galanter wrote:FWIW the kind of God that I think demands an agnostic stance is one which is not a peer object among other objects. Not Thor, not an elf, etc.

"You think that it demands an agnostic stance", so you must have an understanding of the universe that no other human has discovered. All you've done here is define the question in a way that suits your thesis. In doing so you've yet again avoided answering the question.

One problem with your argument is that the thesis you put across of "not being able to know", must also apply to what you are saying. So if we get really technical your argument discounts your own argument.

Another is simply defining one God as the substance of the universe and the other as a player in the universe isn’t good enough reason to define one as worthy of the possibility of existence anymore than an elf or a unicorn. All you’ve done is define the parameters of the argument to suit your thesis, again.

As I said, until you give a valid reason why the God of Abraham and the Gods of Greece are fundamentally different you have no argument. By defining one God over another you imply that this is a measurable quality. Which would seem to be the very thing you are arguing against.

Gramsci wrote:

galanter wrote:FWIW the kind of God that I think demands an agnostic stance is one which is not a peer object among other objects. Not Thor, not an elf, etc.

...

One problem with your argument is that the thesis you put across of "not being able to know", must also apply to what you are saying. So if we get really technical your argument discounts your own argument.

It sounds like you are starting to understand me. I've already said I'm a soft-boiled agnostic, and that means (1) I don't know whether God exists and (2) I don't know if it is possible to know. But that doesn't "discount" my argument. Rather it makes it all the more consistant.

galanter wrote:
It sounds like you are starting to understand me. I've already said I'm a soft-boiled agnostic, and that means (1) I don't know whether God exists and (2) I don't know if it is possible to know. But that doesn't "discount" my argument. Rather it makes it all the more consistant.

I've understood what you've be saying from the get go. I just don't think it is grounds for a serious answer.

galanter wrote:Take that infinity of universes and draw a circle around it.

Phil, you've just shot your own self in the ass.

galanter wrote:But that's different than saying "Without qualification I can say that I know that God doesn't exist".

How about "I see no reason to believe in God any more than the Tooth Fairy, though I cannot prove to a believer (or a small child) that they don't exist?"

Does that fly?

I think Santa Claus for Adults sums it up.

steve wrote:

galanter wrote:
But that's different than saying "Without qualification I can say that I know that God doesn't exist".

How about "I see no reason to believe in God any more than the Tooth Fairy, though I cannot prove to a believer (or a small child) that they don't exist?"

Does that fly?

It flies, but it sort of misses the point. First, I'd edit it to say "I cannot prove to anyone" Second, that may not even be true ibecause the Tooth Fairy is within the realm of contingent reality in a way that God is not.

But more importantly saying "I see no reason to believe in God" is different than saying "God doesn't exist". Both atheists and agnostics can say the former, but only atheists can say the latter.

I think a big part of the issue is that a certain kind of atheist wants to deny that being an atheist is making a claim at all.

But you don't call someone who makes no claims about God's existence an atheist. You call them an agnostic.

I suppose, if we really have to, we can split ourselves into emotional (allowing hunches and intuition) and rational (requiring rigor) parts and say something like "emotionally I'm an atheist, but rationally I'm forced to be an agnostic because no proof is available". That's something I'd almost be comfortable saying...except I don't like dividing myself up that way.

And why does this matter to me at all? Especially since I'm teetering on the brink of atheism myself?

Well, if nothing else (i.e. intellectual honesty aside), when it comes to religion I think society would be well served by a healthy dose of humility on all sides. Believers should remind themselves that believing in God and claiming to have God's wisdom are two different things. By defintion their wisdom is finite. And non-believers should be reminded that they have no legitimate claim to certainty, and their world view is also somewhat faith based as well. Rationality only confers finite wisdom.

For me the agnostic stance has the social implication that we are all adrift in this together, and the hubris on both "sides" that comes along with absolute claims about the unknowable is the real enemy.

galanter wrote:And non-believers should be reminded that they have no legitimate claim to certainty, and their world view is also somewhat faith based as well. Rationality only confers finite wisdom.

I think you are wrong about non-believers' "faith."

It requires no faith to fail to hold a belief. It requires faith to actively hold such a belief. As has been noted before, agnosticism is a kind of atheism. It also requires no faith.

To play with the language this way, to say that my lack of a faith is a kind of faith, is a trick I run into all the time with people whose arguments are not convincing in one matter or another. They say, "well, you choose to not do this thing, and that's a choice too." No, it isn't. It is nothing. To actively do something, whether it is believe in God or to suck dicks for quarters, is to make a choice in its favor. To fail to do something is, by definition, not doing it, whether or not one does something else. I might not have considered sucking dicks for quarters, and as such have made no choice in the matter. I just haven't done it.

So you are saying there is no difference between agnosticism and atheism?

What do you suppose "they" had in mind when they came up with 2 different words for the same thing?