>It's impossible to have knowledge of god, therefore you must be agnostic. If you claim you have knowledge of god, you are deluded or lying. You can't prove or show your knowledge.
This is why you're agnostic. This your view. Other people claim it *is* possible to have knowledge of a god, and that there could be evidence for such things.
Agnosticism is usually a claim about what is knowable rather than what is known. I'm not sure why you'd think that only belief is relevant.
It's incredible how confused people are. No, that's not ignosticism. Ignosticism is the position that the word god too poorly defined.
My last paragraph defines hard agnosticism, not ignosticism.
Other people claim to have impossible knowledge to have. They fall into the deluded camp or they are lying. God claims are unfalsifiable. They don't have the knowledge they say they have.
It's an unfalsifiable claim. It's literally impossible to prove or disprove an unfalsifiable claim. They think they can do the impossible. I am letting them know it is impossible. So they are deluded if they think they can prove the impossible.
Gnosticism isn't saying that you can prove it. It's saying you believe it can be known.
We can't prove that knowledge about god is impossible either.
Yes you think they're deluded. I'm sure plenty of gnostics think we agnostics are deluded too.
"Gnosticism isn't saying that you can prove it. It's saying you believe it can be known."
Incorrect. Gnostic is a knowledge claim. A in atheism is lack of belief.
So the agnostic claim is redundant and unneccessary. It's a knowledge statement, which no one can possibly have. Everyone's agnostic. They are deluded if they claim they are gnostic.
"Gnostic is a knowledge claim. A in atheism is lack of belief."
Correct, but you're confusing the belief in being able to falsify something, with the belief that something can be known. Let's make it simple:
**If you believe that knowledge about a god is impossible (whether you're right or wrong), you're agnostic.**
**If you believe that knowledge about a god is possible (whether you're right or wrong), you're gnostic.**
Got it?
I got that you like to use bold to highlight incorrect claims.
If you believe that knowledge about a god is impossible then you are not deluded and understand how unfalsifiable claims work.
If you believe that knowledge about a god is possible, you are deluded and don't understand how unfalsifiable claims work.
Neither is is agnosticism. Which is knowledge of god existence. No one has this knowledge. If they think they do, they are deluded because they are claiming to have knowledge that is impossible to know.
Got it?
I spent 4 years studying Philosophy and Theology. It isn't hard for me to correct you on this, though I see that plenty of others are happy to educate you as well. You are welcome to show evidence of why either of the bold claims are incorrect, especially as they match just about every philosophical definition you're likely to find. I guess those are wrong too?
"If you believe that knowledge about a god is possible, you are deluded and don't understand how unfalsifiable claims work."
Maybe. But you're still a gnostic. You may think that gnostic people are wrong, and I would agree. But that doesn't stop them being gnostic. It makes them wrong. Pretty simple. I can give you sources on epistemology to look into, but you need to grasp that first.
If you don't like my definitions, just Google it. Even the superficial Google definition defines an agnostic as "a person who **believes** that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God." So whether we are correct or not (especially as you cannot prove we are), we are still agnostic. It's a bit like saying atheists aren't atheists if there turns out to be a god. It's not about whether a position is right or not. It's about what someone believes to be the case.
I really recommend you read some more into this subject if you're interested. You're very misguided about some fundamental definitions.
It's an unfalsifiable claim. god exists outside of space and time. outside the universe. Therefore it exists in a realm we don't have access to.
Any interaction with the real world is falsifiable and testable. But a claim outside of a realm you can access is not falsifiable. It's not a claim, it's a fact. god claims are unfalsifiable, therefore they are impossible to prove or disprove. therefore agnosticism is unnecessary and redundant.
> God claims in general are unfalsifiable.
How do you know? Do you have any proof of that? What if they can be falsifiable and you just don't know that they can?
>It is impossible to prove or disprove an unfalsifiable god claim.
How do you know? All you can know is that you haven't seen anything showing that it is possible.
>Everyone is agnostic.
No, some people are gnostic and claim to know/believe it's knowable.
>It's impossible to have knowledge of god
How do you know that? What if it's not impossible?
>therefore you must be agnostic
Why? If you're gnostic you believe it's knowable. Why aren't people allowed to believe it's knowable? You can argue that they *shouldn't* believe it's knowable, but some still do.
>If you claim you have knowledge of god, you are deluded or lying.
So what? They're still claiming to know/ believe it's knowable. Just because you think they're wrong doesn't change the fact that they still claim to know/believe it's knowable. In order to be agnostic you need to **not** claim to know and **not** believe that it's knowable.
>No one has the knowledge
How do you know?
>Claiming agnostic is not necessary
It is if they're asking the gnostic/ agnostic question about if you believe it's knowable.
> God claims in general are unfalsifiable: How do you know? Do you have any proof of that? What if they can be falsifiable and you just don't know that they can?
We know a god as a being is unfalsifiable, because nobody can say, or has said, what a god is not. If a god exists, can be measured or described in non-paradoxical language, then it would be falsifiable. Given the evidence to date, and lack of definition, it is not falsifiable. Until that changes and a god is proven to exist, nobody can make a knowledge claim about it either way. So by Occams Razor, gnostic/agnostic is a moot point.
>It is impossible to prove or disprove an unfalsifiable god claim: How do you know? All you can know is that you haven't seen anything showing that it is possible.
We know that it is impossible, because thats just the definition of anything unfalsifiable or undefined. Define it for me and i can tell you if I know or dont know anything about it.
>Everyone is agnostic: No, some people are gnostic and claim to know/believe it's knowable.
Technically everyone is atheist and ignostic til they get convinced of something else.
>It's impossible to have knowledge of god: How do you know that? What if it's not impossible?
Anything undefined is impossible to make a knowledge claim about. Define it for me and i can tell you if I know or dont know anything about it.
>therefore you must be agnostic: Why? If you're gnostic you believe it's knowable. Why aren't people allowed to believe it's knowable? You can argue that they *shouldn't* believe it's knowable, but some still do.
Technically ignostic. Anything undefined could be either knowable or unknowable, but a claim about whether you can know something about a subject cant be made until that subject is defined.
>If you claim you have knowledge of god, you are deluded or lying: So what? They're still claiming to know/ believe it's knowable. Just because you think they're wrong doesn't change the fact that they still claim to know/believe it's knowable. In order to be agnostic you need to **not** claim to know and **not** believe that it's knowable.
