>>18513244
No, I do not subscribe to an epistemology which posits that it's only reasonable to believe something if it has 100% been proven to be true.

AN «AGNOSTIC» IS A DUMB ATHEIST.

>>18513246
>>18513248
Prove that gods exist then, or that gods don't exist. You can't. The fact is that we don't yet know everything about the universe.

>>18513251
I literally just told you I do not subscribe to an epistemology which posits that it's only reasonable to believe something if it has 100% been proven to be true, bot.

>>18513244
It's not a view at all. It's a quantifier of confidence in a view - hence "agnostic atheist" or, more rarely, "agnostic theist". As there appeared more and more people who wanted to be part of the God discussion but had no confidence in either position, they just kept the quantifier "agnostic" without any view actually being quantified. And it's a valid label at this point, but it isn't really a position. It's a lack of one.
It's like saying that "sugar-free" is the best food. Sugar-free what, bro?

>>18513252
A view should probably be proven to some extent. Otherwise you might as well believe in any random thing. Do you believe in leprechauns?

>>18513256
It is a position though. It's the position that we don't know whether gods exist or not.

>>18513259
>A view should probably be proven to some extent. Otherwise you might as well believe in any random thing.
There's no such thing as "proven to some extent". Something is either proven or not.
There's a cherry tree down the road from my house. I believe there's cherries on it right now. My evidential support is that I walked by it yesterday and saw the cherries. It is possible that the cherries were all picked during the night or that the tree burned down, so I have no proof that the cherries are there. However, I still think that it's reasonable to believe they are.
>Do you believe in leprechauns?
No, I believe leprechauns do not exist. You on the other hand think that my belief regarding leprechauns is unreasonable because I don't have proof that leprechauns do not exist.

>>18513244
That's why I'm a tooth fairy agnostic. Sure, the tooth fairies I heard about in my childhood turned out to be impostors but we can't know for sure whether there are other tooth fairies or not.

Do you agree?

>>18513244
>Agnosticism is the best view because we don't know for sure whether there are gods or not.
That's not agnosticism, that's apatheism, agnostics assert that it's impossible to know whether God exists or not which actually makes it somewhat compatible with Soft Atheism

>>18513259
>It's the position that we don't know whether gods exist or not.
The question isn't about what we know. The question is "Do you think God exists and why?"

You could just as well claim that taking a nap is a valid rock-paper-scissors move. It isn't. You're responding to something different from what you're being asked.

>>18513259
>It's the position that we don't know whether gods exist or not.
You seem to be confused, it's not the position that we don't know, it's the position that we CAN'T know. The position that we don't know is just Implicit atheism.Implicit Atheists claim that you shouldn't be religious without credible evidence for its basis, it doesn't claim there can't be credible evidence, that would be Explicit Atheism

Agnosticism is not a third option and you're a retard for not understanding that.

>>18513288
The third position would just be Apatheism. Agnosticism is just Soft Atheism. I don't know why this still confuses people like OP

Agnosticism isn't an answer to the question of belief in god, it's just a qualifier to your answer. If somebody asks you
>Do you believe in god?
You can either assert an affirmative belief, or you are an atheist by default. If you cannot say "I believe" even with a "but..." tacked on, then you are an atheist. Atheism is simply lack of belief. You can waffle and be uncertain about it if you like, but as long as you cannot say "I believe in god" you're an atheist.

>>18513244
I disagree because we do know that theistic God does not exist because naturalist monism is necessarily true due to the impossibility of the contrary.

No.

>>18513460
>naturalist monism
This is entirely indistinguishable from supernatural monism. It really just means "everything boils down to one category and I call it that natural". You can call it Argentinian or Portland Monism, it's all the same and completely compatible with theistic God.

>>18513494
No it isn't because the metaphysics render it impossible for a agent/mind to be the source or fundamental ontic of reality.
Theism posits a logically impossible and contradictory notion, that a mind with intent and such is the foundation of reality. Such a thing can not exist in any possible world. The foundational structure of reality is inherently mindless. Minds are contingent in all possible worlds, there is no such thing as a necessary mind.

>>18513520
>metaphysics render it impossible for a agent/mind to be the source or fundamental ontic of reality
Yours might, but since metaphysics are generally based more on guesswork than any conclusive methodology, the models are diverse.
>The foundational structure of reality is inherently mindless.
> Minds are contingent in all possible worlds
Source?

>>18513544
For a very simple one, space and time are necessary preconditions for minds to exist. There is no such thing as a mind without spatial extension or temporal causality

>>18513553
>space and time are necessary preconditions for minds to exist
You probably tried to say "for our minds" and even that is not universally accepted. All you can argue is that with facts established by science so far, you don't know of an alternative. Which is light years away from something being impossible across possible worlds.

>>18513266
Surely the honest position is that you don't know if the cherry tree still has cherries, because like you say, it could have burnt down, or chopped down, or the cherries could have been picked. Whereas if you look at something like gravity, gravity seems to always exist. It seems pretty unrealistic that we would wake up tomorrow and gravity would have stopped existing.

