The atheist / theist line is whether you believe in any god or not. There isn’t room on that line for agnosticism,
I’m an atheist, a strong one, and I can’t rule out the existence of any god either. That is knowledge, which has nothing to do with atheism. Lots of theists say they don’t know there is a god, but believe on faith - and that is a perfectly consistent position.
And your attitude towards god has nothing to do with it either. Satan would definitely not be an atheist.
[QUOTE=wolfpup]
“None” assumes that you have a basis on which to define what the evidence must look like.
[/QUOTE]
Evidence must be identifiable as evidence, or it isn’t evidence, is it? What’s the difference between evidence we can’t identify as evidence, and no evidence at all?
I don’t object to transcendence in a definition of God, I object to any characterization of such a definition as rational, logically-derived or scientifically compatible
What’s baffling about it? I’ve stated my worldview in my very first post in this thread, and it isn’t atheism.
And Campbell was just a comparative mythologist with some rather obvious biases, he wasn’t a good philosopher.
A technical term that manages to encapsulate entire reams of commentary in a single word is nothing but eloquent. Brevity is wit.
That’s rubbish - we make inferences about abstract concepts all the time.
Any place you try and squeeze a deity is a gap. And science as an endeavour has no intrinsic limits.
Particle decay and quantum vacuum fluctuations give the lie to universal causality.
I’m not going to sue you, I’m just going to treat your use of the language of logic and philosophy as suspect.
You brought it up in reference to undetectability - if that wasn’t in reference to God being unknowable, then I have no idea what that whole sidetrack was about.
. . . And then finally, it dawned on him.
ducks and runs
Why would whether there is intelligent life in another galaxy be permanently unknowable?
I see your idea of a god as not a good parent, No one can prove nothing about their god there is too much contradiction!
Paul’s writings would be contrary to your definition of Love. Starting with"Love is not self thinking".
I never quite understand such statements. I understand that ‘‘polytheism’’ is a ‘theism’ but as best I can figure it out polytheism is rarely discussed. [I cannot find the word in this thread.]
Does the word ‘‘epistemology’’ ever show up in in these discussions? Shouldn’t ‘‘epistemology’’ start these discussions?
It MIGHT be. The reason is that we haven’t found any evidence of intelligent life in this galaxy, and other galaxies are a lot further away…in some cases, so far away that, short of some sort of science fiction wormhole drive it’s almost certain we won’t ever know about some of them (probably most of them).
Really, I was just wanting to give a cheeky non-woo answer, since all of yours seemed to assume that the only unknowable stuff is woo horseshit, while the reality is there are things in the scientific world that might not ever be knowable, and at least aren’t knowable today (I was going to put dark matter/dark energy on there, but I figured that is something that we might know of in my lifetime, while those others are safe to say we probably won’t).
But I am trying to differentiate between that which we might never get the time to figure out, like some of your examples, and the pretentiousness of saying that something is “UNKNOWABLE”, that this particular piece of knowledge is blocked off from mankind by mystical decree or something.
Epistemology is a non-starter when one side declares their God as “unknown and unknowable” from the get-go.
I really like this argument. Sure, there might be some omnipotent sky-daddy with a clipboard recording our every move. Or, there might not. But since that entity has chosen not to make any measurable changes to the world that we can detect, who the heck cares what it may or may not think. Religion is this clearly self-serving thing, and it all requires as a fundamental premise that you believe there is some kind of actually existing being that does this, and therefore you have to do whatever self-serving thing the religion in question wants. (even the various reincarnation religions, etc, all ultimately ask for you to believe in something you cannot measure, detect, confirm, or in any way differentiate from the mad rantings of a crazy person)
So let science answer Nietzsche’s question, “why is there something rather than nothing?”. As we see below, your efforts to dismiss causality are misguided.
To use your favorite eloquent expression, that’s bullshit. Using particle decay to argue against causality presupposes that it’s intrinsically random and there is no quantum determinism. But in fact the time evolution of the quantum state is entirely deterministic and is described by the Schrodinger equation. It’s only quantum collapse that is probabilistic and has the appearance of randomness. Perhaps the clearest example that this must be so is quantum computing, but ultimately this is the essential nature of the universe. Likewise quantum fluctuations in a vacuum are simply a consequence of the uncertainty principle, and contrary to commonly made claims they don’t arise from “nothing” – empty space is not “nothing”, its creation began at the Big Bang and it continues to be created today, and it’s brimming with all kinds of interesting properties.
I guess I’m not seeing your point. We might never know (i.e. it might be ‘UNKNOWABLE’) what’s inside a singularity. It has nothing to do with how much time we have, it just might be beyond our ability to figure out. Same goes for intelligent life in another galaxy. This has nothing to do with mystical horseshit but with reality and the nature of the universe.
I get that you are wanting to cut through the woo bullshit, and I agree with you on that, but there are things that aren’t woo related that could be in the same category. At any rate, I was just being a bit tongue in cheek there, so no point diverting things down this path.