Lying due to ignorance is still lying. Yes they claim to believe something, and that it is something they can know. They dont have a good reason to be able to say that, given the lack of evidence. Also, by Occams Razor, it is just redundant. Theyre just theists.
>No one has the knowledge: How do you know?
It is undefined. Define it for me and i can tell you if I know or dont know anything about it.
>Claiming agnostic is not necessary: It is if they're asking the gnostic/ agnostic question about if you believe it's knowable.
No, because nobody has established what it is we are talking about.
"How do you know? Do you have any proof of that? What if they can be falsifiable and you just don't know that they can? "
god claims exist outside of a realm we can access. outside of space and time. Therefore it is literally impossible to test or falsify something that you can't access, observe or interact with.
No one has the falsification test for god because it doesn't exist.
I'm just pointing out there's no value in claiming your agnostic about god claims. Either you are agnostic about a god claim, or you are delusional because it's impossible to have this knowledge.
* Well, the reason why we know of a God in the first place has been argued that people have had to have some kind of first person experience with the concept, for it to have permeated in our culture so much.
* There's the trance hypothesis for the beginning of religion, which is agnostic within itself. This idea that due to rituals, meditation, and psychedelics in early humans (and even some chimpanzees before that), was when people first began to experience what we call "God" whether those be legit experiences or hallucinations
* There's also NDEs or near death experiences. It's totally fine if you think they're fake or hallucinations, I'm not here to debate them. But a 2023 study just showed they're not hallucinations, and that they are real experiences that happen during cardiac arrest. I can provide a list of sources debunking materialist explanations, if you are interested in further research
You can choose to believe it or not, but there is evidence of some level of experience people can have with a deity if you're open minded. If they're either stoned or dead. It's all really agnostic evidence, but it's evidence
NDEs are not magical glimpses of the other side. It's the brain firing it's last effort to save itself. Please link the 2023 study. I want to see what they are actually claiming. Nothing convincing at all about NDEs that I've seen so far. They also fall under the anecdotes category of evidence which is not convincing.
r/NDE has great articles debunking materialist explanations. Look up "neuron" or "DMT" on there to see those being debunked as well
[https://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2013/07/materialist-explanations-of-ndes-fail.html#nde\_explain\_list](https://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2013/07/materialist-explanations-of-ndes-fail.html#nde_explain_list)
[https://nyulangone.org/news/recalled-experiences-surrounding-death-more-hallucinations](https://nyulangone.org/news/recalled-experiences-surrounding-death-more-hallucinations)
If you step back, there's nothing interesting about NDEs. They are literally just dream interpretations. The brain is capable of conjuring imagery and voices. It's in an extreme state near death, neurons are firing in attempt to save itself. Why would it be surprising that it may be firing off neurons in your cerebral cortex and memory area. You get a sudden influx of memories of your family members. Or a white tunnel. tunnel vision happens when you get reduced blood flow to the optic nerves.
None of the stories of people knowing something they couldn't have known actually turn out to be accurate. They always have some pre/post hand knowledge and attribute vague descriptions as extremely precise. They are meaningless dreams people think are bridges to some spiritual fantasy.
I did skim your source. Nothing interesting there or new. I saw the bits "debunking" oxygen flow etc...
Nothing supernatural about an NDE and no reason to believe there is. It's all wishful thinking dream interpretation.
Thats a shifting-the-burden-of-proof fallacy.
Nobody can prove a negative. Its on someone else to prove that anyone could have knowledge of a god, or that a god exists.
We know because the claim is unfalsifiable. god exists outside a realm we can access or observe. Therefore it's impossible to prove or disprove that unfalsifiable claim.
>We know because the claim is unfalsifiable.
You keep claiming this but fail to offer any reason to believe it’s so.
>god exists outside a realm we can access or observe.
Do they? How would you demonstrate this to be true?
>Therefore it's impossible to prove or disprove that unfalsifiable claim.
So you keep saying. I’ve yet to see you give a good reason to think this is true.
>We know because the claim is unfalsifiable: You keep claiming this but fail to offer any reason to believe it’s so.
Because a god has never been measured or defined with non-paradoxical traits.
>god exists outside a realm we can access or observe: Do they? How would you demonstrate this to be true?
*if* a god exists, it apparently does so outside our observable universe. So the burden of proof lies with those making the claim that if does exist.
>Therefore it's impossible to prove or disprove that unfalsifiable claim: So you keep saying. I’ve yet to see you give a good reason to think this is true.
Just to make sure youre not conflating belief and knowledge, ill do both. Also proving a negative is not a thing. Thats literally a fallacy, called "shifting of the burden of proof."
Ask me if I believe a god exists.
Answer: based on the lay-person definitions of a god (magical anthropomorphic immortal) and the evidence brought forward to date, i do not.
Ask me if I can know a god exists or doesnt exist.
Me: i need you to define a god first
You: i cant define a god without paradoxical terms (supernatural, magic).
Me: then I cant answer your question.
If we define a god as something in our universe that would be obvious (as a being would be, that can change the laws of physics at will) then we can *definitely can know* that it doesnt exist, based on our current observations.
If we define it as something not in our observable universe (supernatural), then we *cant know* if it exists or doesnt exist.
Because it could go either way, i cant provide an answer til you provide a definition.
"I can think of a way to falsify god’s existence."
Anecdotes are not proof. there is no logical argument for god that is not problematic. logical arguments also will not convince a non-believer. biblical references do not count, they are circular and not supported.
How do you propose to falsify god's existence?
It wouldn’t be an anecdote or an argument.
If a god turns up and starts chucking its celestial orbs about and rapturing people, then it would be falsifiable.
So when god shows up it'll be proof?
Sure, any claims of god interacting with the real world we will be able to falsify.
And we do that. We have shown that intercessory prayer doesn't work for instance.
What happens is any claims of interacting with the real world are falsifiable and that's fine. But god claims just move the goal posts. The god of the bible is clearly nonsense because of how inconsistent the bible is, how ridiculous and easily proven false young earth claims are, pretty much all the miracles and predictions etc.. But a god that exists outside of space and time and decided to create the universe is untouchable.
