Weak Atheist vs. Agnostic

That's not a position though. That's an ideology.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

First, there's a difference between having knowledge and something being knowable.
Second, the assignment of probability is unlikely to be accurate, and is "speculation" based on what evidence and information we do have... and as such changes with new evidence.

The point remains that aliens are knowable - in as much as that IF they exist then they are capable of being known - but given the lack of actual knowledge we have (i.e. that our planet is the only one we know has life) then it is rather difficult to assign any meaningful probability, for example.

Sorry - I stated it incorrectly:
"My point is that there is a hierarchy: a knowable for which there is zero evidence is, rationally, to be considered less likely than a knowable for which there is no evidence. "

If you think God is knowable and you think there is evidence for God then this would, rationally (for you), be more likely than something which is considered knowable but for which there is currently no evidence.
But if God is not knowable then it becomes meaningless to speak of "likelihood".
As for black holes, we had knowledge and inferred their existence, so I'm not sure it's as simple as saying that we had no evidence for them. We did - just not necessarily the right interpretation of that evidence.

Sure, and moving to strong-atheism is a matter of being convinced to the point you consider it worth having the belief in non-existence.

I don't see the parallel. I'm not disproving God. At most I am saying that if God is knowable, I have no knowledge, and that lack of personal knowledge has some weight in one's rational assessment - and if God is unknowable...

But deists believe that their God exists... they are strong-agnostic theists. It is a position of positive claim.

Cheers.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No I'm not.
I'm hoping my little slip in typing earlier didn't confuse...
But my point is that if something is unknowable then it is not comparable to something knowable. Something unknowable is meaningless with regard probabilities of existence etc.
One can only compare, for damning purposes (

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

), the evidence that is available for knowable things.
Once you consider something unknowable, that is really as far as I think you can take it. "Q: How likely is it to exist? A: It is unknowable."

Hopefully I've clarified my position, but even without it, I would say most theists consider God knowable... and a lack of evidence for a knowable can be seen, by many, as damning - with many (strong) atheists being convinced by that lack.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The thing is that you could have knowledge of God - and not know it is of God.

Imagine if God had a body at least this big:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

and you had no helicopter nor could otherwise see the setting from a distance -
and you happened to find yourself at his feet:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You wouldn't know what it is that you are looking at.

 

Agreed.

Right but notice that in language there is no distinction between assertions that may well be completely meaningless - regarding liklihood - and those where what is considered evidence actually helps give the guesser a clue.

Can we know this?` Must an alien species be anything like us. Rather than say some silicon based life form with recognizable technology, couldn't they be something we cannot sense and would not know where to look and would not recognize as life if we did?

I think also, this leaves the door open to challenge your agnositicism - the position that God is unknowable. It seems possible that an alien intelligent species might be capable making an incredibly advanced simulation, in which an intelligent species is allowed to develop - much like we have managed with evolving patterns in computers, but at a vastly more complex level where sentience comes in. In such a case these aliens could very likely communicate on occasion with individuals in the simulation, pehaps even demonstrating power over 'natural laws' as evidence to such chosen ones. They could then tell them that they live in a simulation and something about themselves. If one grants such a pattern might be possible with an advanced civilizations, even ours someday, it seems hasty to say that God could not also do something like this.

In a sense I am playing off Aliens would be knowable as a generalization against God must be unknowable.

Ah, good, that's what I think.

I suspect this is still wrong. I suspect one of these should be UNknowable. If not, I am still confused. To me zero and no function as synonyms and I do rather hope I am right here or I think we are in for a long headscratcher. Ah, I see now that when I quote it seems it took away your having crossed out 'no'. Oh, dear. EDIT: Amazingly it comes back when I post.

At some point we had no evidence for them.

Oh, what a potential gray area that painted. But I am too lazy to go there.

Well, you already have a belief in non-knowableness.

OK, I thought we were asserting God's unknowableness at some point.

Oh, absolutely. My hat club would have to believe that the hats made of sunspots exist somewhere else, that they have wandered off. It was more the practicalness of such a belief in either case.

I cannot imagine a reason to try to convince another person of deism or how it would affect anything I did and thought other than in those moments I nodded to myself about the God that was utterly irrevelent and not present.

I suppose it might give one grounds to be resentful. That could be soothing on bad evenings.