Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:05, 22 September 2005

• Archive 1 - up to January 21 2004
• Archive 2 - up to May 3 2004
• Archive 3 - sections started 2004-05/2005-02-12.

Taking reasonable exception to the blatant bias in the statement, "Agnosticism differs from atheism in that (strong) atheists claim there is no God"

"There is no God" is not a claim (a statement standing in need of proof), it is the denial (the negation in logic) of one. -- 207.200.116.204 17:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Moved from the article:

"There is no God" is not a claim (a statement standing in need of proof), it is the denial (the negation in logic) of one. -- 207.200.116.204 17:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

One point of view has it that "Theists and strong atheists make statements about the world: the theist, that 'God exists', the strong atheist, that 'God does not exist'. Agnostics make the statement about these statements, 'one cannot know whether or not God exists'."

Two objections to the above point of view are:

1. How could anyone possibly know that it is impossible to know it if some hypothetical thing were to exist and interact with the world? Any such interaction would leave some kind of trail of evidence that could be demonstrated, wouldn't it?

And 2. The argument that there might actually BE (exist) an invisible deity is what is known as an EXISTENTIAL statement, not a "statement about the world" (universal statement) as the writer of the above paragraph asserts. The null, 'There is no invisible deity in evidence in the universe' is a universal statement (statement about the universe).

Thanks for your input, .204. In my dictionary, to make a claim is to make an assertion or to state something one takes to be true, ...

... which stand in need of proof.

not to make a statement that is in need of proof.

Any existential statement like, "There might be an invisible God" is an assertion that stands in need of proof. The denial is not an assertion, it is the denial of one, so it does not stand in need of proof. Look up fallacy of trying to shift the burden of proof to the non-believers.

But perhaps you would accept the wording "Agnosticism differs from atheism in that (strong) atheists assert that there is no God"? Banno 21:38, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

"There is no God" is not a claim (statement standing in need of proof), it is the denial (negation) of one.

Your (1) may indeed be correct, but nevertheless, it is what agnostics claim.

I am agnostic, and I do not claim any such thing, since it is nonsense. See Thomas Huxley's excoriation of the Christian Belief, "Agnosticism vs. Christianity." There you will find that agnosticism is not about knowledge at all, it is about the folly of believing things without evidence. Huxley says, and I agree, that the reasonable course is to unabashedly deny and repudiate any religious doctrine like Christianity or Islam for example, that there are existential propositions that people ought to believe without logically satisfactory evidence. Have you read it?

Yes, I have read it. Knowledge is belief that is both true and justified - see epistemology. Huxley was certainly aware of Plato, and was making use of the Theaetetus account. Huxley is advocating justified beliefs over unjustified - and so knowledge over belief. In other words, he is talking about knowledge. Banno 09:09, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Your equivocation, "Knowledge is belief" is sophistry, a standard obscurantist attempted conflation of scientific knowledge and religius belief, two entirely different things. That will fool only the most gullible. You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time. --207.200.116.204 22:15, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why "Dogs exist" is not a statement about the world - that it contains dogs. That is, not all statements about the world are universals. Also you might be aware that U(x)f(x) is equivalent to ~E(x)~f(x) - that is, all universal statements can be re-parsed as existential statements.

Only if you are trying to sell sophistry. Existential statements and universal statements are two different things. And why are you trying to change the subject to dogs? Dogs are known to exist. Look up 'conjecture' to learn about what we are discussing here. -- 207.200.116.204 07:12, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

There is a general policy on the Wiki of assuming good faith. Please do not accuse me of sophistry - I find it offensives.

I am not accusing you of anything, I am discussing content, not contributor, as per WikiPolicy Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks.

Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users.

I am taking exception to the content you are contributing because an attempted conflation of knowledge based on proof and religious belief without evidence, which are two entirely different things, fits the definition of sophistry. It doesn't stand up to critical thinking.

I am afraid you are mistaken, unless you are using unusual quantifiers. Check any introductory text on predicate calculus for confirmation.

A claim is not a conjecture. Banno 09:09, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

There you go again, trying to change the subject, first to dogs, whinc are known to exist, now to math, which has nothing to do with what we are discussing. We are not discussing math, we are discussing the logic of plain language statements, informal logic

Any statement like, 'There might be an invisible God' remains conjecture until proof is produced, where proof is the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance of a truth, or the process of establishing the validity of a statement by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning. --207.200.116.204 21:57, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Others will fix the problems you have introduced into the article. Some arguments are not worth the trouble, and I think this is one of them. Banno 00:06, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Translation: "Banno cannot come up with any reasonable objection to what was said, so Banno will just declare victory by the popularity of his bias and run like a scared rabit away from any reasonable discussion he cannot handle." -- 67.182.157.6

Yep. Or that Banno has more productive things to do. Banno 05:33, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Allright, how about we say "Agnosticism differs from atheism in that (strong) atheists say there is no God". Athiests say there is no god. The purpose of this article is not discuss whether god has any way of being said to exist. see Existance of God. correct me if I'm wrong but say doesn't imply anything about whether or not what is being said could be true. I am changing the article as above, however if someone reverses this I won't fight over it. Please considder whether these small semantic bias' can be fixed simply before engaging in a edit war. Olleicua 21:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

That just isn't true. All atheists do not assert that there is no god. Only strong atheists assert that there is no god. Weak atheists that are not strong atheists make no such assertion. Because theism is such a well definied category, not theism (atheism or more correctly weak atheism (the more general category)) is a very broad and general category. Babies, vegetables, and non-believers all fall into the category of atheist. And unless you make agnosticism a very quirky definition, not A or B is a subset of not A and agnostics are a subset of weak atheist. If you are going to say anything related to that at all it should be something to the tune of "Agnostics do not deny the existence of god and are not (strong) atheists". Your statement has misleading wording and the first clause is incorrect.(CHF 10:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC))

List latest issue on top

cf Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment#Article content

This is not the RfC page, which is a special case.

There shouldn't be any 'special cases', WikiPolicy should be universally consistent, don't you think, so things are done the same way on all pages?. --207.200.116.204 21:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

The convention is that new issues are added to the bottom of the page.

From my point of view, the sensible thing to do is to put the latest hot topic at the top so it is easier to find without having to wade through reams of stale issues; but you don't see it that way? Are you accustomed to getting your way on everything? --207.200.116.204 21:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Check out the order of the dates of the first entry of each section on this page - they progress from oldest at the top to youngest at the bottom. I will leave it to some else to re-move this to the bottom of the page, were it should be. Banno 08:10, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Ha! Some sections of this article do not conform to this convention - I should have checked first. But you will find in Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines#Layout: "Proceed vertically: Within each topic, the further down the contribution to talk, the later it was made."

Yeah, WITHIN each topic, that makes sense, just like we are doing right here, but the latest hot topic should be added at the top instead of buried under reams of stale issues, don't u stink? --207.200.116.204 21:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Also, you might note that the "Post a comment" feature places comments new sections at the end of the discussion, not at the top. Banno 09:25, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Then it's broken and needs to be fixed. How do I do that? Do I have to put in a Request For Change to the software? --207.200.116.204 21:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Try it, and let us know what response you get... Banno 23:59, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Please discuss any proposals to change the guideline on having new sections at the top at Misplaced Pages talk:Talk page guidelines, not here. — Jeandré, 2005-07-24t22:48z

Removed Large Section

Here is the section I removed:

One point of view has it that "Theists and strong atheists make statements about the world, the theist that 'God exists', the strong atheist that 'God does not exist'. Agnostics make the statement about these statements, 'one cannot know whether or not God exists'."

Two objections to the above point of view are:

1. How could anyone possibly know that it is impossible to know it if some hypothetical thing were to exist and interact with the world? Any such interaction would leave some kind of trail of evidence that could be demonstrated, wouldn't it?

And 2. The argument that there might actually BE (exist) an invisible deity is what is known as an EXISTENTIAL statement, not a "statement about the world" (universal statement) as the writer of the above paragraph asserts. The null, 'There is no invisible deity in evidence in the universe' is a universal statement (statement about the universe).