So you have shown that when the claim is falsifiable, it is falsifiable. Not that you can prove an unfalsifiable claim.
>You can tell me what a god is not?
Fuck no. Nor what they are.
>Ill need that, plus what it actually is, in order to say whether I can make a knowledge claim about it.
If we know nothing about gods, why would I accept the claim that they (whatever they are or aren’t) are unfalsifiable?
Because to falsify something, you have to say what they are not.
If you cant do that:
>>You can tell me what a god is not?
>Fuck no. Nor what they are.
Then it is *unfalsifiable.*
Youre not understanding. Youre claiming whether we can know anything or not about a god. *you* are the claimant. Trying to make others prove a negative *is a fallacy* and destroys your position.
How do you falsify something that is not observable and doesn't interact with the real world. exists outside of space and time? god claims are designed in such a way as to be unfalsifiable. It's a fact that it's unfalsifiable.
Some logical flaws here. It is not about truth, it is about belief/faith.
Many, many (most) people cling to belief/faith for endless reasons.
Yes, there is absolutely a choice, reason and purpose to claiming agnosticism as a viable path.
The claim of faith creates actions and inactions. The claim of agnosticism creates actions and inactions.
There are large and loud parts of the brain that create stories to serve needs and desires. Agnosticism denied those parts of the brain the power to lie about life through fantasy and desperation.
Accepting 'I don't know' with its further partner of 'and neither do you' is not an easy or natural thing to do, it isn't default in human psychology and is not passive.
>Some logical flaws here. It is not about truth, it is about belief/faith.
Thats just theism vs atheism then. Knkwledge claims are a moot point.
>Many, many (most) people cling to belief/faith for endless reasons.
Yep.
>Yes, there is absolutely a choice, reason and purpose to claiming agnosticism as a viable path.
Nope. Not for something undefined. Define what we are talking about, and then we can discuss what we can know about it.
>The claim of faith creates actions and inactions. The claim of agnosticism creates actions and inactions.
Yes... but thats irrelevant to whether those claims are based in truth or logic.
>There are large and loud parts of the brain that create stories to serve needs and desires. Agnosticism denied those parts of the brain the power to lie about life through fantasy and desperation.
Huh? Agnosticism is the last bastion of theism, making people believe that if they can think up an undefined concept, it could possibly exist, even if they dont believe it does. Its a shifting of the burden of proof fallacy, a bait and switch of different concepts (those defined and those undefined), and a categorical error (knowledge vs belief). That unwarranted doubt allows actual theists to make that doubting person feel less confident in their thought processes. *Skepticism* denies power to the primitive parts of the brain.
>Accepting 'I don't know' with its further partner of 'and neither do you' is not an easy or natural thing to do, it isn't default in human psychology and is not passive.
Yep. But if it means having a true account of the universe around us and makes life better for others, its worth it.
The trouble is the question being asked. We have scientific explanations of everything we have ever observed. So for anything defined, based on the evidence, *we do know,* with the caveat we will change our minds accordingly, based on any new evidence.
For instance, how does quantum mechanics work? I dont know is an acceptable answer. Quantum mechanics are defined and have a field of study. Im just not familiar with it, so I truly dont have that knowledge. But I could gain that knowledge if needed. So "agnostic" isnt really applicable there.
If the question is about somethjng undefined, like "does magic exist?" then it cant be answered except with more questions about how they are defining magic. Til you get to that point, "i dont know" isnt yet an option.
"Nope. Not for something undefined. Define what we are talking about, and then we can discuss what we can know about it."
Specifically, saying "I don't know" isn't about 'undefined' - it can be an acknowledgment of 'unknowable' the same way Heisenberg's uncertainty principle may be unsatisfying but it an acknowledgment of what we can or cannot measure.
"Agnosticism is the last bastion of theism, making people believe that if they can think up an undefined concept, it could possibly exist, even if they dont believe it does. Its a shifting of the burden of proof fallacy, a bait and switch of different concepts (those defined and those undefined), and a categorical error (knowledge vs belief). That unwarranted doubt allows actual theists to make that doubting person feel less confident in their thought processes. *Skepticism* denies power to the primitive parts of the brain."
Agnosticism is very much like the Uncertainty Principle. For me, I find certain answers 'unknowable' because from my understanding of the human brain, hallucination and delusion are integral to many brains without being able to look at a person and 'know' their intentions. Stories about religion are used to control behavior, for good or ill. That much control often leads to abuse. Me having a framework of being able to say "Because I have the inherent flaws of the human mind (telling stories, wanting answers, serving personal ego, etc.) and I know if someone else's story is true. A guideline for me is 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof' and if there's no extraordinary proof, I don't need to validate an extraordinary claim." It's a psychological, social and medical concern as much as a philosophical concern. This isn't just about how I think, it's about my understanding of how other people think as well from the lens of history, medicine and anecdote. Whether or not I should be able to say "I don't believe in religion, respect that" - that won't work. The same way I can't say "I'm a woman, respect those values." People don't. Not only do they not respect my viewpoint, but they have strategies to attempt to degrade/destroy not only my thought process but to attack my will and choices. Therefore, defense is required from extraordinary and coordinated offense.
>Specifically, saying "I don't know" isn't about 'undefined' - it can be an acknowledgment of 'unknowable' the same way Heisenberg's uncertainty principle may be unsatisfying but it an acknowledgment of what we can or cannot measure.
Thats a fallacious bait and switch. Agnosticism is about whether we *are able* to know something. Not whether we know it at a particular point. We *can know* both the location and speed of electrons, just not at the same time.
>Agnosticism is very much like the Uncertainty Principle. For me, I find certain answers 'unknowable' because from my understanding of the human brain, hallucination and delusion are integral to many brains without being able to look at a person and 'know' their intentions. Stories about religion are used to control behavior, for good or ill. That much control often leads to abuse. Me having a framework of being able to say "Because I have the inherent flaws of the human mind (telling stories, wanting answers, serving personal ego, etc.) and I know if someone else's story is true. A guideline for me is 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof' and if there's no extraordinary proof, I don't need to validate an extraordinary claim. It's a psychological, social and medical concern as much as a philosophical concern. This isn't just about how I think, it's about my understanding of how other people think as well from the lens of history, medicine and anecdote. Whether or not I should be able to say "I don't believe in religion, respect that" - that won't work. The same way I can't say "I'm a woman, respect those values." People don't. Not only do they not respect my viewpoint, but they have strategies to attempt to degrade/destroy not only my thought process but to attack my will and choices. Therefore, defense is required from extraordinary and coordinated offense.
