I'd call it basic agnosticism. We all believe that it is not possible to know. Proving it is an even taller order.
For a practical knowledge example, I know my drinking cup is on the table to my right. But how can I possibly prove it to anyone who's not in this room, right now?
There's two kinds of agnosticism, from the reading that I've read. You have "hard" agnosticism which takes a epistemological stance that there is no conceivable way in which humans can ever prove that "god" every exists. Personally, I reject this view since it makes certain presumptions about the nature of god, namely the characteristics of which god consists.
Then there is "soft" agnosticism which simply states that we don't know whether or not god exists. Namely, it is a time-specific view and which can be interpreted as, "We may not know now, but it is conceivable that we may know whether god exists." This is the view I take, since it necessitates no such presumptions about the qualities of god.
I don't think that a something as simple as a document would be able to prove or disprove such a fact. If a piece of writing could convince me of the existence of God then I would believe in the existence of God because of the Bible.
The document contains a simple incantation. Anyone who wants to can close her/his eyes, recite it, and be granted a telepathic interview.
The interview is with God who will satisfactorily address all of your questions.
-or-
The interview is with some pre-ancient, astral philosopher who can scientifically explain all seemingly metaphysical phenomena.
Though everyone in the world will probably have a different question set, they all interact with either the deity or the atheist.
But yes, the point of the exercise is to ask oneself if one would do the damage to society that either revelation would cause. If anyone in this community has done that, they're keeping it to themselves. :-)
Comments 8
Reply
For a practical knowledge example, I know my drinking cup is on the table to my right. But how can I possibly prove it to anyone who's not in this room, right now?
Reply
Then there is "soft" agnosticism which simply states that we don't know whether or not god exists. Namely, it is a time-specific view and which can be interpreted as, "We may not know now, but it is conceivable that we may know whether god exists." This is the view I take, since it necessitates no such presumptions about the qualities of god.
Reply
Reply
Reply
That way we don't get caught up in the medium so much as the content and the principle of whether we shared the proof.
Not that this approach skirts the underlying issue, though.
Reply
The document contains a simple incantation. Anyone who wants to can close her/his eyes, recite it, and be granted a telepathic interview.
The interview is with God who will satisfactorily address all of your questions.
-or-
The interview is with some pre-ancient, astral philosopher who can scientifically explain all seemingly metaphysical phenomena.
Though everyone in the world will probably have a different question set, they all interact with either the deity or the atheist.
But yes, the point of the exercise is to ask oneself if one would do the damage to society that either revelation would cause. If anyone in this community has done that, they're keeping it to themselves. :-)
Reply
Leave a comment