Philosophy Now Forum

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 5:54 pm The “truest” thing that’s been said in this thread is that both the atheist and the theist believe they know something that only the agnostic can tell them is unknowable. Hats off to Age and pop for both expressing this in so many words at one time or another in the thread.

Or was it Age and someone else?

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 5:58 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 5:54 pm The “truest” thing that’s been said in this thread is that both the atheist and the theist believe they know something that only the agnostic can tell them is unknowable. Hats off to Age and pop for both expressing this in so many words at one time or another in the thread.

Or was it Age and someone else?

The agnostic cannot "tell" any such thing, of course.

Agnosticism is only a personal claim to a lack of knowledge. It's not a universal claim about what it is possible for everybody else to know. He can say, "I don't know if there is or is not a God." He has no ability to go on and say, "And nobody else can know either." If he does, he owes evidence to justify that claim...evidence he admits he simply does not have, since he doesn't know anything definite himself.

To be arrogant enough to tell other people what they can and cannot know, and to be that absurdly overrreaching, one has to be an Atheist. Atheists often want to claim definite knowledge that there is no God, and that the same must be true for everyone (as when Dawkins calls it all a "delusion," for example). But then, they've got no sufficient warrant either.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 6:43 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 5:58 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 5:54 pm The “truest” thing that’s been said in this thread is that both the atheist and the theist believe they know something that only the agnostic can tell them is unknowable. Hats off to Age and pop for both expressing this in so many words at one time or another in the thread.

Or was it Age and someone else?

The agnostic cannot "tell" any such thing, of course.

Agnosticism is only a personal claim to a lack of knowledge. It's not a universal claim about what it is possible for everybody else to know. He can say, "I don't know if there is or is not a God." He has no ability to go on and say, "And nobody else can know either." If he does, he owes evidence to justify that claim...evidence he admits he simply does not have, since he doesn't know anything definite himself.

To be arrogant enough to tell other people what they can and cannot know, and to be that absurdly overrreaching, one has to be an Atheist. Atheists often want to claim definite knowledge that there is no God, and that the same must be true for everyone (as when Dawkins calls it all a "delusion," for example). But then, they've got no sufficient warrant either.

I see. Then the agnostic cannot know that the existence of God is unknowable to others or even to himself. He may yet find evidence that he doesn’t possess currently.

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 7:23 pm I see. Then the agnostic cannot know that the existence of God is unknowable to others or even to himself.

Well, not and stay and "agnostic," of course.

He may yet find evidence that he doesn’t possess currently.

Quite so.

And that's sort of the reason for being an agnostic, isn't it? Not having to declare that one "knows" something for sure, I mean. If he knows something, then he's a "gnostic," a "knower," isn't he?

WHAT IS AN ATHEIST?
Its relative, to a Christian anyone who does not believe the mythology.

...a Realist!

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 5:54 pm The “truest” thing that’s been said in this thread is that both the atheist and the theist believe they know something that only the agnostic can tell them is unknowable.

Well then, you must have missed this:


To know God exists simply requires having faith, and then God giving U the individual evidence, that it exists. (my case)

To know God does NOT exist, requires knowing EVERYTHING about the universe, and possibly multiverse, should other 'verses' exist.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 5:44 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 7:14 am
But the 'mystery' is USUALLY only one's OWN 'logical fallacy' ANYWAY. And, AGAIN, based on ones OWN BELIEF.

Which, by the way, WAS and STILL IS the POINT that WAS and STILL IS being MISSED here, and which I WILL STILL EXPRESS and EXPLAIN IF ANY one is interested in IT.

'Life' is a mystery just as 'Death' is a mystery.

TO WHO?

WHY do 'you' NOT just ANSWER this CLARIFY QUESTION OPENLY and Honestly, and just STATE that 'Life' is a mystery just as 'Death' is a myster TO 'you' "dontaskme"?

What is SO HARD and DIFFICULT about just being TOTALLY OPEN and Honest "dontaskme"?

Oh, and by the way, NEITHER 'Life' NOR 'Death' are 'mysteries' to Me, AT ALL. Understood?