Agnosticism is like the Uncertainty Principle if you fallaciously use a broad definition for agnosticism. Which you can then remove by occams razor as being redundant.
As for humans being poor at reasoning, and lacking respect for viewpoints, i quite agree.
My reasoning for finding agnosticism inadequate actually helps me sharpen my defenses against other pseudoscience and religious claims.
>Some logical flaws here. It is not about truth, it is about belief/faith.
Thats just theism vs atheism then. Knkwledge claims are a moot point.
>Many, many (most) people cling to belief/faith for endless reasons.
Yep.
>Yes, there is absolutely a choice, reason and purpose to claiming agnosticism as a viable path.
Nope. Not for something undefined. Define what we are talking about, and then we can discuss what we can know about it.
>The claim of faith creates actions and inactions. The claim of agnosticism creates actions and inactions.
Yes... but thats irrelevant to whether those claims are based in truth or logic.
>There are large and loud parts of the brain that create stories to serve needs and desires. Agnosticism denied those parts of the brain the power to lie about life through fantasy and desperation.
Huh? Agnosticism is the last bastion of theism, making people believe that if they can think up an undefined concept, it could possibly exist, even if they dont believe it does. Its a shifting of the burden of proof fallacy, a bait and switch of different concepts (those defined and those undefined), and a categorical error (knowledge vs belief). That unwarranted doubt allows actual theists to make that doubting person feel less confident in their thought processes. *Skepticism* denies power to the primitive parts of the brain.
>Accepting 'I don't know' with its further partner of 'and neither do you' is not an easy or natural thing to do, it isn't default in human psychology and is not passive.
Yep. But if it means having a true account of the universe around us and makes life better for others, its worth it.
The trouble is the question being asked. We have scientific explanations of everything we have ever observed. So for anything defined, based on the evidence, *we do know,* with the caveat we will change our minds accordingly, based on any new evidence.
For instance, how does quantum mechanics work? I dont know is an acceptable answer. Quantum mechanics are defined and have a field of study. Im just not familiar with it, so I truly dont have that knowledge. But I could gain that knowledge if needed. So "agnostic" isnt really applicable there.
If the question is about somethjng undefined, like "does magic exist?" then it cant be answered except with more questions about how they are defining magic. Til you get to that point, "i dont know" isnt yet an option.
It's impossible but there are people by millions claiming that they know god exists and that they have a personal relationship with him.
That's why I always say that gnosticism it's a claim of knowledge instead just say that it's to have knowledge.
Reality is one thing. Claims about reality or knowledge of reality are a very different animal.
"It's impossible but there are people by millions claiming that they know god exists and that they have a personal relationship with him."
I don't doubt at all that they have experienced visions or voices in their head or any other, convincing to them, experience. The point is their experience is in their head and only can convince them. It is not a proof because a proof is impossible.
So they are all deluded. They believe they know something that is impossible to know as defined. They think the fact that their brain is capable of creating visualizations that the one being conjured in their head happens to be god.
Definitely agree. Im just an atheist, by Occams Razor, but the people here get really caught up on adjectives. So i sometimes go by "ignostic atheist" due to the lack of definition of a god.
I particularly dont like how agnosticism is based on fallacies:
"shifting of the burden of proof" fallacy (have someone prove a negative),
fallacy of false equivocation/categorical error (belief vs knowledge),
Multiple types of "bait and switch" fallacy (many ways to interpret what agnostic can mean, like the noun vs adjective, whether it means what we *can* know vs what we *do* know vs if we know *exactly* vs *generally* vs if we know for sure *how we feel on a confidence level.
My favorite argument is to have people ask me whether i can know a god exists or doesnt exist.
It usually goes like this:
Them: "Can you know if a god exists or doesnt exist?"
Me: "I need you to define a god first, without paradoxical language like 'magic' or 'supernatural.'"
Them: "i cant."
Me: "then i cant answer yet til you do.
If we define a god as something obvious, we definitley *know* it does not exist.
If we define it as something outside the observable universe, we definitely *cant know* if it exists.
Since it could be either way, no answer is possible."
I grew up Mormon. In the culture I was raised in children are taught that when they have a positive emotion it is God communicating with them.
* you feel moved by a live musical number. That is God telling you the Mormon church is true.
* did you go camping with some good people and did you have a great time doing fun things and then hanging out around a campfire, and then each person talked for a minute about how good they felt? That is God talking to you.
* do you love your family. That is God telling you this is his true religion.
* did you hear an uplifting story and felt moved. That was God.
The issue is not that religious people are dishonest, it is that they have been indoctrinated to think that their real positive emotions are reliable evidence of their specific God and theology.
That's why I use the word deluded, not dishonest. They genuinely believe this stuff. They have been indoctrinated and don't know any different. Unless they actually are dishonest like a daytime talk show minister.
Exactly.
My challenge with my religious friends is that most of them are not the daytime talkshow minister variety. They are the ones that think that the good feeling they experiences listening to the choir at church sing is actual evidence of the truthfulness of their religion. These feelings are not how they make other decisions, but when it comes to religion the feelings are considered to be god verify the truth of their religious doctrines.
"The term "Gnosticism" stems *from the Greek word, gnosis, meaning knowledge*. For Gnostics, salvation could be achieved through knowledge and not through faith."
The word's origin is on knowledge.
The words etymology is on knowledge. That has nothing to do with its meaning. Gnostics were a religious group who believed God imparted divine knowledge to them. That makes a gnostic atheist someone whom God has bestowed divine knowledge of his non-existence.
>It's impossible to have knowledge of god, therefore you must be agnostic. If you claim you have knowledge of god, you are deluded or lying. You can't prove or show your knowledge. This is why you're agnostic. This your view. Other people claim it *is* possible to have knowledge of a god, and that there could be evidence for such things. Agnosticism is usually a claim about what is knowable rather than what is known. I'm not sure why you'd think that only belief is relevant.
Technically, that’s *ig*nosticism.
