Weak Atheist vs. Agnostic

[Enmos]

Every position is an ideology.

That's not a position though. That's an ideology.

 

[Sarkus]

Modal verbs are always confusing, but I disagree. I don't think you can, at least not as a rule. I am not disputing one is capable of uttering a liklihood, but I see this as often mere speculation. Liklihoods, in this sense, are merely guesses from perspectives. I do not think they need to have any knowledge value at all. Some could, but not as a general rule.

First, there's a difference between having knowledge and something being knowable.
Second, the assignment of probability is unlikely to be accurate, and is "speculation" based on what evidence and information we do have... and as such changes with new evidence.

I see this kind of loopiness in the thread on Aliens.

The point remains that aliens are knowable - in as much as that IF they exist then they are capable of being known - but given the lack of actual knowledge we have (i.e. that our planet is the only one we know has life) then it is rather difficult to assign any meaningful probability, for example.

I get lost in this distinction.

Sorry - I stated it incorrectly:
"My point is that there is a hierarchy: a knowable for which there is zero evidence is, rationally, to be considered less likely than a knowable for which there is no evidence. "

There are many things we had no evidence for - black holes, say - which we then found. But despite this the lack of evidence, according to the above, would have been more convincing - meaning we could be more sure of their non-existence than that of God's non-existence.

If you think God is knowable and you think there is evidence for God then this would, rationally (for you), be more likely than something which is considered knowable but for which there is currently no evidence.
But if God is not knowable then it becomes meaningless to speak of "likelihood".
As for black holes, we had knowledge and inferred their existence, so I'm not sure it's as simple as saying that we had no evidence for them. We did - just not necessarily the right interpretation of that evidence.

Wouldn't the strong atheist say the evidence does not support a God, come on over to our team, if that is your reasoning?

Sure, and moving to strong-atheism is a matter of being convinced to the point you consider it worth having the belief in non-existence.

I am agnostic, myself, when it comes to this kind of deduction. I just find this kind of abstract deduction looks good on paper, but often does not work. The words make sense, but out in the real world.....To me it parallels the theists' deductive approaches to proving God.

I don't see the parallel. I'm not disproving God. At most I am saying that if God is knowable, I have no knowledge, and that lack of personal knowledge has some weight in one's rational assessment - and if God is unknowable...

But being a Deist. To me this is like saying you belong to the club of men who do not wear hats made of sunspots.

But deists believe that their God exists... they are strong-agnostic theists. It is a position of positive claim.

Amazing and nice to read, that bolded portion.

Cheers.

 

[Sarkus]

He is saying that a lack of evidence of something knowable is more damning then a lack of evidence for something unknowable, in this case God.

No I'm not.
I'm hoping my little slip in typing earlier didn't confuse...
But my point is that if something is unknowable then it is not comparable to something knowable. Something unknowable is meaningless with regard probabilities of existence etc.
One can only compare, for damning purposes (), the evidence that is available for knowable things.
Once you consider something unknowable, that is really as far as I think you can take it. "Q: How likely is it to exist? A: It is unknowable."

I think this leads to some odd conclusions FOR AN AGNOSTIC. Because it means one ends up with two liklihoods, one for God and one for knowable things - of which it is likely we will find new examples of, for which we have no current evidence - with theism coming out as less damaged by a lack of evidence.

Hopefully I've clarified my position, but even without it, I would say most theists consider God knowable... and a lack of evidence for a knowable can be seen, by many, as damning - with many (strong) atheists being convinced by that lack.

 

[wynn]

The thing is that you could have knowledge of God - and not know it is of God.

Imagine if God had a body at least this big:

and you had no helicopter nor could otherwise see the setting from a distance -
and you happened to find yourself at his feet:

You wouldn't know what it is that you are looking at.

 

[Pineal]

First, there's a difference between having knowledge and something being knowable.

Agreed.

Second, the assignment of probability is unlikely to be accurate, and is "speculation" based on what evidence and information we do have... and as such changes with new evidence.

Right but notice that in language there is no distinction between assertions that may well be completely meaningless - regarding liklihood - and those where what is considered evidence actually helps give the guesser a clue.

The point remains that aliens are knowable - in as much as that IF they exist then they are capable of being known

Can we know this?` Must an alien species be anything like us. Rather than say some silicon based life form with recognizable technology, couldn't they be something we cannot sense and would not know where to look and would not recognize as life if we did?

I think also, this leaves the door open to challenge your agnositicism - the position that God is unknowable. It seems possible that an alien intelligent species might be capable making an incredibly advanced simulation, in which an intelligent species is allowed to develop - much like we have managed with evolving patterns in computers, but at a vastly more complex level where sentience comes in. In such a case these aliens could very likely communicate on occasion with individuals in the simulation, pehaps even demonstrating power over 'natural laws' as evidence to such chosen ones. They could then tell them that they live in a simulation and something about themselves. If one grants such a pattern might be possible with an advanced civilizations, even ours someday, it seems hasty to say that God could not also do something like this.

In a sense I am playing off Aliens would be knowable as a generalization against God must be unknowable.

- but given the lack of actual knowledge we have (i.e. that our planet is the only one we know has life) then it is rather difficult to assign any meaningful probability, for example.

Ah, good, that's what I think.

Sorry - I stated it incorrectly:
"My point is that there is a hierarchy: a knowable for which there is zero evidence is, rationally, to be considered less likely than a knowable for which there is no evidence. "

I suspect this is still wrong. I suspect one of these should be UNknowable. If not, I am still confused. To me zero and no function as synonyms and I do rather hope I am right here or I think we are in for a long headscratcher. Ah, I see now that when I quote it seems it took away your having crossed out 'no'. Oh, dear. EDIT: Amazingly it comes back when I post.

If you think God is knowable and you think there is evidence for God then this would, rationally (for you), be more likely than something which is considered knowable but for which there is currently no evidence.
But if God is not knowable then it becomes meaningless to speak of "likelihood".
As for black holes, we had knowledge and inferred their existence, so I'm not sure it's as simple as saying that we had no evidence for them.

At some point we had no evidence for them.

We did - just not necessarily the right interpretation of that evidence.

Oh, what a potential gray area that painted. But I am too lazy to go there.

Sure, and moving to strong-atheism is a matter of being convinced to the point you consider it worth having the belief in non-existence.

Well, you already have a belief in non-knowableness.

I don't see the parallel. I'm not disproving God. At most I am saying that if God is knowable, I have no knowledge,

OK, I thought we were asserting God's unknowableness at some point.

and that lack of personal knowledge has some weight in one's rational assessment - and if God is unknowable...

But deists believe that their God exists... they are strong-agnostic theists. It is a position of positive claim.

Oh, absolutely. My hat club would have to believe that the hats made of sunspots exist somewhere else, that they have wandered off. It was more the practicalness of such a belief in either case.

I cannot imagine a reason to try to convince another person of deism or how it would affect anything I did and thought other than in those moments I nodded to myself about the God that was utterly irrevelent and not present.

I suppose it might give one grounds to be resentful. That could be soothing on bad evenings.