What inconsistencies? I stated …
“You are confusing knowledge with belief.”
Let me say that it is my position that not all unfalsifiable assertions are created equal. For example, take the issue of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. Yo can believe it exists, but of course you cannot (as of this point in time) know for sure, and we may never know. BUT, because we understand the conditions on a planet that are conducive to life, and that there is nothing otherwise ‘special’ about our planet and our spot in the universe, we can definitely say it is not impossible for intelligent life to exist elsewhere. Given the vastness of space and time we may even go as far as to say it is more than likely that it does, but we still do not know. It is at this point and may well forever be, unknowable and therefore unfalsifiable.
Now, take an ancient monster that is made of spaghetti and capable of flight. There is nothing we know that suggests that such a thing is even remotely possible and the scientific laws we do know would say that such a thing is impossible. STILL though, it is just as unfalsifiable as the idea of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.
In terms of epistemology, the two are equivalently unknowable and therefore, (even though one is plausible and the other is ludicrous), we should be, by definition, be equally agnostic about both claims.
There is a reason why epistemology is philosophy not science. All these definitions that are being thrown around are philosophical and are by no means infallible. These are not scientific principles we are discussing, these are not closed matters. These are things that philosophers are still debating today so I don’t think there is anything ironclad about nonscientific dictionary definitions and we definitely shouldn’t let them limit our ability to reason independently.
Be it aliens, God or spaghetti monsters. I dont think it is right or even necessary to plead the ‘agnostic 5th amendment’ to ALL unfalsifiable things.
I think, if we are being realistic, no one here would embarass themselves by claiming to be agnostic about a flying bicycle, a talking piece of fruit or any of the infinite number of things the human imagination is capable of conjuring.
I think the only reason people are so tentative about unequivocally dismissing the god idea is because it is very old and has MASSIVE implications on us humans and every aspect of our existence. But, in truth, it is no less fanciful than the examples above and was asserted without any evidence whatsoever from the very beginning.
1 Like
This sort of strict agnostic reasoning can very easily lead to the following
If there is no person or no instrument around to detect it you cannot prove a falling tree makes a sound when it hits the ground.
If everyone who was present at your birth is dead and no record of your birth exists, you cannot prove you did not come to earth from another planet
You cannot really ‘prove’ that you even exist
You cannot ‘prove’ that you are not currently dreaming
By definition we would have to be agnostic about all these things, but would that be reasonable?
Because Descartes said so is not proof of anything. That would be an appeal to authority fallacy.
That is Descartes’ opinion on the matter within his philosophy of radical skepticism. It is not a proof in the sense that every philosopher universally accepts it.
I trust my senses, they are the only input I have. They have kept me alive for these many years, they have proven to be reliable.
You trust them, sure.
It is well worth mentioning that even within the epistemology of empiricism, senses can be deceived. Hallucinations are very real, but that’s besides the point. Even though your senses seem very ‘real’ to you, that does not constitute an absolute and objective proof of your realness in the context of ALL things. You are trapped in your own perspective of existence and it is not a perspective you can share with anyone external to you.
ANYWAY. Of course you exist, questioning that would be hopelessly trivial and frivolous. The point I am making is that these philosophical terms and definitions should be used with caution, they are ideas that belong to specific philosophical schools of thought and do not necessarily represent absolute and objective truths of the universe because they are man made and capable of error. That is why I do not cling to them dogmatically and invoke them indiscriminately within my arguments. Dictionaries are so often edited to include or exclude certain terms anyway…
It is always better to first think for yourself if something even makes sense to you or not, regardless of which person said it or which publication you found it in.
I read your previous posts and sorta have an idea of how you think ??? And you’ve asked me to clarify myself and my thinking 
SO before I engage this, I need to clarify -
Is this an idea you trust?