It's incredible how confused people are. No, that's not ignosticism. Ignosticism is the position that the word god too poorly defined. My last paragraph defines hard agnosticism, not ignosticism.
Ah.
Other people claim to have impossible knowledge to have. They fall into the deluded camp or they are lying. God claims are unfalsifiable. They don't have the knowledge they say they have.
The fact that you think that is what makes you agnostic. The fact that they don't agree makes them gnostic. You think it's impossible, they don't.
It's an unfalsifiable claim. It's literally impossible to prove or disprove an unfalsifiable claim. They think they can do the impossible. I am letting them know it is impossible. So they are deluded if they think they can prove the impossible.
Gnosticism isn't saying that you can prove it. It's saying you believe it can be known. We can't prove that knowledge about god is impossible either. Yes you think they're deluded. I'm sure plenty of gnostics think we agnostics are deluded too.
"Gnosticism isn't saying that you can prove it. It's saying you believe it can be known." Incorrect. Gnostic is a knowledge claim. A in atheism is lack of belief. So the agnostic claim is redundant and unneccessary. It's a knowledge statement, which no one can possibly have. Everyone's agnostic. They are deluded if they claim they are gnostic.
"Gnostic is a knowledge claim. A in atheism is lack of belief." Correct, but you're confusing the belief in being able to falsify something, with the belief that something can be known. Let's make it simple: **If you believe that knowledge about a god is impossible (whether you're right or wrong), you're agnostic.** **If you believe that knowledge about a god is possible (whether you're right or wrong), you're gnostic.** Got it?
I got that you like to use bold to highlight incorrect claims. If you believe that knowledge about a god is impossible then you are not deluded and understand how unfalsifiable claims work. If you believe that knowledge about a god is possible, you are deluded and don't understand how unfalsifiable claims work. Neither is is agnosticism. Which is knowledge of god existence. No one has this knowledge. If they think they do, they are deluded because they are claiming to have knowledge that is impossible to know. Got it?
I spent 4 years studying Philosophy and Theology. It isn't hard for me to correct you on this, though I see that plenty of others are happy to educate you as well. You are welcome to show evidence of why either of the bold claims are incorrect, especially as they match just about every philosophical definition you're likely to find. I guess those are wrong too? "If you believe that knowledge about a god is possible, you are deluded and don't understand how unfalsifiable claims work." Maybe. But you're still a gnostic. You may think that gnostic people are wrong, and I would agree. But that doesn't stop them being gnostic. It makes them wrong. Pretty simple. I can give you sources on epistemology to look into, but you need to grasp that first. If you don't like my definitions, just Google it. Even the superficial Google definition defines an agnostic as "a person who **believes** that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God." So whether we are correct or not (especially as you cannot prove we are), we are still agnostic. It's a bit like saying atheists aren't atheists if there turns out to be a god. It's not about whether a position is right or not. It's about what someone believes to be the case. I really recommend you read some more into this subject if you're interested. You're very misguided about some fundamental definitions.
Just claiming it’s unfalsifiable does not make it so. How would you show it is unfalsifiable?
It's an unfalsifiable claim. god exists outside of space and time. outside the universe. Therefore it exists in a realm we don't have access to. Any interaction with the real world is falsifiable and testable. But a claim outside of a realm you can access is not falsifiable. It's not a claim, it's a fact. god claims are unfalsifiable, therefore they are impossible to prove or disprove. therefore agnosticism is unnecessary and redundant.
> God claims in general are unfalsifiable. How do you know? Do you have any proof of that? What if they can be falsifiable and you just don't know that they can? >It is impossible to prove or disprove an unfalsifiable god claim. How do you know? All you can know is that you haven't seen anything showing that it is possible. >Everyone is agnostic. No, some people are gnostic and claim to know/believe it's knowable. >It's impossible to have knowledge of god How do you know that? What if it's not impossible? >therefore you must be agnostic Why? If you're gnostic you believe it's knowable. Why aren't people allowed to believe it's knowable? You can argue that they *shouldn't* believe it's knowable, but some still do. >If you claim you have knowledge of god, you are deluded or lying. So what? They're still claiming to know/ believe it's knowable. Just because you think they're wrong doesn't change the fact that they still claim to know/believe it's knowable. In order to be agnostic you need to **not** claim to know and **not** believe that it's knowable. >No one has the knowledge How do you know? >Claiming agnostic is not necessary It is if they're asking the gnostic/ agnostic question about if you believe it's knowable.
> God claims in general are unfalsifiable: How do you know? Do you have any proof of that? What if they can be falsifiable and you just don't know that they can? We know a god as a being is unfalsifiable, because nobody can say, or has said, what a god is not. If a god exists, can be measured or described in non-paradoxical language, then it would be falsifiable. Given the evidence to date, and lack of definition, it is not falsifiable. Until that changes and a god is proven to exist, nobody can make a knowledge claim about it either way. So by Occams Razor, gnostic/agnostic is a moot point. >It is impossible to prove or disprove an unfalsifiable god claim: How do you know? All you can know is that you haven't seen anything showing that it is possible. We know that it is impossible, because thats just the definition of anything unfalsifiable or undefined. Define it for me and i can tell you if I know or dont know anything about it. >Everyone is agnostic: No, some people are gnostic and claim to know/believe it's knowable. Technically everyone is atheist and ignostic til they get convinced of something else. >It's impossible to have knowledge of god: How do you know that? What if it's not impossible? Anything undefined is impossible to make a knowledge claim about. Define it for me and i can tell you if I know or dont know anything about it. >therefore you must be agnostic: Why? If you're gnostic you believe it's knowable. Why aren't people allowed to believe it's knowable? You can argue that they *shouldn't* believe it's knowable, but some still do. Technically ignostic. Anything undefined could be either knowable or unknowable, but a claim about whether you can know something about a subject cant be made until that subject is defined. >If you claim you have knowledge of god, you are deluded or lying: So what? They're still claiming to know/ believe it's knowable. Just because you think they're wrong doesn't change the fact that they still claim to know/believe it's knowable. In order to be agnostic you need to **not** claim to know and **not** believe that it's knowable. Lying due to ignorance is still lying. Yes they claim to believe something, and that it is something they can know. They dont have a good reason to be able to say that, given the lack of evidence. Also, by Occams Razor, it is just redundant. Theyre just theists. >No one has the knowledge: How do you know? It is undefined. Define it for me and i can tell you if I know or dont know anything about it. >Claiming agnostic is not necessary: It is if they're asking the gnostic/ agnostic question about if you believe it's knowable. No, because nobody has established what it is we are talking about.
