Agnosticism is illogical

I'm not sure.

>>2365930
About what?

I think the bigger question is why atheists entertain stupid ideas like the holographic or simulated universe completely seriously and dismiss the idea of a an intelligent creator out of hand

>>2365926
>One of the characteristics of God is that humans can't have any knowledge about him.
This assumes a God being exists, and has the characteristic of being unknowable. But the problem is that God, as defined by most theists when pressed for evidence, cannot actually be proven either way. The question of God itself isn't a coherent one.

>>2365962
look into the ontological proof

>>2365934
Not sure

>>2365969
"Greater" is an arbitrary characterization with a fluid definition.

>>2365926
There are two types of agnosticism.

The first type, which I will call "light agnosticism," is just a stance of ignorance. It's someone who claims they simply do not know, but they do not claim that the answer is unkowable.

Then there are the true agnostics, which is what you are describing. They claim that the existence/non-existence of God is literally unknowable. You are correct in stating that this position is illogical.

Typically, true agnostics are really just light agnostics who don't want to accept their own ignorance, so they claim nobody else can know either. It's a really annoying and anti-philosophical as well as anti-scientific position.

Anyway a person with this point of view has already given up on finding the truth, so just don't engage with them.

>>2365962
>This assumes a God being exists

His existence or non-existence does not influence the logical fallacy inherent in agnosticism, though.

And if he does not exist, then why call it agnosticism instead of atheism?

>>2366017
The fallacy seems to be based on confusing two evaluations of God. An agnostic can say that knowledge about God is impossible based on the conception proposed by a given theist or another that is canonical/popular. However, the concepts and understandings are separate from the hypothesized being. "Is unknowable" would simply be another concept added atop the pile of "is omniscient" and "does not interfere with free will," as statement about the hypothesized being, but these statements themselves do not constitute an acceptance of the being's existence or support for it. This becomes obvious when you substitute God for any other hypothetical being.

For example, we could hypothesize a theoretical president of the United States who was born in China. Without accepting that such a president "actually" exists, we can make many conceptual statements about his potential qualities. Saying "he loves wooden tables" is one such statement, but that such a statement can be entertained is not an acceptance that this president must exist. Likewise, "is unknowable" does not necessarily accept the actual existence of a God, rather it is an addition to an existing conception of a hypothetical.

Admitting one's ignorance makes that person wiser than one who claims to know but in reality is also ignorant. This is a concept Plato attributes to Socrates. Apply this to the belief in God and you have agnosticism. I am a believer but will admit that agnostics have a better argument than atheists and theists.

>>2365926
this is bait or a dumbass

>>2366012
>Anyway a person with this point of view has already given up on finding the truth, so just don't engage with them.

Best thing we can do for ourselves is avoid the ignorant, thoughtless masses.

> so they claim nobody else can know either.
Now this is clearly a presentation of ignorance (a cop['s way] out.

File: pepe graham.jpg (34KB, 658x464px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 658x464px

>mfw agnostic
>mfw nobody can ever change my mind but me

>>2365942
I choose to believe no one is stupid enough not to understand the difference between the two, and that you're trolling on some level.

>>2365926
>Saying you can't have any knowledge about God and characterizing him at the same time is a logical fallacy.
Then just reject that the ability of Humans to know about X is a property of X.

>>2366182
There is no difference, dipshit.

>>2365942
Evidence. There is no evidence for an intelligent creator of reality that is not better accounted for through unconcious processes. Meanwhile, other ideas that likely seem ridiculous to you have evidence to support them, however preliminary and ripe for later refutation.

>>2366248
There's no evidence for a simulated universe that can't also be used as evidence for a creator. In fact they're virtually the same thing, the entity performing the simulation is 'God', the creator of our reality.

>>2366296
>In fact they're virtually the same thing, the entity performing the simulation is 'God', the creator of our reality.
Not exactly. The difference between an intelligent designer as is commonly thought of and a simulator is that we can argue about the processing power required to run the simulation and whether such a thing is possible or not. For example, the discussion about Laplace's Demon and the constraints we would have to place on such a simulator's existence. We can at least potentially falsify such a thing. There is no way to falsify a traditional intelligent designer, which makes it exceedingly difficult to present evidence for or against one. The simulated universe argument isn't a great one, but at least the discussion can be had.

>>2366323
A simulation implies a simulator. I don't really see how it's any different. Someone has to run the simulation, don't they?

>>2366323
The simulation theory is not falsifiable. The 'logic' you can apply to it is exactly the same as the 'logic' you can apply to figure out the nature of God.

>>2366343
For example, the simulator cannot exist within the universe that is being simulated at the same time, as then the simulator would have to also be simulating their own simulation, and two simulators of this caliber do not appear to be able to simulate each other perfectly. That's already a big constraint on a potential simulator that an intelligent designer wouldn't necessarily share, because the concept is so fluid. Of course, ID proponents would probably shift into talking about "transcendence" because it's really an argument for theism, but that's a bit beyond our scope. The point is that arguments for and against the simulated universe can be entertained, because they can be quantified and refuted. An intelligent designer who happened to create everything so that it looks like natural processes created everything can't be refuted any more than Last Thursdayism can be.

I see where you're coming from, OP

Putting the item "unknowability" inside the set "God" is something theists can do as well, apophatic/negative theology does that, they can even do that to "nonexistence" (i.e. God doesn't exist or nonexist in the way we understand our created world, he transcends being, etc).

>>2365926
Prove God exists

>>2366388
Theists might argue that God is not truly unknowable, since he's actively made himself known through revelation.

>>2366406
You exist, Q.E.D

>>2366370
See, OP? This is why we don't engage with hard agnostics. They aren't interested in discovering the truth. They go beyond the denial of evidence to deny that there can even be evidence. But in the end it's all about saving face. What's the point in arguing with someone like that?

Also, Last Thursdayism is easy as fuck to refute and disprove.

>>2366406
An a priori truth is necessary. Pretty easy tbqh familia

File: 1486510441046.jpg (47KB, 645x968px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 645x968px

>>2366419
>>2366480
So you can't?