Agnosticism has suffered more than most expressions of philosophical position from terminological vagaries. Examples come from attempts to associate agnosticism with atheism. The "freethinking" tradition of atheism calls a lack of belief in the existence of any deities, "weak atheism" (or "negative atheism"). However, one can still draw a distinction between weak atheism and agnosticism by drawing a distinction between belief and knowledge, leading those who believe knowledge of God is not possible to claim agnosticism is about knowledge, while atheism/theism is about the lack of belief. Agnostic atheism is a combination of both.

I removed that section because:

• it is badly written (lots of questions)
• it is pretty blatant POV (assertions not attributed to any source)

I know we don't all agree on the definition of agnosticism, but the Variations subcategory should not have back and forth fighting. The part about "as the writer of the above paragraph asserts" is just unprofessional and silly. This is an encyclopedia, not a discussion board. Let each section say what it wants to say, and discuss your disagreement with "the writer of the above paragraph" here on the Talk page. Miketwo 22:09, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Belief system

Agnosticism is a philosophic position - that knowledge is not possible. Some agnostics believe in god & some do not. To say agnosticism is a belief system is to fly in the face of the meaning of the word to put forth a POV agenda. --JimWae 01:06, 2005 September 6 (UTC)

To what proposition do you claim agnostics assent? You are pushing an agenda & a POV. The vandalism is all yours. Your comments below are non-responsive, saying only to look elsewhere - --JimWae 01:15, 2005 September 6 (UTC)

Definition of "Belief" as applied to Agnosticism

Misconstruing the meaning of "belief" is the core of the tug-of-war content confusion here. Misplaced Pages has a fine definition of belief, and we should agree to abide by its very reasonable content.

There is otherwise a glaring lack of clear thinking here regarding what a "belief" (or ethereal "lack of belief") is. Also, see Merriam-Webster's definition of "belief" . It is otherwise 'dancing on air' to not ground this discussion in commonly accepted definitions of words.--66.69.219.9 01:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but for more fun check out the history of the word belief, for what its worth. Khirad 06:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Whither Robert G. Ingersoll?

Before anything anybody want me to write agnostic in Greek ? I don't know if its been seen as unecessary, or if nobody else wanted to do it? Well, I think this is it nonetheless: ἄγνωστος.

Now, forgive me for interrupting the discussions on the finer points of style and the minutiæ of logic, but I am wondering about a question of simple content. Most namely, why isn't Robert Ingersoll mentioned? I checked the talk archives and didn't see him. If I missed him, I apologize. If there's a good reason he's not here I also apologize. His Why I am Agnostic is brilliant in the way he is able to communicate the loftiest ideas in the plainest of speech. When people want to know what I 'believe' I have them read that speech. Perhaps, a noteworthy counterpoint to the scientific oriented Agnostic thinkers already mentioned in the article for his unpretentious, "folksy" style alone. His ability to see things abstractly, offers a different perspective from the hyperfocused Huxley (whom I admire for that ability). For those not familiar with him (I'm not implying any of you do or don't) -in addition to the wiki article - there is a good, brief column on the contemporary views of him here. If he has been left out for reasons of modern influence (and lack thereof), his indirect influence, is perhaps, at least worthy of a footnote. For those with some time on their hands there is his complete works at infidels.org.

I'm not saying I don't like what is in the article at all! I just thought it was odd not to find Ingersoll here in addition to the other great Agnostic thinkers. I might also suggest, though he was more famous as a lawyer, Clarence Darrow's Why I Am An Agnostic. I realize what I've written is preaching to the choir and bordering on chutzpah, so thank you for being patient with me! Khirad 06:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

This is my first attempt to contribute to a talk page, so I hope I'm not screwing up. How long does a warning remain when there is a dispute about neutrality? I'd have thought that the complaint has been sufficiently answered, so the warning could be removed, or a vote could be taken, etc. Should I RTFM? Where is the Manual? Are these questions inappropriate here? Rats 21:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

