|
Post by Superhappyjen on Jun 8, 2004 9:12:30 GMT -5
For the agnostic to claim that a God might exist, it is necessary for them not to know that no God exists. This can only be so if there is some method of gaining knowledge of the supernatural. That is an arbitrary claim, and needs to be proved before the agnostic position can be considered viable. Why does there have to be a method of gaining knowledge for someone to claim they don't know something? If we believe that there's no method of gaining knowledge of the supernatural, shouldn't we ALL be agnostic?
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Jun 8, 2004 10:47:41 GMT -5
It is because we only need hold the position that we don't know if further evidence might come in. If the conclusion is certain, there is no reason not to say that we know. If you see the sky every day of your life, and it is always blue or grey (or maybe orange at sunset) then you know that the sky is those colours. You posit that the sky is those colours because you know it.
Even though the sky could be any colour, like purple perhaps, we don't believe that is likely, since there is no evidence to suggest that, and we understand what makes the sky show the colours that it does.
Now considering that there is no method to gain knowledge of the supernatural, and there is evidence that reality is objective, there is no reason for us not to posit that reality is indeed objective. Why hold the position that we don't know, when we have evidence and evidence to the contrary is impossible? Only if we can gain knowledge of the supernatural can we expect that evidence of the supernatural could still arise.
If we believe there is no method of gaining knowledge of the supernatural, that doesn't mean we can't gain knowledge of the natural. Since knowledge is based upon sufficient credible evidence, and there is sufficient evidence that reality is objective with no evidence to the contrary possible, we know no God exists. By the method that we know things, we know.
|
|