What kind of "knowledge" do you suppose agnostics are referring to?

Question

There is no clear cut definition of what knowledge is. So if an agnostic is to say, "The existence of God is unknowable" what do you suppose they mean by "knowable"?

And don't just say "certain knowledge" because what is that anyway?

I mean, do they need to knower to be aware of actual mathematical proof for them to "know" or can they know simply by being right?

Cat avatar person, agnosticism isn't so much saying "I don't know" as it is saying "I can't know."

Answer 1

It can't be proven. Is this a serious question? I would think anyone would know that the idea of God is based on faith, and by definition faith is not supported by evidence, thus can not be proven, or disproven, thus "the existence of God is unknowable"

Answer 2

I do not know what 'they' mean.

In logic, there are statements. By definition, a statement should be provable (or disprovable). You can (eventually) prove that the statement is true or false according to strict rules and/or conditions that are implicit (or explicit) in the statement.

For example, "X is an even number" is a statement that is provable, as long as someone gives you a value for X. If you are told: "you will never be given the value of X", then you say the sentence is not a statement because it cannot be proved (or disproved).
Implicit in the statement is the fact that X is an integer. If you try to apply the statement to a complex number that contains an irrational imaginary part, the term 'even' may become meaningless (the parity of X is unknowable).

All religions that I have heard about (especially all Judeo-Christian religions) make it a matter of faith that God exists and that He has decided to manifest itself in indirect ways. Therefore, the statement "God exists" cannot be proved (or disproved) outside of faith.

For example, proving that the universe was born in an energy fluctuation of 'nothingness' (physically possible and provable) does not prove that God does not exist. (And, we have NOT 'proved' that the universe started that way). After all, it could be God who is responsible for the fluctuation...

Proving that life is complex and could not have occured at random is not proof that God exists (because it has been shown that molecules do NOT assemble at random: given the proper ingredients, amino acids do form very rapidly compared to purely random expectations).

Therefore, because of the religious definitions implicit in the statement "God exists", it cannot be disproved.

This may be equivalent to saying "The existence of God is unknowable."

Answer 3

They mean the idea of God (or other metaphysical realities/ideas) are not accessible through normal human experience. Agnostics often have a lot in common with atheists. The key difference between them is agnostics are willing to admit there may be a reality that is transcendental - they just don't believe the human mind can grasp this idea, either partially or in its entirety.
Agnosticism is also a complex position. It cannot be caricatured. Some agnostics are almost indistinguishable from atheists in that they simply admit a possibility but don't pay any attention to it, while others believe only experience can give you access to the transcendental and that this experience is never complete (mystics).

Answer 4

Used in this sense, I suppose the word "unknowable" would mean that this is a phenomena that is 'unseen', invisible or 'impossible to prove' by any scientific means.
I don’t believe, however, that all scientists are without belief in a higher power or a universally guiding force. The recent discovery of what scientists call “dark matter” came to be after much examination of unseen forces in space… Though not directly visible, the ‘effects’ (e.g., a gravitational pull) that these unseen forces have upon what IS visible could not be denied.
Any scientist investing the time, thought and effort it would take to prove the existence of something ’unseen’ has got to have an abundance of faith - IMHO.

Answer 5

Agnostics are atheists (or occasionally theists) who think they are being intellectually honest, but in so doing are not being honest to the definitions of the question. Agnostics are people who are unwilling to commit to an argument (perfectly acceptable) but maintain that there is some "balance" between the sides. This is, of course, impossible within the definitions of the debate.

The question of the existence of God (or of anything) is an absolute proposition. Either you have belief (theism) or you don't (atheism). If you say "I don't know", this is perfectely acceptable, but you still fall under one or another catagory. Either you believe that there is SOME thing, a super powerful being of some form (theism) or you don't (atheism). In this way, agnosticism is either atheistic agnosticism, or theistic agnosticism. One says "I cannot see any reason to believe in God" (which is what saying "I see no reason to decide either way" really means when dealing with an absolute proposition) and the other says "I believe in something, I just have no knowledge of what it is."

People who claim "agnosticism" are often theists or atheists who just don't want the stigma that comes with either of those terms.

Edit -

Regardless of "I don't know" vs. "I can't know", taking a neutral position on a positive claim is the exact same thing as taking the negative. If someone says x exists, and you say "That can't be proven" (i.e. I can't know), it is the exact same position as saying x does not exist. Absolute propositions, like the existence of something, are either-or statements. Neutral positions are still negative.

Answer 6

Most Agnostics are of the opinion that the existance of God is not proveable as in Science.
SO in that context if there is no way to secure a repeatable answer to any problem they tend to think it is not a fact.
However they are in my opinion in the minority.
It would appear that they have ommited the use of the word FAITH from there vocabulary.
In the same way that many use Theroy to argue a point when in fact theory is that a theory not proof positive.

Answer 7

you answered your own question God's eistence isn't knowable in the sense of you can't just say it is 100 percent fact he exist no if ands or buts about same goes for him not existing we don't know if he doesn't exist for 100 percent fact. agnostics do understand faith but most aren't going to just follow something when there is uncertainty. although some agnostics are spritual because as the sayings go abence of proof isn't proof of absence.

Answer 8

While Agnostics don't follow any particular moral philosophy, many are drawn towards views like secular humanism, empiricism, objectivism, or utilitarianism, which provide a moral framework that is not founded on faith in deities. The problem here is that, without a belief in a higher power that manages justice, many Agnostics find the inforcement of morality unnecessary,

You may also be interested in answering this question:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AvImURNuDCQalkSv95QqJUvsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071126044042AAXePSw

Answer 9

I'm agnostic


to answer your question: I don't know ;p

I mostly describe it as i looked at a multiple choice test
it said:
which one is right, pick one:
a) Christian
b)Muslim
c) Hindu
d) Buddhist
e) pagan
f) Jewish
g) atheist
h) none of the above

My answer would be "h", but I also believe it may be possible I could be wrong.

I guess that is an agnostic, if so That's me

Answer 10

God pervades everywhere as the glow of sun and moon, the fragrance of earth, as the intelligence behind all creation and everywhere according to Hinduism. It is Bhagvan's intelligence that is appearing everywhere as in you and me. This is God's lower nature. Apart from this god has a higher nature. Everything emanate from him and goes back to him.

Existance of God(Bhagavan) is not knowable for those people who dont seek for it....