These questions are perfectly legitimate on the talk page. Only they should go to the end of the page, like any new discussion. Here you are :) You can either be bold and remove the tag yourself or, if you think some people would object, start a vote Jules LT 14:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I did it... anyone feel free to put back

Template:POV-because

so we can know why... I think the standard NPOV tag shouldn't be used at all, in fact. Jules LT 15:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

129.24.95.224's view on agnosticism

My point is this: if you are going to do away with something (some long-established convention, such as God, or the monarchy, that has been accepted as a cornerstone of life for centuries, and has been guiding things), you had better think about it first. ... User:129.24.95.224

Misplaced Pages is not a forum. This page is for discussion of specific edits to the article, not a place for evangelism. Banno 00:38, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I got a bit carried out. I moved my (response) "contribution" to my talk page. Jules LT 04:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

You forgot to move it. I just did it for you, okay?--Adrigo 21:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I did move my contribution, only not his... I wouldn't want anyone to think I wrote something like that. I should have cleaned it all up anyway, you're right: my mistake. Jules LT 20:57, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Beliefs as possibilities?

"Some Agnostics embrace all beliefs as possibilities, albeit of variable likeliness; they do not confirm or reject any belief, and assert only their own unability to know for sure."

I know from personal experience that this view is shared by some agnostics, at least. If you're tempted to rv, please comment beforehand. Jules LT 18:28, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

"Some Agnostics embrace all beliefs as possibilities". Maybe. But who? And where? And what exactly did they say? We need some actual citations from actual Agnostics. Huxley was certainly willing to reject some beliefs, as an acquaintance with what he actually wrote would soon reveal. And that's what this article needs in order to avoid all the POV squabbling. It's obvious that the word agnostic has been used in divergent ways: the entry just needs to tell the reader how these ways have been characterised, by who, and where and when. --Dannyno 20:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know of a precise author who said it, but then again I'm not that familiar with that kind of litterature. You can say it's unsourced, but certainly not that it's nonsense. The argument goes thus:

Any belief can actually be accurate, as contradictory as it may seem, because the contradictions may only be misconceptions on our part, be it from misjudgement or from lack of appropriate data (see Descartes's "evil demon" hypothesis or the "brain in a jar" hypothesis). This is only a recognition of one's unability to know anything for sure. Un-knowledge; A-gnosticism; it's only an extension of that principle.

But since, to live, we must act as if some specific set of facts are true. We use our experience and confront it to the facts to deem many things to be less likely. It doesn't make them impossible, but we have to act as if they were because one can't remain in doubt and inactive forever (David Hume, somewhere).

One example I really like is how a turkey, from experience, knows that whenever the farmer comes out every morning he's going to give it grain. In the same way, we know that the sun will come up, the experiment will work again, such behaviour will have such consequences... Only one day the farmer might be coming with an axe. If someone had told you otherwise, you wouldn't have believed him. And you would have been right, because you simply can't believe whatever you're told. Especially when that's against all experience (Bertrand Russell's inductivist turkey)

Oops. look at what I found:

As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think that I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because, when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods."

— Bertrand Russell, Collected Papers, vol. 11, p. 91

There is no logical impossibility in the hypothesis that the world sprang into being five minutes ago, exactly as it then was, with a population that "remembered" a wholly unreal past. There is no logically necessary connection between events at different times; therefore nothing that is happening now or will happen in the future can disprove the hypothesis that the world began five minutes ago."