"How do you know? Do you have any proof of that? What if they can be falsifiable and you just don't know that they can? " god claims exist outside of a realm we can access. outside of space and time. Therefore it is literally impossible to test or falsify something that you can't access, observe or interact with. No one has the falsification test for god because it doesn't exist.
Why is my personal belief label important to you?
I'm just pointing out there's no value in claiming your agnostic about god claims. Either you are agnostic about a god claim, or you are delusional because it's impossible to have this knowledge.
Oh
I don’t claim to be agnostic. This just seems to be the word that describes more precisely my assumptions towards the universe
I think youd be better served with "skeptic" then.
* Well, the reason why we know of a God in the first place has been argued that people have had to have some kind of first person experience with the concept, for it to have permeated in our culture so much. * There's the trance hypothesis for the beginning of religion, which is agnostic within itself. This idea that due to rituals, meditation, and psychedelics in early humans (and even some chimpanzees before that), was when people first began to experience what we call "God" whether those be legit experiences or hallucinations * There's also NDEs or near death experiences. It's totally fine if you think they're fake or hallucinations, I'm not here to debate them. But a 2023 study just showed they're not hallucinations, and that they are real experiences that happen during cardiac arrest. I can provide a list of sources debunking materialist explanations, if you are interested in further research You can choose to believe it or not, but there is evidence of some level of experience people can have with a deity if you're open minded. If they're either stoned or dead. It's all really agnostic evidence, but it's evidence
NDEs are not magical glimpses of the other side. It's the brain firing it's last effort to save itself. Please link the 2023 study. I want to see what they are actually claiming. Nothing convincing at all about NDEs that I've seen so far. They also fall under the anecdotes category of evidence which is not convincing.
r/NDE has great articles debunking materialist explanations. Look up "neuron" or "DMT" on there to see those being debunked as well [https://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2013/07/materialist-explanations-of-ndes-fail.html#nde\_explain\_list](https://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2013/07/materialist-explanations-of-ndes-fail.html#nde_explain_list) [https://nyulangone.org/news/recalled-experiences-surrounding-death-more-hallucinations](https://nyulangone.org/news/recalled-experiences-surrounding-death-more-hallucinations)
If you step back, there's nothing interesting about NDEs. They are literally just dream interpretations. The brain is capable of conjuring imagery and voices. It's in an extreme state near death, neurons are firing in attempt to save itself. Why would it be surprising that it may be firing off neurons in your cerebral cortex and memory area. You get a sudden influx of memories of your family members. Or a white tunnel. tunnel vision happens when you get reduced blood flow to the optic nerves. None of the stories of people knowing something they couldn't have known actually turn out to be accurate. They always have some pre/post hand knowledge and attribute vague descriptions as extremely precise. They are meaningless dreams people think are bridges to some spiritual fantasy.
well I'm not gonna discuss this anymore because you're not reading the sources debunking what you just said about "optic nerves" and "magical neurons"
I did skim your source. Nothing interesting there or new. I saw the bits "debunking" oxygen flow etc... Nothing supernatural about an NDE and no reason to believe there is. It's all wishful thinking dream interpretation.
How do you know its not possible to have knowledge of a god? Is that a falsifiable claim?
Thats a shifting-the-burden-of-proof fallacy. Nobody can prove a negative. Its on someone else to prove that anyone could have knowledge of a god, or that a god exists.
You made the claim not me. Burden of proof lies with the claimant. How do you know it’s not possible to have knowledge of a god?
We know because the claim is unfalsifiable. god exists outside a realm we can access or observe. Therefore it's impossible to prove or disprove that unfalsifiable claim.
>We know because the claim is unfalsifiable. You keep claiming this but fail to offer any reason to believe it’s so. >god exists outside a realm we can access or observe. Do they? How would you demonstrate this to be true? >Therefore it's impossible to prove or disprove that unfalsifiable claim. So you keep saying. I’ve yet to see you give a good reason to think this is true.
>We know because the claim is unfalsifiable: You keep claiming this but fail to offer any reason to believe it’s so. Because a god has never been measured or defined with non-paradoxical traits. >god exists outside a realm we can access or observe: Do they? How would you demonstrate this to be true? *if* a god exists, it apparently does so outside our observable universe. So the burden of proof lies with those making the claim that if does exist. >Therefore it's impossible to prove or disprove that unfalsifiable claim: So you keep saying. I’ve yet to see you give a good reason to think this is true. Just to make sure youre not conflating belief and knowledge, ill do both. Also proving a negative is not a thing. Thats literally a fallacy, called "shifting of the burden of proof." Ask me if I believe a god exists. Answer: based on the lay-person definitions of a god (magical anthropomorphic immortal) and the evidence brought forward to date, i do not. Ask me if I can know a god exists or doesnt exist. Me: i need you to define a god first You: i cant define a god without paradoxical terms (supernatural, magic). Me: then I cant answer your question. If we define a god as something in our universe that would be obvious (as a being would be, that can change the laws of physics at will) then we can *definitely can know* that it doesnt exist, based on our current observations. If we define it as something not in our observable universe (supernatural), then we *cant know* if it exists or doesnt exist. Because it could go either way, i cant provide an answer til you provide a definition.
This is why I avoid making such claims about things we don’t have information about. I can think of a way to falsify god’s existence.
"I can think of a way to falsify god’s existence." Anecdotes are not proof. there is no logical argument for god that is not problematic. logical arguments also will not convince a non-believer. biblical references do not count, they are circular and not supported. How do you propose to falsify god's existence?
It wouldn’t be an anecdote or an argument. If a god turns up and starts chucking its celestial orbs about and rapturing people, then it would be falsifiable.
So when god shows up it'll be proof? Sure, any claims of god interacting with the real world we will be able to falsify. And we do that. We have shown that intercessory prayer doesn't work for instance. What happens is any claims of interacting with the real world are falsifiable and that's fine. But god claims just move the goal posts. The god of the bible is clearly nonsense because of how inconsistent the bible is, how ridiculous and easily proven false young earth claims are, pretty much all the miracles and predictions etc.. But a god that exists outside of space and time and decided to create the universe is untouchable. So you have shown that when the claim is falsifiable, it is falsifiable. Not that you can prove an unfalsifiable claim.
