Who here considers themselves Agnostic?

Post Reply New Topic

Using the JTB definition of knowledge: I believe there's no God, I believe it's true that there's no God, and I believe that my belief that there's no God is justified. So I'd say I know there's no God.

.

One can know negatives very easily: A contradiction between what is perceived and what is expected if something is the state of affairs. If what is perceived is not like what it should be given a certain state of affairs, then it isn't expected as known. So, for instance, I can reliably say that I know there are no unicorns. If unicorns existed, we'd expect sightings, droppings, and so on and so forth, all of which are non-existent.

We knew [till 1938 - I though the date was later but 1938 is what these guys say: http://www.dinofish.com/ ] that there were no living coelacanths.

Today Awesomely Glorious KNOWS there are no unicorns, because he has not found any unicorn droppings in his extensive collections of excrement. Maybe in ten years he will know there are unicorns.

I know there is reason to believe the probability of living unicorns is low.

I do not know how anyone could KNOW - distinguish KNOW from ASSUME, please - there are none.

A more familiar example might be something like: I know it's not the case that I have three hands. Presumably, most people would say they know they have two hands. If you know that, you know you don't have three (or any number other than two. If you know that P, you know that ~~P.)

Obviously, there are skeptical arguments against that... we might say we could be dreaming, hallucinating, a brain in a vat, etc, therefore we can't know that we have two hands. I don't think that gels with how the concept of knowledge is actually used in practice, though. Rather it seems like a confusion between knowledge and something else, something much more strict. There's a difference between know and know with certainty. I don't know with certainty that there is no God, just as I don't know with certainty that I don't have three hands. I do know those things, though (and anyway, if it's the case that I don't know that I don't have three hands... well, what good is knowledge?).

.

Exactly, so maybe in a couple thousand more years we'll find suggestions of a deity.

I wouldn't hold my breath.

I am agnostic... I have no proof of the existence of any God or lack thereof.

****************************************************************************************

Check out my IMDB page!

So...you're...an atheist.

Did he deny the existence of God?

ruveyn

He said he had no reason to believe in one,
so I would assume he doesn't.

I could kind of fit into that label, yes.

Hmm, Unicorn Droppings, I wonder what that would look like?

If "Unicorn Droppings" are evidence of Unicorns, how do we know that the Universe is not just one big "God Dropping". Was it the "big bang" or the "big blow out".

Finally, evidence, we are all knee deep in cosmic sh**.

Toilets and toilet paper, another thing that separates us from our animal nature.

I believe in "God" it's all around us; it's hard for some to accept, though, that "sh** happens", is part of it all.

"If what is perceived is not like what it should be given a certain state of affairs, then it isn't expected as known."

I like that statement, it is how we survive. However, through science, we understand that our perceptions are limited and differ from one individual to the next, one animal to the next, so we can only perceive part of reality. Whether we like it or not by strict definition we are all agnostic, if we believe in science:

Agnostic:
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as god, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study

Faith is a whole different story. One can have faith, as Stephen Hawkins does, that he has a finite answer, like gravity, for creation, or one can have have faith that they have an infinite answer for creation like that of the Abrahamic God, or one can have faith in what they see, and have faith that they won't ever have all the answers, because they are only human.

And finally, one can have faith that something does not exist because they do not perceive it.

The bottom line though, is everything we understand is subject to experience and subject to change in the next moment, regardless of our faith or beliefs.

Not too long ago, Stephen Hawkins wrote some kind of a God was necessary for humans to exist.

Whoa, now he has decided that A God is not necessary for humans to exist, because gravity is all that is necessary for creation.

Obviously Hawkins is subject to the Bottom Line, like the rest of us.

Not believing X is NOT the same as denying X.

ruveyn

About what?