Posted: Oct 05, 2010 5:00 am
I’ve been out of the loop for a few days. A few points to catch up on:
Actually I’d consider myself an “agnostic atheist”.
"Agnostic” is commonly used to denote some sort of middle-ground, as you note agnosticism is about gnosis. So theism/atheism has to do with one’s belief in god(s), while gnosticism/agnosticism has to do with one’s claims to knowledge about gods. The following is a reasonable comparison of the differences:
1. Agnostic atheist: does not believe any god exists, but doesn't claim to know that no god exists
2. Gnostic atheist: believes that no god exists and claims to know that this belief is true
3. 3. Agnostic theist: believes a god exists, but doesn't claim to know that this belief is true
4. 4. Gnostic theist: believes a god exists and claims to know that this belief is true
Source: http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php? ... ._agnostic
Some atheists may claim to have a belief that God does not exist. I don’t. Some atheist claim to know God does not exist. I don't.
I hope that clears that up.
I'll assume that you’re still missing my point, and not being deliberately evasive.
I’ll try to simplify the question:
Why is it entirely reasonable that there can be a conscious being that has always existed, but it is inconceivable that there can be a non-conscious thing that has always existed?
Ichthus77 wrote: If someone simply has not decided yes or no about whether God exists, and so has no definitive belief that a God exists (or that a God doesn't exist), that does not mean they are an atheist--it means they are agnostic (perhaps there is a better word for it, since gnosis is knowledge, not just belief). If they claim to be an atheist, they are claiming to have a belief that God does not exist.
Actually I’d consider myself an “agnostic atheist”.
"Agnostic” is commonly used to denote some sort of middle-ground, as you note agnosticism is about gnosis. So theism/atheism has to do with one’s belief in god(s), while gnosticism/agnosticism has to do with one’s claims to knowledge about gods. The following is a reasonable comparison of the differences:
1. Agnostic atheist: does not believe any god exists, but doesn't claim to know that no god exists
2. Gnostic atheist: believes that no god exists and claims to know that this belief is true
3. 3. Agnostic theist: believes a god exists, but doesn't claim to know that this belief is true
4. 4. Gnostic theist: believes a god exists and claims to know that this belief is true
Source: http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php? ... ._agnostic
Some atheists may claim to have a belief that God does not exist. I don’t. Some atheist claim to know God does not exist. I don't.
I hope that clears that up.
Ichthus77 wrote:If the "some other being" is not subject to entropy, then all the math/logic about entropy does not apply to that "some other being". But math/logic itself would indeed apply, originating from/in it.
I'll assume that you’re still missing my point, and not being deliberately evasive.
I’ll try to simplify the question:
Why is it entirely reasonable that there can be a conscious being that has always existed, but it is inconceivable that there can be a non-conscious thing that has always existed?