4 ms·

You're persistently failing (refusing?) to understand what I've said about what "agnostic" means. I've explained it pretty clearly. If you're going to interpret

You're persistently failing (refusing?) to understand what I've said about what "agnostic" means. I've explained it pretty clearly. If you're going to interpret it to mean "undecided" or "vague" or something instead then that's fine but you don't then get to use the unprovability of negative existentials the way you are attempting to. You're attempting to leverage it to say that the nonexistence of God isn't something that you can evaluate with evidence and reason, and I'm afraid that doesn't work however you choose to interpret the term "agnostic".

Maursault 5y ago
> you don't then get to use the unprovability of negative existentials the way you are attempting to. You are simply and obviously mistaken. I get to do whatever the hell I want, because you are not the boss of me, have as yet been unable to assail my bulletproof logic, while yours is riddled with fallacy, such as ad hominem (personal attack), straw man (false attribution of statements), and argument from authority (your confidence in your belief), unapologetically employed unconvincingly as impotent and faulty reasoning bereft of any support beyond your say so. Agnosticism is the view or belief that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
- omnicognate 5y ago
  I seem to have made you angry. It wasn't my intention. "You don't get to" is a figure of speech, pointing out that to make the claim is nonsensical. You are of course at liberty to make the claim and, since it makes no sense, I am free to ignore it (which I wouldn't be if it were actually a compelling argument). It's very simple. It's well known that "X does not exist" is never provable in the same way as "X exists" is. In the latter case we can present X itself and say "look, it exists", end of story. In the former, there's always the possibility that we didn't look in all the places X could be, that we failed to properly define X or were looking for it the wrong way, etc. You attempted to use this to say that atheists are claiming to "know the unknowable". I'll quote your original comment: > Atheists make precisely the same mistake as deists, claiming to know the unknowable. Agnostics have the most compelling argument. What I have been pointing out is the fallacy of thinking that the fact that "X does not exist" is not provable with the same finality as "X does exist" somehow means that "X does not exist" is not a question that is open to analysis on the basis of evidence and reason. Questions of that nature are very much open to such analysis, so that argument falls flat. Note that you haven't asked at all what evidence and reasoning my conviction that the God of the bible does not exist is based on. Rather, you have continued to assert that this belief of mine cannot have any basis, using the same flawed reasoning. I'd be happy to discuss that evidence and weigh it against any evidence you're aware of for the contrary view. That isn't argument from authority, it's argument from evidence. You just haven't shown any interest in engaging with it. As to the definition of agnosticism, it can be defined either way and makes no difference to the refutation of your flawed reasoning above. I simply think that the definition I gave (a mainstream one, but not the only one) is useful if you're concerned with the "unknowability" of nonexistence as you appear to be. It allows you to make it clear that theism is a belief of the form "X exists" and can therefore in theory be proven absolutely by displaying the object (there's God right there, say hello, clearly he exists, you're looking right at Him) although nobody has done so, while atheism cannot in principle be demonstrated true in that way. With my definition of agnosticism that comes out as "theists can be agnostic or gnostic, whereas atheists can only be agnostic". With your definition of agnosticism you lose the ability to make that point so succinctly. However it remains just as true. Now, if you have anything to say that actually addresses any of the points I've made, or you would like to present any evidence or reasoning that might cause me to reevaluate my atheism, I'd be happy to continue. But if all you can produce at this stage is further rants I won't reply. Edit: It occurs to me that you haven't explicitly stated that the negative existential is the reason you consider the atheist position a claim to "know the unknowable". I've assumed that because it's the only argument I'm aware of anyone having made for this claim, and it's a commonly presented one. Also, you haven't presented any alternative justification. There is, however, the possibility that you have some other reason for thinking atheists are claiming to "know the unknowable", and if so I'm keen to hear it.
  - Maursault 5y ago
    > I seem to have made you angry. Not possible. > fallacy of thinking that the fact that "X does not exist" is not provable with the same finality as "X does exist" somehow means that "X does not exist" is not a question that is open to analysis on the basis of evidence and reason. What fallacy are you referring to? Please name it. In fact, this entire post, nearly every sentence, there is a lack of any actual identifiable reference to what you are referring. When you are trying to explain something, it helps immensely to be specific, as opposed to vaguely referring to some previous statement. > Note that you haven't asked at all what evidence and reasoning my conviction that the God of the bible does not exist is based on. Noted. But when someone or anyone makes a claim, the onus is upon them to support their claim. I am not responsible for your claims or your lack of support for your claims. > I'd be happy to discuss that evidence and weigh it against any evidence you're aware of for the contrary view. What was stopping you before? Look, I think you have it all figured out, and that's really all that matters. > your flawed reasoning above. I'd appreciate it if you would be specific. > Edit: It occurs to me that you haven't explicitly stated that the negative existential is the reason you consider the atheist position a claim to "know the unknowable". My claim, as always, is that atheists make the same exact mistake that deists make, which is that they both claim to know something, like knowing 2 + 3 = 5, that, in fact, they do not know that something, they merely believe it. It is belief, and belief is not knowledge, no matter how strong that belief is. Certainly, they have knowledge of their belief, and may think their belief is knowledge, but it is clearly not. You forgot your keys and you believe you left them on the coffee table, but that belief could be wrong. You may have left them on the counter. What is that "belief" when it is proven incorrect? One can not prove that 2 + 3 != 5, no matter how much it is believed. The best that could happen is to personally accept responsibility for the error, relinquish belief, which can be wrong and probably is wrong more often than not, and gain in its place actual genuine bone fide knowledge and awareness of the truth of the matter. And if the truth can not be revealed, then relinquish the possibility of knowledge, which is exactly what agnostics do, and they do know something. They know that they don't know, which is the most honest and most supportable position to have among the choices of atheism, deism, and agnosticism. If one is not aware of what one does not know, there are some serious problems.
    - 5y ago

