Agnostics claim to know that the existence of a deity is plausible.

[selzero@syzito.xyz]

Agnostics claim to know that the existence of a deity is plausible.

As an atheist, I'm agnostic to that.

[oblomov@sociale.network]

@selzero I honestly dislike the meaning shift that agnostic is undergoing.

Agnosticism is about knowledge. The agnostic claim is that the divine is unknown and unknowable.

This is orthogonal to belief, which is covered by theism (belief it exists), atheism in the broader (or weaker) sense (lack of belief) and atheism in the strong sense (belief that no god exists).

[selzero@syzito.xyz]

@oblomov so agnostic is based on the presumption that deities do exist?

[nitpicking@mstdn.party]

@selzero @oblomov Read. Agnosticism says that there's no way, even in principle, to know whether deity exists.

[oblomov@sociale.network]

@selzero no, agnosticism is the claim that it's impossible to know, regardless of existence.

This can be a basis for strong atheism («it's impossible to know, therefore it doesn't exist», which is basically Russell's teapot argument), but is also compatible with weak atheism («it's impossible to know, and/so I don't have a particular opinion about its existence»), but also with theism («it's impossible to know, but I still believe it exists», which is actually the basis of pure faith).

[selzero@syzito.xyz]

@nitpicking @oblomov ok so in that case my original statement does stand, agnostics claim to know that an existence of deities is possible.

[oblomov@sociale.network]

@selzero @nitpicking hm, no? They claim that it is unknowable.

[nitpicking@mstdn.party]

@oblomov @selzero He's playing with words to make "possible" mean "Not completely ruled out."

[selzero@syzito.xyz]

@nitpicking @oblomov it's not a play on words.

If the question is "is it possible that a deity exists", according to your definition, the agnostic answer is "yes"

Am I misunderstanding?

[oblomov@sociale.network]

@selzero @nitpicking yes, you are misunderstanding.

«Does a deity exists?»

The agnostic answer is «it's impossible to know». This is not a yes, it's not a no, and it's not even a maybe.

Which is why agnostic strong atheism is a thing (it's impossible to know THEREFORE there are no gods), which, I'll remark, does NOT contemplate the possibility that they do exist, but is still agnostic (in fact, it relies on agnosticism as a rationale to deny the existence of the gods).

[selzero@syzito.xyz]

@oblomov @nitpicking

My question is not "does a deity exist".

My question is

Is it possible that a deity *could* exist.

What is the agnostic answer to that?

[oblomov@sociale.network]

@selzero @nitpicking

«it's impossible to know»

[selzero@syzito.xyz]

@oblomov @nitpicking I have never heard the definition of agnostic to entail that it is impossible to know if it is possible for a deity to exist.

Only that is it impossible to know that a deity does exist.

Where is your definition from?

[oblomov@sociale.network]

@selzero @nitpicking

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism#Strong_agnosticism

> Also called "hard", "closed", "strict", or "permanent agnosticism", strong agnosticism is the view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities, and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable