if you ask me. 'quantum' being the worse offender.. And that said, if what you're suggesting is that we let everyone re-define words so they can use the ones they are aesthetically drawn to and bore us with their illogical, shitty reasonings for doing so, I simply get off your bus and run as far as i can. But, this also seems to be commensurate with your view on non-commitment to theism.

It may also be motivated by the naive assumption we should only believe things that can be "proven". — Relativist

I do not think that is the case. It seems clearly a result of not believing anything on insufficient evidence, as a principle. Both sides have insufficient evidence for their respective positive claim. It takes courage to say "I don't know, and I'm going to move forward with gusto, in uncertainty, despite that..". Is there any reason to think your position, or mine, is a better take? Nope. They are opinions that don't matter other than as interpersonal curiosity. Why it's caused wars is something for psychologists to deal with..

I should be clear, all of the above and my previous comment are not arguments about 'facts of the matter'. There are facts in the argument (the etymology and definition of these words) but what i am doing is outlining a systematic use of the words that actually bloody helps instead of throwing up my hands and saying 'everything's wobbly and we need to spend our lives talking past one another because of it'. I simply don't think that's true, and am attempting to serve up a method for not falling into the illusion it is (on my account).

Our consciousness might be the most complex emergent property in nature, when only looking at it in comparison to others, but we're also just a last point in a gradient of intelligence among animals. — Christoffer

I think this is what maters. We are what McKenna called 'the moving wave-front of eternity'.
We're at the front of the line, and as such, we are somewhat obligated (i don't actually think this - im being poetic) to be astute about how we bring the universe forward in time. In that sense, the nature of our consciousness is a key to understanding what's going on there. If we are the top of that hierarchy, and that our consciousness has developed most recently compared to other, less complex kinds - it is special and we're well-supported in treating our consciousness as special.

Anyone else you'd append for someone to explore?
— AmadeusD
Chapter five here is worth a read. Thanks, Ludwig V. — Banno

Thanks mate. Ryle is about half-way down my hit list currently - Just jumped a few spots.

Looks like you are active here but relatively new — Mark Nyquist

Very active, and will continue to be. But yes, very new I've recently found out :P I am also, for 'context of me' starting my Philosophy BA as a conjoint with an LLB (bachelor of Law) that i'm part-way through this year.

I shall take note.

Right, right. Ok, cool thank you!

Humpty-Dumptys are running around having words mean "just what I choose them to mean," all in order to bolster a position for the sake of polemics. — Leontiskos

A-theism means A-theism.

No brain external information. — Mark Nyquist

What's the sitch when the information is in transit?

We can't have knowledge of very many things, because knowledge is strictly defined as belief that is justified, true, and the justification is adequate to eliminate Gettier problems. But we can (and should) strive for justified beliefs. — Relativist

As a pre-amble, i'm glad to see this. I see no obstacle in Gettier problems due to the justification criterion.

I believe a God of religion does not exist. Not just"absence of belief" - that's for wimps ( IMO- no one should make this noncommital claim). I also believe unicorns and fairies don't exist.

I believe it's possible that some sort of intentional entity exists, that may account for the existence of the universe, and/or for the nature of consciousness (ie an immaterial solution to the hard problem). If I actually believed in this, I'd call myself deist (but still.an a-theist). But I don't actually believe it, I just think it's worth considering. Hence, I call myself an "agnostic deist", but still a-theist, and my general position on knowledge in makes me virtually an agnostic (we can't know much of anything) in general. — Relativist

I find the italicised pretty odd. What's the problem with non-commitment to something you don't claim any knowledge of? I'm unsure whether there's a rock the exact size of the cabbage in my fridge on the Moon, so i abstain from any take. Absence of evidence and all that...

That said... here's my take on you, written as if fact to make it clear what my take actually is (I do not undertake to debate the take below, but it may be fun!):

My understanding of 'theism' is that it entails belief in a 'Creator' personal God. In that light, IFF you actively reject this (believe theistic God/s cannot exist) you're anti-theist. As for 'agnostic deist' that seems incoherent. Below..

My understanding of deism is that it removes the requirement of a personal or supernatural aspect of the 'supreme being' notion and instead asserts that 'the deity' is part of the natural, discoverable world. To my mind deism entails that we can discover this deity. Since we can have knowledge of it, agnosticism is precluded (as it is the position we cannot know whether a God or Gods exist). If the knowledge criteria doesn't go through for you, anywhere, then just take that word as 'the literal best guess'.

So, I would say you're an anti-theist, and a deist. I would have inserted, over 'deist' a term specific to holding out on belief in a deistic God rather than theistic - if one exists. I also note this might be your 'wimp' moment :nerd: Is there a deistic God or not, Relativist? hehe.

But here's an issue - If agnosticism is meant to be a position on Theism, we're in a pickle using agnostic anyway, regardless of what Deism entails. If it's not, we're using shitty words given Atheism only relates to theism but apparently agnosticism can cover deism too. Here, a word which separates the two theories, AND the two positions would be great.

If atheism and agnosticism deal with the same thing, but only agnosticism can relate to deism we can't be having a worthwhile discussion about htem, using these words only.

Maybe that is the actual issue here.

Word 1: Deism, Yes. I have evidence
Word 2: Deism, No. Have evidence against
Word 3: Deism, Maybe and I believe I can know.
Word 4: Deism, cannot know

Theism: Theism, yes, I have evidence.
Atheism: Theism, Maybe, but im not convinced.
Anti-theist: Theism, No. I have evidence against.
Agnostic: Theism, cannot know


Edit: Sorry, I entirely missed this:

and why should I start using that particular label? — Relativist

Mainly, because 'agnostic deist' makes absolutely no sense given the above (perhaps peculiar to my amalgamated position on all these things taken together). So, to begin you need a new term.

You are anti-theistic, and you are abstaining from belief, but are open to, deistic God/s. The words I've used fit perfectly your position, given we essentially preclude not being able to know of a deistic God so can't use agnostic.