So I think there are some things in the universe we can be pretty (if not entirely) sure of. Gravity, the Earth, the sun, things like that. Can be so confident in the existence of God? Definitely not. We really don't know if there are any gods or not. Hence, agnosticism is rational.

>>18513271
Technically yes. The tooth fairy and God could both exist or not exist. I don't think there are good reasons to believe in either, but I can't rule out the existence of either. There is a lot of stuff about the universe that I don't know.

>>18513582
>God could both exist or not exist
Based on?

And when you don't know for sure whether something exists or not, it's most reasonable to live your life as if it didn't. We call that Occam's razor, and when applied to agnosticism, we get atheism.

>>18513598
>I don't positively know that you poisoned this, lemme chug it real quick, you know, Occam's razor

>>18513643
>survival is the same issue LE HECKING WHOLESOME 100 DADDY JEW ZOMBIE + TALKING SNAKAROONI
Retard.

>>18513658
>when you don't know for sure whether something exists or not, it's most reasonable to live your life as if it didn't
>except in life
No futher questions, your honour.

>>18513643
Poison is known to exist. The only thing in doubt is whether it's your turn to deal with it. And the vast majority of time, even though we know poison exists, most people aren't continually worried about their drinks being poisoned unless they have good reason to suspect it.

>>18513681
If you will happily drink a cup that might be poisoned because you "don't know for sure", don't mind me. This misunderstanding of Occam's razor will seemingly disappear through natural selection.

>>18513692
I will happily drink a cup that might be full of tiny magical elves who will punish me for it by turning me into a hedghog because I don't know for sure whether such things exist. Introducing them to my model of the world would make it needlessly complicated given the evidence. Introducing poison to my model of the world would not make it needlessly complicated. It's already there, everyone agrees it exists, understanding of chemistry and biology should allow such a thing to exist, in fact it would be weird for it not to exist.

>Fallacy, m'sir!
>You don't actuall "know" that the pill they just dropped into my drink was a roofie
>That would be needlessly complicated and weird
>Cheers!

>>18513701
Never drink anything again or the elves will turn you into a hedgehog, and after death you'll go to hedgehog hell, which is a fate infinitely worse than human hell.

>>18513705
I probably would if my understanding of Occam's razor were as misconstrued as >>18513598.
Occam's razor is a recommendation to limit the entities within a model to the necessary minimum. It doesn't instruct the reader to live all situations only by what one can positively prove because that is often not be the the necessary minimum... unless you're the first person whose methods of proof are complete for any possible scenario. This vague skeptic's interpretation of Occam's razor was only ever popular on new atheist social media, not in academia and certainly not with Ockham himself. It's the second most misunderstood concept among atheists, right after buden of proof which they for a long time insisted doesn't apply to "negative claims".

>>18513564
No, I meant for any possible mind. It is inherent to what a mind is. Time is required to go from state A to state B, so without time as a precondition a mind can not think (as thinking is a change in the state of the mind). Modern philosophy already considers non-temporal causation to be impossible. Hume started it all of course but I'd recommend Sydney Shoemaker, Ned Hall, and L.A. Paul as well.

>>18513584
God could exist, or God could not exist. That's what I mean. Same goes for the tooth fairy.

>>18513567
I didn't say anything about knowledge. It's a notoriously slippery word and common definitions of it have interesting philosophical objections.
I said that I believe there's cherries on the tree, and I believe leprechauns do not exist. Why do you think those beliefs are irrational? Further, if you instead want to talk about knowledge, what is the specific way you define it?

>>18513716
>state A to state B
Our minds definitely go through distinct states. Why does this apply to every possible mind?
>Modern philosophy already considers non-temporal causation to be impossible.
It really doesn't. It might, under the influence of natural sciences, define causation in a way that best conforms to the usage of the term in the naturalist paradigm (basically Shoemaker's entire work), but the idea that non-temporal causation was ruled out by these people or anyone in "modern philosophy" is a little out there.

Allow me to point out that all these points you're making are in one way or another arguments from silence. You take a fact or a decent perspective and then proceed to infer that things outside the scope of that fact or that perspective are to be dismissed. This does not follow. You don't know all possible minds from knowing our minds. You don't know almost anything about ontological causation from reading about temporal causation.

>>18513802
>God could not exist
And I'm asking you what you base this on.

>>18513917
>Our minds definitely go through distinct states. Why does this apply to every possible mind?
It applies to all things that change states.
>It really doesn't.
non-temporal causation is generally considered incoherent in modern philosophy.
I'm not making any claims from a naturalist paradigm. State transitions being temporal doesn't only apply to natural or physical things.

>>18513942
>It applies to all things that change states.
Yes, changing states apply to things that change states, but my question was what this means for all possible minds as you claimed.
>non-temporal causation is generally considered incoherent in modern philosophy.
Outright false. None of the authors you mentioned say this.
>I'm not making any claims from a naturalist paradigm
>State transitions being temporal doesn't only apply to natural or physical things.
It kinda does because spacetime (something you present as precondition for state changes) is physical and natural in the philosophical sense. What paradigm did you think you were speaking from?