First let me explain what I mean by philosophical agnosticism: I am defining philosophical agnosticism as the belief that it is impossible to know whether God exists. This is the form of agnosticism that was advocated by the philosopher Immanuel Kant.
This is opposed to what I would call popular agnosticism, in which the holder of the belief says that they do not know whether there is a God.
There are two major problems with philosophical agnosticism, however, and I will briefly explain them both here.
The Contradiction
The belief that it is impossible to know whether God exists is more often stated in the form: �God is unknowable� � therefore we cannot know if he posseses the attribute of existence.
But the statement �God is unknowable� is itself a contradiction, because it tries to state a known fact about something that it claims is unknowable. It is similar to saying that �nothing can be known about God�, but in saying this, we are making a claim about some known attribute about God � namely that it is unknowable. But as soon as we say that this statement is true, then it must be false!
For if this statement is true, then someone is known about God, therefore the statement must be false. So if this statement is claimed to be true, it turns out be false, and if it claims to be false, then there is no problem to be begin with. Thus the statement that �God is unknowable� cannot be true. Therefore, a belief in philosophical agnosticism is absurd, because it claims to have knowledge of the unknowable.
God Revealing Himself
For the purposes of this argument, I will concede that we cannot of ourselves learn anything about God, because we are limited to this world, and God, if he exists, is outside the world. Thus, of ourselves, we could not know whether God really exists.
However, this belief rules out the possibility that God would reveal himself to us. It rules out by definition that God could actually relate to us, and reveal himself. Now this seems to be quite an arbitrary assumption about the characteristics of God. I do not see why God could not (if it suited his purposes) make knowledge of his existence so obvious to everyone that they would believe that he was real. He could write it in the clouds in the sky, speak with a loud booming voice from the heavens etc. and make his presence known. If God exists, then this is at least an intellectual possibility.
But philosophical agnosticism does not allow for this eventuality, and so the kind of God that it says we can�t know about, does not exist anyway. Our God did reveal himself: through creation, through history, through Jesus, and in our lives today.
So philosophical agnosticism falls short of being a reasonable belief system to hold. It is self-defeating in that it is a contradiction, and even if that were not a problem, it cannot adequately explain the Christian view of God in any case.
This is opposed to what I would call popular agnosticism, in which the holder of the belief says that they do not know whether there is a God.
There are two major problems with philosophical agnosticism, however, and I will briefly explain them both here.
The Contradiction
The belief that it is impossible to know whether God exists is more often stated in the form: �God is unknowable� � therefore we cannot know if he posseses the attribute of existence.
But the statement �God is unknowable� is itself a contradiction, because it tries to state a known fact about something that it claims is unknowable. It is similar to saying that �nothing can be known about God�, but in saying this, we are making a claim about some known attribute about God � namely that it is unknowable. But as soon as we say that this statement is true, then it must be false!
For if this statement is true, then someone is known about God, therefore the statement must be false. So if this statement is claimed to be true, it turns out be false, and if it claims to be false, then there is no problem to be begin with. Thus the statement that �God is unknowable� cannot be true. Therefore, a belief in philosophical agnosticism is absurd, because it claims to have knowledge of the unknowable.
God Revealing Himself
For the purposes of this argument, I will concede that we cannot of ourselves learn anything about God, because we are limited to this world, and God, if he exists, is outside the world. Thus, of ourselves, we could not know whether God really exists.
However, this belief rules out the possibility that God would reveal himself to us. It rules out by definition that God could actually relate to us, and reveal himself. Now this seems to be quite an arbitrary assumption about the characteristics of God. I do not see why God could not (if it suited his purposes) make knowledge of his existence so obvious to everyone that they would believe that he was real. He could write it in the clouds in the sky, speak with a loud booming voice from the heavens etc. and make his presence known. If God exists, then this is at least an intellectual possibility.
But philosophical agnosticism does not allow for this eventuality, and so the kind of God that it says we can�t know about, does not exist anyway. Our God did reveal himself: through creation, through history, through Jesus, and in our lives today.
So philosophical agnosticism falls short of being a reasonable belief system to hold. It is self-defeating in that it is a contradiction, and even if that were not a problem, it cannot adequately explain the Christian view of God in any case.
Comments
This may be psychologically persuasive to some, but it is still, nonetheless, fallascious. Your contradiction isn't very well argued, and needs a lot of thought. To believe 100% that there is, or is not, a God, is absurb considering we have no absolute proof.