Dranu wrote:
That is what I am asking. How do we find out if someone's idea of a unicorn is just a belief or if it is knowledge if knowledge relies on us observing the nature in reality?

If you want skip that question, where I am trying to lead you to is this:
Is 2+2=4 knowledge? 10+15=25? 1200+1340=2540? If so, then how could you observe the nature of it when its nature (like God's for instance) is only observed in the mind? Oddly enough, even the unicorn's nature is only observed in the mind alone. None of the sensible qualities (which if a unicorn were to exist) that you could observe tell you anything about the nature of the unicorn by their sensation. Only judgements (perceptions of the mind) and synthesis of those qualities with other ideas could tell you anything about the nature. Now of course I could derive that nature in two ways (construct it from different instances of observations like I am doing now or construct it from one instance of the actual creature) but arguably (and that is extremely arguable ) I could do the same for math. But you need a way to reconcile knowledge to math and non-observable things like math. Maybe you can do the math with 'cognitive awareness'? You would still need to deal with the 'observing a nature' though.

I am also still a bit in the dark as to what 'cognitive awareness' is, and why a unicorn would not have this or any other 'belief' if it is only 'correct analysis'.

Easy, If I give you 2 apples today and give another two 2 apples tomorrow, or essentially adding to the two I gave you yesterday, you then have knowledge of its implementation of math and observed the nature of the implimentation of math.

Math exists as the concept only, not as a being or a physical form and isn't claimed as such, if it is it would be a belief, I believe.

WW III ANGRY wrote:
The problem is God existing cannot be proven, there is no empirical evidence, which is needed for a the concept of god existing to become knowledge of God existing.

Math does have existence outside of my mind as I showed with the example using apples. The concept is likely an inherent thought process as logic itself is. The concept of God does exist in reality. Whether God exists in reality is unknown.

Something would have to be aware of the fact of the concept of math for there to be a concept.

Dranu wrote:
Yes, and I did say that earlier. I said if you wanted to say it exists regardless of humans but not actually in reality, then it must be a concept of a necessary mind binding reality. However, that is besides the point. So you are trying to deny mathematical principles exist without humans? Answer this question (so I am sure of your position):

"Are there still two apples there if man was removed from existence, past and present?"

Rainchild wrote:
Here's how I see it:

1. It seems to me that the difference between atheism and agnosticism is obvious. It is certainly obvious for claims other than the existence of God. For instance:

Historian A says "I disbelieve in the idea that George Washington threw a silver dollar across the Potomac River."

Historian B says "I don't see how anyone could possibly know whether George Washington threw a silver dollar across the Potomac River or not."

2. We are actually talking about three positions: Strong atheism, weak atheism, and agnosticism.

Strong atheism: I affirm that the non-existence of God has been proven.

Weak atheism: In my judgment, there is no good reason to believe that God exists; consequently, I do not believe in him.

Agnosticism: I don't think we can know whether there's a god or not.

3. Most atheists aren't strong atheists. Though there is plenty of proof that the world wasn't created in six days, it's much harder to disprove the existence of a disembodied spirit that created and transcends all reality.

4. Most atheists are weak atheists, who usually reject the notion of God on methodological grounds. For instance:

a) The existence of God is such a strong claim that the burden of proof lies on theists, not atheists. Since theists have not met their burden of proof, theism is unworthy of belief.

b) The existence of God, often touted as an explanation of everything in the universe, is unnecessary for the explanation of anything in the universe. Occam's razor, therefore, makes theism unworthy of belief.

c) The existence of God is untestable--there is no way to either prove or disprove the existence of God. This puts it on par with other untestable ideas like "Henry Kissinger is subconsciously willing everything I do through undetectable psychic means" or "There is a colony of invisible goblins on my head who sing songs that only the undetectable sun-god can hear." As a matter of methodology, such untestable ideas are rejected as unworthy of belief.

5. There are practical differences between weak atheists and agnostics.

a) An agnostic would have better grounds than a weak atheist for going through the motions of worshiping God now and then, as a kind of "fire insurance."

b) Then again, an agnostic might have less reason to engage in discussions of God's existence than a weak atheist. Weak atheists know what they are talking about when it comes to their arguments about God's existence. But to an agnostic, no one knows what they are talking about when it comes to God's existence.

Rainchild

Jdrw wrote:
Perhaps there'd only be one of those "sometimes falls down from the tree and we can eat it things," and then--another one of those "sometimes falls down from the tree and we can eat it things."

The Rational Animal wrote:
And no because linguistically "two" is defined within mathematics, and mathematics is only a language used to talk about certain things in a more precise manner than the vague spoken languages.

Dranu wrote:

So in other words, two apples?

The_Rational_Animal wrote:
I just want to share some thoughts, not so much about how agnosticism is removed from atheism, but about how agnosticism is removed from rationality.

Firstly, the agnostic says something akin to the following statement: "We cannot prove that such a claim is true; we cannot prove that such a claim is false; therefore, it is only rational to conclude that I do not know, you do not know, nobody can (or will) know".

Agnosticism therefore is the belief in ignorance. Agnosticism raises the arbitrary from a level where it should be ignored and disrespected to a level of real consideration. Agnostics permit the possibility of these arbitrary matters being "true"; and he only respects the proof that others give: "just prove that (insert imaginary entity) doesn't exist!"

Agnostics like to feel as if they have taken the safe ground, one that no one can refute because it takes no ground at all. But the agnostic is more irrational than the most zealous theist, because he has taken all the arbitrary claims that could ever be made and compares them with those which are logical and evidentially supported. He supports an irrational equality of ideas: that one claim, based on evidence, is no better than any one else, whether or not based on evidence. In such a fashion, agnostics can either be a (1) destructor or (2) conscious coward. (1) Because they like to destroy the convictions of those who have them, thriving on the questions they inspire in others and (2) because they refuse to take a position in the fear that it may offend others.

Reason is the only source of knowledge. Agnostics seem to hold "I don't know" as the smartest thing one can say. Thus, agnostics take up an irrational position and thought process.