— Bertrand Russell, The Analysis of Mind, 1921, pp. 159–60; cf. Philosophy, Norton, 1927, p. 7

Jules LT 16:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Jules, you argue, "Any belief can actually be accurate." What are you arguing here, that there might be a God because there is no proof there is not? That is the height of theist bias, and rejected as the logical fallacy of argument _ad ignorantiam_! Please stop trying to sneak your theist bias into Misplaced Pages. There is no way to know that such a statement as "There might be a God" is accurate unless there is proof (logically satisfactory evidence). That is precisely the problem with religious belief not supported by logically satisfactory evidence, and that is why T. Huxley says in "Agnosticism and Christianity" (1899) that agnostics who are also atheist (because anyone who is not theist is atheist) rightfully deny and repudiate any doctrine like Christianity or Islam for example, that there are propositions like the tenets of Christianity or Islam for example, that people ought to believe without logically satisfactory evidence. Any question on this point sir?--Adrigo 18:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

First things first, please do not make assumptions about my beliefs. I'm an agnostic, only keen on NPOV. When there is a bias in what I say, it tends to be towards strong atheism, because I believe a God's existence to be extremely unlikely. Btw, theist POVs are absolutely legitimate anywhere on wikipedia too, as long as they are sourced and exposed in a NPOV way.

It is the very essence of the agnostic position that, since you can't prove either that God exists or not (or couldn't so far), one doesn't know. There is no need to prove that "maybe". I dislike and deny all religious dogmas and doctrines because they assert knowledge where it appears to me that there is neither knowledge nor convincing evidence, and there is convincing evidence that these harm people and societies. What I do not deny is that they might be right. I only think this is extremely unlikely.

It appears to me that this view, on the whole, was shared by Bertrand Russell. From wikiquotes:

Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.

Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?

When one admits that nothing is certain one must, I think, also admit that some things are much more nearly certain than others. It is much more nearly certain that we are assembled here tonight than it is that this or that political party is in the right. Certainly there are degrees of certainty, and one should be very careful to emphasize that fact, because otherwise one is landed in an utter skepticism, and complete skepticism would, of course, be totally barren and completely useless.

Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?

The true function of logic,...as applied to matters of experience,...is analytic rather than constructive; taken a priori, it shows the possibility of hitherto unsuspected alternatives more often than the impossibility of alternatives which seemed prima facie possible. Thus, while it liberates imagination as to what the world may be, it refuses to legislate as to what the world is.

Our Knowledge of the External World

The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way. Persecution is used in theology, not in arithmetic, because in arithmetic there is knowledge, but in theology there is only opinion.

An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish

And in case you want to oppose other citations of Russell (earlier or later), consider this:

I have been accused of a habit of changing my opinions … I am not myself in any degree ashamed of . What physicist who was already active in 1900 would dream of boasting that his opinions had not changed during the last half century? … kind of philosophy that I value and have endeavoured to pursue is scientific, in the sense that there is some definite knowledge to be obtained and that new discoveries can make the admission of former error inevitable to any candid mind. For what I have said, whether early or late, I do not claim the kind of truth which theologians claim for their creeds. I claim only, at best, that the opinion expressed was a sensible one to hold at the time … I should be much surprised if subsequent research did not show that it needed to be modified. intended as pontifical pronouncements, but only as the best I could do at the time towards the promotion of clear and accurate thinking. Clarity, above all, has been my aim.

Russell's own preface to The Bertrand Russell Dictionary of Mind, Matter and Morals (ed., Lester E. Denonn), Citadel Press, 1993

So even if he might have thought otherwise at some times (which, from his adulthood on, I doubt), he believed it at some point and some still believe it nowadays.

I know you'd love to quote that back to me:

I am as firmly convinced that religions do harm as I am that they are untrue.

Why I Am Not a Christian and Other Essays (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1957), p. vi.

but Russell uses the word convinced, asserting that this is an opinion stemming from previous experience. Opinions are subject to change. Employing the words I know here would have been unthinkable for Russell.

Now, do we agree that at least in some strands of agnosticism it is considered that "nothing is certain", including our being here and now typing on a computer? Meaning that a religion's seemingly stupid dogma is only extremely unlikely, because we don't know for sure it's false: "nothing is certain". The unprovability (or unproved status) of absurdities' absurdity might not be the core thesis, but it is a necessary implication.

Note that this prevents one in no way from disapproving of dogmas, since they hold some things to be certain. As unlikely as it might seem, one of these dogmas might still be accurate. If they didn't see God face to face or something like that, their reasons to believe so would still be wrong.