Maursault 5y ago

> you don't then get to use the unprovability of negative existentials the way you are attempting to. You are simply and obviously mistaken. I get to do whatever the hell I want, because you are not the boss of me, have as yet been unable to assail my bulletproof logic, while yours is riddled with fallacy, such as ad hominem (personal attack), straw man (false attribution of statements), and argument from authority (your confidence in your belief), unapologetically employed unconvincingly as impotent and faulty reasoning bereft of any support beyond your say so. Agnosticism is the view or belief that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

omnicognate 5y ago
I seem to have made you angry. It wasn't my intention. "You don't get to" is a figure of speech, pointing out that to make the claim is nonsensical. You are of course at liberty to make the claim and, since it makes no sense, I am free to ignore it (which I wouldn't be if it were actually a compelling argument). It's very simple. It's well known that "X does not exist" is never provable in the same way as "X exists" is. In the latter case we can present X itself and say "look, it exists", end of story. In the former, there's always the possibility that we didn't look in all the places X could be, that we failed to properly define X or were looking for it the wrong way, etc. You attempted to use this to say that atheists are claiming to "know the unknowable". I'll quote your original comment: > Atheists make precisely the same mistake as deists, claiming to know the unknowable. Agnostics have the most compelling argument. What I have been pointing out is the fallacy of thinking that the fact that "X does not exist" is not provable with the same finality as "X does exist" somehow means that "X does not exist" is not a question that is open to analysis on the basis of evidence and reason. Questions of that nature are very much open to such analysis, so that argument falls flat. Note that you haven't asked at all what evidence and reasoning my conviction that the God of the bible does not exist is based on. Rather, you have continued to assert that this belief of mine cannot have any basis, using the same flawed reasoning. I'd be happy to discuss that evidence and weigh it against any evidence you're aware of for the contrary view. That isn't argument from authority, it's argument from evidence. You just haven't shown any interest in engaging with it. As to the definition of agnosticism, it can be defined either way and makes no difference to the refutation of your flawed reasoning above. I simply think that the definition I gave (a mainstream one, but not the only one) is useful if you're concerned with the "unknowability" of nonexistence as you appear to be. It allows you to make it clear that theism is a belief of the form "X exists" and can therefore in theory be proven absolutely by displaying the object (there's God right there, say hello, clearly he exists, you're looking right at Him) although nobody has done so, while atheism cannot in principle be demonstrated true in that way. With my definition of agnosticism that comes out as "theists can be agnostic or gnostic, whereas atheists can only be agnostic". With your definition of agnosticism you lose the ability to make that point so succinctly. However it remains just as true. Now, if you have anything to say that actually addresses any of the points I've made, or you would like to present any evidence or reasoning that might cause me to reevaluate my atheism, I'd be happy to continue. But if all you can produce at this stage is further rants I won't reply. Edit: It occurs to me that you haven't explicitly stated that the negative existential is the reason you consider the atheist position a claim to "know the unknowable". I've assumed that because it's the only argument I'm aware of anyone having made for this claim, and it's a commonly presented one. Also, you haven't presented any alternative justification. There is, however, the possibility that you have some other reason for thinking atheists are claiming to "know the unknowable", and if so I'm keen to hear it.
- Maursault 5y ago
  > I seem to have made you angry. Not possible. > fallacy of thinking that the fact that "X does not exist" is not provable with the same finality as "X does exist" somehow means that "X does not exist" is not a question that is open to analysis on the basis of evidence and reason. What fallacy are you referring to? Please name it. In fact, this entire post, nearly every sentence, there is a lack of any actual identifiable reference to what you are referring. When you are trying to explain something, it helps immensely to be specific, as opposed to vaguely referring to some previous statement. > Note that you haven't asked at all what evidence and reasoning my conviction that the God of the bible does not exist is based on. Noted. But when someone or anyone makes a claim, the onus is upon them to support their claim. I am not responsible for your claims or your lack of support for your claims. > I'd be happy to discuss that evidence and weigh it against any evidence you're aware of for the contrary view. What was stopping you before? Look, I think you have it all figured out, and that's really all that matters. > your flawed reasoning above. I'd appreciate it if you would be specific. > Edit: It occurs to me that you haven't explicitly stated that the negative existential is the reason you consider the atheist position a claim to "know the unknowable". My claim, as always, is that atheists make the same exact mistake that deists make, which is that they both claim to know something, like knowing 2 + 3 = 5, that, in fact, they do not know that something, they merely believe it. It is belief, and belief is not knowledge, no matter how strong that belief is. Certainly, they have knowledge of their belief, and may think their belief is knowledge, but it is clearly not. You forgot your keys and you believe you left them on the coffee table, but that belief could be wrong. You may have left them on the counter. What is that "belief" when it is proven incorrect? One can not prove that 2 + 3 != 5, no matter how much it is believed. The best that could happen is to personally accept responsibility for the error, relinquish belief, which can be wrong and probably is wrong more often than not, and gain in its place actual genuine bone fide knowledge and awareness of the truth of the matter. And if the truth can not be revealed, then relinquish the possibility of knowledge, which is exactly what agnostics do, and they do know something. They know that they don't know, which is the most honest and most supportable position to have among the choices of atheism, deism, and agnosticism. If one is not aware of what one does not know, there are some serious problems.
  - 5y ago