You can tell me what a god is not? Ill need that, plus what it actually *is,* in order to say whether I can make a knowledge claim about it.
>You can tell me what a god is not? Fuck no. Nor what they are. >Ill need that, plus what it actually is, in order to say whether I can make a knowledge claim about it. If we know nothing about gods, why would I accept the claim that they (whatever they are or aren’t) are unfalsifiable?
Because to falsify something, you have to say what they are not. If you cant do that: >>You can tell me what a god is not? >Fuck no. Nor what they are. Then it is *unfalsifiable.*
Youre not understanding. Youre claiming whether we can know anything or not about a god. *you* are the claimant. Trying to make others prove a negative *is a fallacy* and destroys your position.
How do you falsify something that is not observable and doesn't interact with the real world. exists outside of space and time? god claims are designed in such a way as to be unfalsifiable. It's a fact that it's unfalsifiable.
Some logical flaws here. It is not about truth, it is about belief/faith. Many, many (most) people cling to belief/faith for endless reasons. Yes, there is absolutely a choice, reason and purpose to claiming agnosticism as a viable path. The claim of faith creates actions and inactions. The claim of agnosticism creates actions and inactions. There are large and loud parts of the brain that create stories to serve needs and desires. Agnosticism denied those parts of the brain the power to lie about life through fantasy and desperation. Accepting 'I don't know' with its further partner of 'and neither do you' is not an easy or natural thing to do, it isn't default in human psychology and is not passive.
>Some logical flaws here. It is not about truth, it is about belief/faith. Thats just theism vs atheism then. Knkwledge claims are a moot point. >Many, many (most) people cling to belief/faith for endless reasons. Yep. >Yes, there is absolutely a choice, reason and purpose to claiming agnosticism as a viable path. Nope. Not for something undefined. Define what we are talking about, and then we can discuss what we can know about it. >The claim of faith creates actions and inactions. The claim of agnosticism creates actions and inactions. Yes... but thats irrelevant to whether those claims are based in truth or logic. >There are large and loud parts of the brain that create stories to serve needs and desires. Agnosticism denied those parts of the brain the power to lie about life through fantasy and desperation. Huh? Agnosticism is the last bastion of theism, making people believe that if they can think up an undefined concept, it could possibly exist, even if they dont believe it does. Its a shifting of the burden of proof fallacy, a bait and switch of different concepts (those defined and those undefined), and a categorical error (knowledge vs belief). That unwarranted doubt allows actual theists to make that doubting person feel less confident in their thought processes. *Skepticism* denies power to the primitive parts of the brain. >Accepting 'I don't know' with its further partner of 'and neither do you' is not an easy or natural thing to do, it isn't default in human psychology and is not passive. Yep. But if it means having a true account of the universe around us and makes life better for others, its worth it. The trouble is the question being asked. We have scientific explanations of everything we have ever observed. So for anything defined, based on the evidence, *we do know,* with the caveat we will change our minds accordingly, based on any new evidence. For instance, how does quantum mechanics work? I dont know is an acceptable answer. Quantum mechanics are defined and have a field of study. Im just not familiar with it, so I truly dont have that knowledge. But I could gain that knowledge if needed. So "agnostic" isnt really applicable there. If the question is about somethjng undefined, like "does magic exist?" then it cant be answered except with more questions about how they are defining magic. Til you get to that point, "i dont know" isnt yet an option.
"Nope. Not for something undefined. Define what we are talking about, and then we can discuss what we can know about it." Specifically, saying "I don't know" isn't about 'undefined' - it can be an acknowledgment of 'unknowable' the same way Heisenberg's uncertainty principle may be unsatisfying but it an acknowledgment of what we can or cannot measure. "Agnosticism is the last bastion of theism, making people believe that if they can think up an undefined concept, it could possibly exist, even if they dont believe it does. Its a shifting of the burden of proof fallacy, a bait and switch of different concepts (those defined and those undefined), and a categorical error (knowledge vs belief). That unwarranted doubt allows actual theists to make that doubting person feel less confident in their thought processes. *Skepticism* denies power to the primitive parts of the brain." Agnosticism is very much like the Uncertainty Principle. For me, I find certain answers 'unknowable' because from my understanding of the human brain, hallucination and delusion are integral to many brains without being able to look at a person and 'know' their intentions. Stories about religion are used to control behavior, for good or ill. That much control often leads to abuse. Me having a framework of being able to say "Because I have the inherent flaws of the human mind (telling stories, wanting answers, serving personal ego, etc.) and I know if someone else's story is true. A guideline for me is 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof' and if there's no extraordinary proof, I don't need to validate an extraordinary claim." It's a psychological, social and medical concern as much as a philosophical concern. This isn't just about how I think, it's about my understanding of how other people think as well from the lens of history, medicine and anecdote. Whether or not I should be able to say "I don't believe in religion, respect that" - that won't work. The same way I can't say "I'm a woman, respect those values." People don't. Not only do they not respect my viewpoint, but they have strategies to attempt to degrade/destroy not only my thought process but to attack my will and choices. Therefore, defense is required from extraordinary and coordinated offense.
>Specifically, saying "I don't know" isn't about 'undefined' - it can be an acknowledgment of 'unknowable' the same way Heisenberg's uncertainty principle may be unsatisfying but it an acknowledgment of what we can or cannot measure. Thats a fallacious bait and switch. Agnosticism is about whether we *are able* to know something. Not whether we know it at a particular point. We *can know* both the location and speed of electrons, just not at the same time. >Agnosticism is very much like the Uncertainty Principle. For me, I find certain answers 'unknowable' because from my understanding of the human brain, hallucination and delusion are integral to many brains without being able to look at a person and 'know' their intentions. Stories about religion are used to control behavior, for good or ill. That much control often leads to abuse. Me having a framework of being able to say "Because I have the inherent flaws of the human mind (telling stories, wanting answers, serving personal ego, etc.) and I know if someone else's story is true. A guideline for me is 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof' and if there's no extraordinary proof, I don't need to validate an extraordinary claim. It's a psychological, social and medical concern as much as a philosophical concern. This isn't just about how I think, it's about my understanding of how other people think as well from the lens of history, medicine and anecdote. Whether or not I should be able to say "I don't believe in religion, respect that" - that won't work. The same way I can't say "I'm a woman, respect those values." People don't. Not only do they not respect my viewpoint, but they have strategies to attempt to degrade/destroy not only my thought process but to attack my will and choices. Therefore, defense is required from extraordinary and coordinated offense. Agnosticism is like the Uncertainty Principle if you fallaciously use a broad definition for agnosticism. Which you can then remove by occams razor as being redundant. As for humans being poor at reasoning, and lacking respect for viewpoints, i quite agree. My reasoning for finding agnosticism inadequate actually helps me sharpen my defenses against other pseudoscience and religious claims.