P.S: Please do not respond with personal attacks. Jules LT 20:44, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

There might be a God because there is no proof that hypothesis is false?

Dear Jules,

I am not attacking you, sir, I am just trying to get a straight (and hopefully brief) answer to my question, understand? You insist, "Any belief might be accurate." So are you arguing that there might be a God because there is no proof that hypothesis is false? --Adrigo 23:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

"Please stop trying to sneak your theist bias into wikipedia" is a personal attack (and deeply inaccurate), so if you won't apologize, I'd rather you didn't deny it.

I very concisely answered your question a few lines below it, but it appears you didn't read anything. Here it is again if you can't be bothered to find it:

It is the very essence of the agnostic position that, since you can't prove either that God exists or not (or couldn't so far), one doesn't know. There is no need to prove that "maybe". I dislike and deny all religious dogmas and doctrines because they assert knowledge where it appears to me that there is neither knowledge nor convincing evidence, and there is convincing evidence that these harm people and societies. What I do not deny is that they might be right. I only think this is extremely unlikely.

I'm not saying that since there's no proof either way, there is a God, I'm saying that since there's no proof either way it might actually be either way. That's called incertainty. "might". "maybe". That when you don't know which way thing are they might be either way is no logical fallacy, it's a truism.

Also, agnostics are also atheists in the sense that they don't have a positive belief in the existence of God. They are not theists. They do not have a positive belief that God does not exist either, because that's what being an agnostic means. So agnostics do not, as you put it, "rightfully deny" any doctrine: they just consider that these beliefs are not justified; this does not logically imply that they are false.

As for the wordiness: I was answering Dannyo's question, asking who held what has been repeatedly called "nonsense" in this article to be true and where. That is Bertrand Russell, in many places including his most relevant texts here: "Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?" and "Why I Am Not a Christian". And I want it included in the article somewhere, in a form that is understandable to everyone, that some agnostics extend their a-gnosis to other questions than God's existence. To everyone here: Please read through the quotes, try to understand,ask questions if you don't and help reword in a way that is comprehensible to all."Some Agnostics embrace all beliefs as possibilities, albeit of variable likeliness; they do not confirm or reject any belief, and assert only their own unability to know for sure." was fine by me, but it appears to be unclear to most.

Jules LT 14:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Dear Jules,

T. Huxley says in "Agnosticism and Christianity" (1899) that agnostics rightfully deny and repudiate any doctrine like Christianity or Islam for example, that there are propositions like the tenets of Christianity or Islam for example, that people ought to believe without logically satisfactory evidence. How do you reconcile that with your argument _ad ignorantiam_ that there might be a God because there is no proof that conjecture is false? --Adrigo 15:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Dear, dear Adrigo,

Just because he invented the word, that doesn't make Huxley the only agnostic ever and his own precise view on the world is not the definition of an agnostic. From semantics and from the views of other reputed agnostics such as Russell, even things as absurd as "The world was created 5 minutes ago" might actually be true.

As for the "ad ignorantiam" argument, i suggest you don't use words you apparently do not fully understand just because they sound scientific and appear to give you some kind of authority. If I used an argument "ad ignorantiam", I'd be saying "You can't prove that God doesn't exists, therefore he exists". What I'm actually saying is "You can't prove that God doesn't exist, therefore the possibility still exists"; as applied to the existence of God, that is the fundamental stance of agnosticism; some agnostics apply it to all knowledge.

First phrase of the article: "Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the truth values of certain claims—particularly theological claims regarding the existence of God, gods, or deities—are unknown, inherently unknowable, or incoherent, and therefore irrelevant" (emphasis added). The stance that the truth value of these claims is merely unknown at the moment means that maybe at some point it will be known that the claim is false, and maybe it will be known that it is true. I hold this stance because we haven't proven yet that these claims are unknowable.