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 4:52 pm Only in this artificial conception is the word 'mystery' known.

The concept known as 'mystery' is not a direct experience. If it was, the word 'mystery' would no longer be a 'mystery'

If 'you' WERE just OPEN and Honest, then 'you' would SEE 'things' DIFFERENTLY.

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 5:54 pm The “truest” thing that’s been said in this thread is that both the atheist and the theist believe they know something that only the agnostic can tell them is unknowable. Hats off to Age and pop for both expressing this in so many words at one time or another in the thread.

If ANY one NOTICED further up in this thread that I had MENTIONED about how I had made a POINT, which WAS MISSED and which is STILL being MISSED, but if ANY one WAS INTERESTED, then I would EXPRESS further and EXPLAIN THIS POINT, well what was just written here in the quote is FURTHER PROOF that THAT POINT is STILL being completely and utterly MISSED.

Since NONE of the posters here have shown ANY inquisitiveness NOR curiosity AT ALL, but there are some readers who are WONDERING what THAT POINT is, EXACTLY, I will EXPLAIN 'IT'.

Just as one BELIEVES some thing is true, and thus they are NOT OPEN to ANY thing OPPOSING that BELIEF so to is one who DISBELIEVES some thing is true, they ALSO are NOT OPEN to ANY thing OPPOSING that DISBELIEF. In BOTH cases these people are BEING BELIEVERS, and ALL BELIEVERS are NOT OPEN to SEEING NOR LEARNING what thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, EXACTLY.

NOW, that was NOT the WHOLE POINT that I was making. That was only a part of 'IT'.

The ACTUAL POINT I was making was that CLAIMING that a so-called "agnostic" KNOWS the truth and so can TELL the so-called "atheist" AND "theist" that 'it' IS UNKNOWABLE is just ANOTHER BELIEF itself.

The "agnostic" just like the "theist" and the "atheist" are ALL BELIEVERS. That is; they ALL BELIEVE that they KNOW what 'the truth' IS.

Which, as I have been saying for quite a while now, has been and STILL IS quite amusing to WATCH and OBSERVE 'play out'.

One BELIEVES God exists.
One BELIEVES God does NOT exist. And,
One BELIEVES that NO one can know IF God exists or not.

What NONE of these BELIEVERS REALIZE, YET, is that by BEING a BELIEVER (or DISBELIEVER) this IS the VERY 'thing' that is STOPPING them ALL from FINDING and SEEING what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, EXACTLY.

JUST MAYBE;
God does exist or does not exist or that what the Truth ACTUALLY IS can be KNOWN.

But WHILE ANY BELIEVES that they KNOW what the ACTUAL Truth IS, ALREADY, then they are NOT OPEN to FINDING OUT NOR SEEING if 'IT' is ACTUALLY DIFFERENT to what they CURRENTLY BELIEVE is true.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 6:43 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 5:58 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 5:54 pm The “truest” thing that’s been said in this thread is that both the atheist and the theist believe they know something that only the agnostic can tell them is unknowable. Hats off to Age and pop for both expressing this in so many words at one time or another in the thread.

Or was it Age and someone else?

The agnostic cannot "tell" any such thing, of course.

VERY, VERY True.

Just like "atheists" AND "theists" have NOT been ABLE TO 'tell' (explain with ACTUAL, IRREFUTABLE PROOF) what they BELIEVE, AS WELL.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 6:43 pm Agnosticism is only a personal claim to a lack of knowledge. It's not a universal claim about what it is possible for everybody else to know. He can say, "I don't know if there is or is not a God." He has no ability to go on and say, "And nobody else can know either." If he does, he owes evidence to justify that claim...evidence he admits he simply does not have, since he doesn't know anything definite himself.

JUST LIKE the "atheist" AND the "theist" has NOT been ABLE TO PROVIDE ANY 'evidence' NOR better still ANY 'proof' for THEIR CLAIMS, NEITHER.

And this is just because these 'people' BELIEVE 'things' BEFORE they OBTAINED ANY ACTUAL 'proof'.