Science should answer that this is a meaningless question that presupposes universal causality. there’s something rather than nothing because there can be.
No, it’s not (well, except for one correction detailed below). I’m not sure if your grasp of what constitutes causality is any better than you grasp of what constitutes question-begging. I suspect you’re conflating causality and determinism, but I really can’t tell…in any case, the D-N model is so last century.
I do see one way in which what I said was bullshit. Apparently, I mustn’t call it particle decay - I mean the breakdown of radioactive atoms by releasing particles, which apparently isn’t the same thing exactly. Anyway - radioactive decay is “intrinsically random”. It is impossible to predict when a particular atom of a radioactive element will break down. Schroedinger’s equation won’t help you with that at all - it’s pure determinism, decay is a pure stochastic process.
Each instance of radioactive particle decay is not relateable to a specific causal chain and so violates the requirement of contiguity. Causality is bunk for radioactive decay.
I never said they arise from nothing, so this entire run-on sentence is a non sequitur. What they are, is completely and utterly random and hence non-causal.
I’m not conflating anything. Here, let me help un-confuse you:
determinism: n. a theory or doctrine that acts of the will, occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws
P.S.- I’m glad you’re getting so much mileage out of my idiomatic use of a common expression, though what that has to do with an argument about religion and physics I’ll never know. If I say “I could care less” about it I wonder if that helps illustrate a point about language? 
And if I pull the lever on a slot machine it is impossible to predict the resulting outcome. It is, to my perception, entirely random, and there’s no way in the practical world that I can avail myself of any predictive knowledge about the underlying mechanism inside the mysterious box. But I assure you that there’s causality involved and the casino operators understand it quite well. The determinism of the quantum evolution is no mere technicality but a fundamental property of the universe.
True, you didn’t, but your pal Lawrence Krauss is always going on about it in support of the same arguments against both philosophy and religion.
But who gets to determine what is and is not “unknowable”? How is it determined?
Should it ever be determined by declaration alone: “God IS Unknowable!!”?
Nope, because if ‘God’ IS in fact ‘Unknowable’ and there is zero evidence of him/her/it and no theoretical basis for some sort of ‘God’ (i.e. we have the math for singularities, black holes, etc) then we can say with pretty good confidence that ‘God’ doesn’t exist. We can’t, IMHO, completely rule him/her/it out, but we can relegate ‘God’ to such a low order probability as to be the next best thing to 0.
You just ignored my example in the SAME post you quoted(!) Something can be ontologically unknown, but manifest all over the place. Anyway, I’m not pulling this stuff out of thin air. Read on.
To address the OP: the agnostic OP implies the conditional, "If god exists, then how do I know...". As agreed abv, we need definitions of god. And as the conditional implies these must come from established religions (the OP says nothing about arbitrary homebrewed versions, opinions--ie the thread was about agnosticism, and the agnostics need to deal with definitions from organized religion in order to decide; the alternative is simple: nonbelief). So sources:
() Campbell's quote referenced above (and he may have been being general, not just a Christian God): transcendent, unnameable, etc.
() Christianity: (I'll use the Eden myth) out from the presence of God in the eternal, having eaten the apple w/ knowledge of good in evil, which throws them into the field of opposites (out of oneness) as well as into the field of time, and they can no longer see God--this implies God in the garden existing outside the field of opposites, outside the field of time (ie transcendent) (I believe that's a common interpretation of the Eden myth, though you can check me on that)
() Hinduism: (of the transpersonal version of god; there is also the personal triumvarate, Brahma, Shiva, Vishnu) "God stands above the struggle, aloof from the finite in every respect...[though aloof] The world will still be God-dependent. It will have emerged in some unfathomable way from the divine plentitude and be sustained by its power." (Huston Smith, World's Religions p. 62)
() Buddhism and Taoism: though not personal gods, have achievement of transcendence (from the field of opposites etc.) as one feature of their enlightenment goal
() Plotinus: a secular(?) mystic, ca AD 200; in his Enneads is the Divine Triad, headed by "The One" aka the Transcendent, the Infinite, etc.
(not interested in looking for more)
[NB: finite in these contexts is aka knowable, though you can check me on that]
You can stomp your feet, shout bullshit, say it doesn't make any sense, complain all you want but it comes up again and again. Think I cherry picked? Your welcome to cite contrary interpretations/def'ns but again it has to come from established religions. (Again, it's not "Based you YOUR beliefs about god, or your homebrewed god, how does the OP-proposer tell/know if god exists."). So for resolving the OP, the definitions' notion as god as transcendent puts a crimp in things like "I want to see/experience god like I can see/know a wrench is in the car's trunk." The fact is, you can't, given the transcendent quality (you have things like a "leap of faith"). So to answer the OP (mind you, this is definition dependent), NO. Agnosticism ("concluded" from his/her wanting direct knowledge) isn't the only option, because lack of immediate, material-world, sensate knowledge of god is not sufficient reason to dismiss this being / entitity / whatnot.