Jules LT 17:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Dear Jules,

Your argument for the existence of God, "You can't prove that God doesn't exist, therefore the possibility still exists" is definitely argument _ad ignorantiam_ fallacy. You are trying to shift the burden of proof to those who do not believe your proposition that there is a possibility there is an invisible God is true. The argumentum _ad ignorantiam_ fallacy is committed whenever it is argued that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false. Understand? T. Huxley points out in "Agnosticism and Christianity" (1899) that agnostics are those who rightfully deny and repudiate any doctrine like Christianity or Islam for example, that there are propositions like the tenets of Christianity or Islam for example, that people ought to believe without logically satisfactory evidence. How do you reconcile that with your argument _ad ignorantiam_ for God that there might be a God because there is no proof that conjecture is false?--Adrigo 19:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

You just copy-pasted your previous comment or what? I don't know the English ensemblistic notation, so I'm going to explain it with words:

• Let's take proposition G="God exists". We have proposition non-G="God does not exist".
• Let's take proposition P="G is proved" and propostion Q="non-G is proved" (Q isn't non-P: non-P="G isn't proved").
• Proposition M="God might exist" can be reworded as = . Since (G and non-G) is the ensemble of all possibilities, this is equivalent to "non-P and non-Q". M=(non-P and non-Q)
• So we have non-M=(P or Q), which translates as:

Saying that the proposition "God might exist" is false equates to saying that "God's existence has been proved" or "God's inexistence has been proved".

And please don't enter that quote from Huxley again. Even if he coined the word, he doesn't have authority as to what an agnostic is, only as to what kind of agnostic he was, so this is a fallacy ad verecundiam. See? I can do latin too.

Jules LT 20:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, it appears that I've trusting you too much as for your quotes. The quote that you mention actually reads:

" it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what Agnosticism asserts; and, in my opinion, it is all that is essential to Agnosticism. That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without logically satisfactory evidence; and that reprobation ought to attach to the profession of disbelief in such inadequately supported propositions."

Huxley does nut repudiate these doctrine because he considers them false, he repudiates them because he considers them unjustified. Not only that: he considers that saying that these beliefs ar untrue is reprehensible for the same reasons.

Reminder: that I have provided another argument doesn't dispense you from responding to the first one.

Jules LT 20:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand your argument, Jules. Will you please just give me some brief straight answers to the following questions, instead of answering questions I have not asked?

1. Just give me a simple yes or no, are you still sticking to your argument for God that "There might be a God" is true because there is no proof that conjecture is false?

2. Isn't it true that Huxley points out in "Agnosticism and christianity" (1899) that agnostics are those who rightfully deny and repudiate any doctrine like Christianity or Islam for example, that there are propositions like the tenets of Christianity or Islam for example, that people ought to believe without logically satisfactory evidence?--Adrigo 22:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

What I've been explaining answers your questions entirely.

1: NO. The initial statement is not, as you unexplicitly reword it: "There is no proof against the statement (God might exist)". The initial statement is "There is no proof that (God exists) and there is no proof that (God does not exist)", which not only implies that "God might (or might not) exist", but is also logically equivalent to it.

As long as there is no proof either way, we don't know, hence the word "might (or might not)". When there is no proof, there is uncertainty. An ad absurdum fallacy is when you consider that since there is no proof that the proposition is false, there is certainty that it is true.

2: YES, BUT: Huxley denies and repudiate "that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without logically satisfactory evidence". He does not deny the truth of these doctrines, he denies that people ought to believe them. Furthermore, he asserts that "That reprobation ought to attach to the profession of disbelief in such inadequately supported propositions". Which means that saying these doctrines are not true is as bad as saying that they are true. If you want to refute that, try using precise quotes: it might become much harder.

Jules LT 23:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

"Various meanings" top section

As I suggested on the Atheism page, I think that here too we need to insert a typology of the different kinds of atheism that exist (before the views of precise philosophers). I think that we can distinguish 3 kinds: those who considerthat the answer to the question "Does God exist?" is unknowable, those who consider that we just don't know and the solution might, in principle, be known at some point, and those who consider that the question itself is incoherent (I think only logical positivists qualify for the last one, though).

Thus, we would be able to explicit what these views mean and imply, and give the result of the above discussion which will then hopefully never happen again.

Jules LT 08:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)