Not at all. lol. I’m not into that kind of existential, spooky philosophy. There are, however, some thinkers that really do take the question of their own existence that seriously. I was just using it to make a point that in the context of these ‘rules’ and strict ‘definitions’ that people are so fanatical about, it is ‘technically’ something you cannot prove.
Reductio ad absurdum is what I was going for
Darn tooting right I trust them.
Can you suggest a more reliable and consistent method in how we interact with reality? If not, STFU.
FYI philosophy or epistemology or any other mental exercise can’t even guarantee that you can cross a street intersection safely.
I always point out to those folks of
that mindset, that regardless of their choice (simulation or brain in a vat) we nonetheless deal with the set permitters in this “reality”… so it doesn’t matter.
Even if I was a brain in a jar given “my memories artificially” two seconds ago - I still can only use the “tools” of this reality to try to get to “what is as close to truth” as possible. And all demonstrable evidence informs me that (earth is round; gravity; evolution; etc etc).
The word play can fall into communication styles and preferences - however as long as there are agreed upon understanding of what a person is trying to say …I usually roll with that.
Some use the idea of “know” in an absolute sense. Myself - I leave the smallest inkling open to perhaps too many possibilities (regardless of the plausibility). Don’t trust the possibility - don’t think about it - don’t live my life by it - BUT if I land up being abducted by some fucked up grey alien somewhere in my brain (after the little fucker can somehow convince me I’m not hallucinating) I’d be like -
“WOW - holy shit! Who knew!!! And then keep my fuckin mouth shut”.
I don’t have to David, I am not claiming nor have I ever claimed that I can formulate such a proof. I don’t see why you are resorting to abusive language.
Because you continually go down unproductive rabbit holes. I do not perceive a healthy exchange of ideas, just an individual who prefers to engage in verbal jousting.
When you said that you were not implying an equivalence between atheism and agnosticism and then subsequently changed your mind to agnostics are in fact atheists, I did not make you say those things. I simply pointed out that you contradicted yourself.
Furthermore you seemed to be unable to think outside a strict definition of terms, I just led you exactly to where such thinking goes; where the definitions you so strongly adhere to contradict what you actually think of a subject.
I think you are just frustrated that I don’t agree with you and are taking it personally
I don’t understand…
How can you leave the door of possibility even slightly ajar on something if you never think of that something and act the same way you would if you knew for a fact that thing was impossible.
It kinda sounds like you are ‘covering all bases’ and ‘playing it safe’ such that if a flying spaghetti monster does indeed show up one day you will have it on the record that you never explicitly stated that such a thing was impossible.
And I think that is intellectually irresponsible.
Bullshit. I was not the one to go down the rabbit hole of micro-definitions.
For me, the only thing that matters is that we understand each other.
Whether you admit it or not that’s what happened and it is plain to see. I can easily go back (again) and show you what you said.
And clearly you are not satisfied that we do that’s why you are making it a point to try and refute every single point I make even when it is clear, as I have demonstrated, that YOU are the one who brought up these definitions as though quoting a philosophical definition from a dictionary is ALWAYS an end all argument.
No, I disagree with that sir and until you make a convincing argument on ur point I will continue to disagree with you. The things of which we speak are philosophical things, the whole concept of atheism, agnosticism etc is a philosophical one that is older even than ancient greek thought, yet you argue as if there are hard and fast rules that can get to the bottom of any argument quickly. It wouldn’t be ad hominem to suggest that you are obviously not a scholar of philosophy because you argue as if these definitions of yours are axioms of life.
People have been debating the very things we are discussing right now for millennia and these debates are by no means concluded. So based on what I know about the history of atheism in the context of religious history and philosophy forgive me if I dont take definitions that are only a few hundred years old as gospel.
Nope. Couldn’t give a shit about covering bases 
Virtual reality may one day in fact, allow me to interact with a Flying Spaghetti Monster …
Virtual reality. A computer simulation you knowingly enter and with supervision.
Wouldn’t make such a thing exist in nature.
1 Like