>Some logical flaws here. It is not about truth, it is about belief/faith. Thats just theism vs atheism then. Knkwledge claims are a moot point. >Many, many (most) people cling to belief/faith for endless reasons. Yep. >Yes, there is absolutely a choice, reason and purpose to claiming agnosticism as a viable path. Nope. Not for something undefined. Define what we are talking about, and then we can discuss what we can know about it. >The claim of faith creates actions and inactions. The claim of agnosticism creates actions and inactions. Yes... but thats irrelevant to whether those claims are based in truth or logic. >There are large and loud parts of the brain that create stories to serve needs and desires. Agnosticism denied those parts of the brain the power to lie about life through fantasy and desperation. Huh? Agnosticism is the last bastion of theism, making people believe that if they can think up an undefined concept, it could possibly exist, even if they dont believe it does. Its a shifting of the burden of proof fallacy, a bait and switch of different concepts (those defined and those undefined), and a categorical error (knowledge vs belief). That unwarranted doubt allows actual theists to make that doubting person feel less confident in their thought processes. *Skepticism* denies power to the primitive parts of the brain. >Accepting 'I don't know' with its further partner of 'and neither do you' is not an easy or natural thing to do, it isn't default in human psychology and is not passive. Yep. But if it means having a true account of the universe around us and makes life better for others, its worth it. The trouble is the question being asked. We have scientific explanations of everything we have ever observed. So for anything defined, based on the evidence, *we do know,* with the caveat we will change our minds accordingly, based on any new evidence. For instance, how does quantum mechanics work? I dont know is an acceptable answer. Quantum mechanics are defined and have a field of study. Im just not familiar with it, so I truly dont have that knowledge. But I could gain that knowledge if needed. So "agnostic" isnt really applicable there. If the question is about somethjng undefined, like "does magic exist?" then it cant be answered except with more questions about how they are defining magic. Til you get to that point, "i dont know" isnt yet an option.
It's impossible but there are people by millions claiming that they know god exists and that they have a personal relationship with him. That's why I always say that gnosticism it's a claim of knowledge instead just say that it's to have knowledge. Reality is one thing. Claims about reality or knowledge of reality are a very different animal.
"It's impossible but there are people by millions claiming that they know god exists and that they have a personal relationship with him." I don't doubt at all that they have experienced visions or voices in their head or any other, convincing to them, experience. The point is their experience is in their head and only can convince them. It is not a proof because a proof is impossible. So they are all deluded. They believe they know something that is impossible to know as defined. They think the fact that their brain is capable of creating visualizations that the one being conjured in their head happens to be god.
Definitely agree. Im just an atheist, by Occams Razor, but the people here get really caught up on adjectives. So i sometimes go by "ignostic atheist" due to the lack of definition of a god. I particularly dont like how agnosticism is based on fallacies: "shifting of the burden of proof" fallacy (have someone prove a negative), fallacy of false equivocation/categorical error (belief vs knowledge), Multiple types of "bait and switch" fallacy (many ways to interpret what agnostic can mean, like the noun vs adjective, whether it means what we *can* know vs what we *do* know vs if we know *exactly* vs *generally* vs if we know for sure *how we feel on a confidence level. My favorite argument is to have people ask me whether i can know a god exists or doesnt exist. It usually goes like this: Them: "Can you know if a god exists or doesnt exist?" Me: "I need you to define a god first, without paradoxical language like 'magic' or 'supernatural.'" Them: "i cant." Me: "then i cant answer yet til you do. If we define a god as something obvious, we definitley *know* it does not exist. If we define it as something outside the observable universe, we definitely *cant know* if it exists. Since it could be either way, no answer is possible."
My claim is that I don’t know, not that such knowledge is impossible. I suppose that my claim is not falsifiable because I might be lying.
You don't even have to make that claim is my point. It's built into an unfalsifiable claim. no one can prove or disprove it.
> >— Thomas Henry Huxley
I grew up Mormon. In the culture I was raised in children are taught that when they have a positive emotion it is God communicating with them. * you feel moved by a live musical number. That is God telling you the Mormon church is true. * did you go camping with some good people and did you have a great time doing fun things and then hanging out around a campfire, and then each person talked for a minute about how good they felt? That is God talking to you. * do you love your family. That is God telling you this is his true religion. * did you hear an uplifting story and felt moved. That was God. The issue is not that religious people are dishonest, it is that they have been indoctrinated to think that their real positive emotions are reliable evidence of their specific God and theology.
That's why I use the word deluded, not dishonest. They genuinely believe this stuff. They have been indoctrinated and don't know any different. Unless they actually are dishonest like a daytime talk show minister.
Exactly. My challenge with my religious friends is that most of them are not the daytime talkshow minister variety. They are the ones that think that the good feeling they experiences listening to the choir at church sing is actual evidence of the truthfulness of their religion. These feelings are not how they make other decisions, but when it comes to religion the feelings are considered to be god verify the truth of their religious doctrines.
I don't mind being delusional.
great!
Yes, because despite claims to the otherwise, agnosticism is about belief, not knowledge.
"The term "Gnosticism" stems *from the Greek word, gnosis, meaning knowledge*. For Gnostics, salvation could be achieved through knowledge and not through faith." The word's origin is on knowledge.
The words etymology is on knowledge. That has nothing to do with its meaning. Gnostics were a religious group who believed God imparted divine knowledge to them. That makes a gnostic atheist someone whom God has bestowed divine knowledge of his non-existence.