Oh, and by the way, IF, and WHEN, these 'people' OBTAIN the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE PROOF, which DOES ACTUALLY EXIST, then they have NO NEED to BELIEVE ANYMORE, ANYWAY, and I will ADD and SAY, 'NEITHER ALSO', as I ALSO found to have NO NEED to 'BELIEVE' NOR 'DISBELIEVE' absolutely ANY thing because I have ALREADY FOUND and thus OBTAINED thee ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE PROOF, ALREADY.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 6:43 pm To be arrogant enough to tell other people what they can and cannot know, and to be that absurdly overrreaching, one has to be an Atheist.

LOL
LOL
LOL

As ONLY a "theist" COULD, and WOULD, SAY.

The DELUSION/S of BELIEVERS, and DISBELIEVERS can be CLEARLY SEEN, and HEARD, in the WORDS they USE, SPEAK, SAY, and WRITE.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 6:43 pm Atheists often want to claim definite knowledge that there is no God, and that the same must be true for everyone (as when Dawkins calls it all a "delusion," for example). But then, they've got no sufficient warrant either.

LOL Are 'you' REALLY 'TRYING TO' suggest here "immanuel can" that "theists" do NOT often want to CLAIM definite knowledge that there IS A God?

WHY 'try to' RIDICULE or suggest that "the other" is DOING WRONG when 'you' are DOING the EXACT SAME thing "immanuel can"?

Is there NOT some saying ALREADY about;
'Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.'

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 7:23 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 6:43 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 5:58 pm

Or was it Age and someone else?

The agnostic cannot "tell" any such thing, of course.

Agnosticism is only a personal claim to a lack of knowledge. It's not a universal claim about what it is possible for everybody else to know. He can say, "I don't know if there is or is not a God." He has no ability to go on and say, "And nobody else can know either." If he does, he owes evidence to justify that claim...evidence he admits he simply does not have, since he doesn't know anything definite himself.

To be arrogant enough to tell other people what they can and cannot know, and to be that absurdly overrreaching, one has to be an Atheist. Atheists often want to claim definite knowledge that there is no God, and that the same must be true for everyone (as when Dawkins calls it all a "delusion," for example). But then, they've got no sufficient warrant either.

I see. Then the agnostic cannot know that the existence of God is unknowable to others or even to himself. He may yet find evidence that he doesn’t possess currently.

How could ANY one 'find' 'evidence' that some knowledge could NEVER be KNOWN, FOREVER MORE?

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 10:25 pm WHAT IS AN ATHEIST?
Its relative, to a Christian anyone who does not believe the mythology.

And by the USE of the word 'mythology' are you implying that whatever you are referring to is ABSOLUTELY NOT true?

Dubious wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 10:53 pm ...a Realist!

A "realist" in relation to 'what', EXACTLY?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 12:27 am

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 5:54 pm The “truest” thing that’s been said in this thread is that both the atheist and the theist believe they know something that only the agnostic can tell them is unknowable.

Well then, you must have missed this:


To know God exists simply requires having faith, and then God giving U the individual evidence, that it exists. (my case)

1. To know God does NOT exist simply requires having faith, and then getting individual evidence, that God does NOT exist, correct?

If this would NOT suffice, then WHY does your CLAIM, supposedly, WORK?

2. Is what you wrote here REALLY, EXACTLY, what you wrote BEFORE, which you CLAIM here WAS MISSED?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 12:27 am To know God does NOT exist, requires knowing EVERYTHING about the universe, and possibly multiverse, should other 'verses' exist.

But one could just DEFINE the word 'God' in a way that 'It' could NEVER exist, and therefore KNOW, WITHOUT DOUBT, that God does NOT exist.

Also, and AGAIN, one could KNOW God does NOT exist, simply by having faith, and then getting the 'individual evidence', that God does NOT exist, correct?

If no, then WHY does it, supposedly, "work" one way but NOT the other way?

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 4:12 am

Dubious wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 10:53 pm ...a Realist!

A "realist" in relation to 'what', EXACTLY?

...the unreal!