It is not the task of Agnosticism to make assertions re The Question [Do we exist within a creation?]
The position is helpful in remaining unbiased re all information pertaining to The Question and not forming beliefs based upon hypotheticals.
In that regard, it is a more reasonable position than either Theism or Atheism.
[
Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #292]
Bias is nothing to do with agnosticism (in the sense of not knowing).
We agree.
The position [Agnosticism] is helpful [to the agnostic] in remaining unbiased re all information pertaining to The Question and not forming beliefs based upon hypotheticals.
In that regard, it is a more reasonable position than either Theism or Atheism, as bias has much to do with those positions.
It is everything to do with the assessment of evidence.
Disagree. Form the position of Agnosticism, the assessment of evidence by agnostics, does not require the individual place any importance on parts of the evidence over other parts of the evidence.
If any bias is present re the position, it is the bias toward treating all information equally.
Reason of course takes account of bias which is why we should argue both sides and let people decide.
Agnosticism is a position where one portion of the people have
decided that there is not enough information to make a
decisive call either way.
[As a position, Agnosticism is also a 'side' and it is not the correct term to use "both sides" - implying that Atheism and Theism are somehow 'real' as 'sides' but Agnosticism is 'imaginary' as a 'side'...
"Do we exist within a creation?" One side says 'yes' another side says 'no' and yet another side say's 'more information is required before any definitive answer can reasonably be given'.
Your 'information' is irrelevant.
All information is relevant to the Agnostic position. That is what Agnostics work with. [ftfy]
I think you are referring to information which is not relevant to the position you support?
If I made my case that the evidence indicates that consciousness is emergent (evolved) then your arguments fail,. whether i demolished them individually or not.
To my knowledge, neither you or anyone else has made such a case based on the information that in relation to life on Earth, if consciousness emerged from the universe prior to the formation of Earth, it is reasonable to understand that a self aware universe [Cosmic Mind] could then organize matter into forms which it could then use to organize matter into life-forms on an individual planet.
That is a highly reasonable explanation for the existence of consciousness [re the hard problem] and does not infringe on the claim that consciousness is an emergent property of physical material.
Rather - it incorporates the claim of emergence with the claim of intelligent creation.
You are certainly using 'agnosticism' is the very common (but arguable) usage of relating to someone arguing the pros and cons of the Theism - debate. Which agnosticism (not knowing whether there is a god or not) does not address.
Agnosticism allows the agnostic to address all things which are not known about, as well as all things which are known about.
This accumulation of knowledge is not sorted by way of filing 'that data which useful to agnosticism' and 'that data which is not useful to agnosticism.' All information is useful to those supporting Agnosticism. [Agnostics].
Agnosticism deals with information and is not limited only to information re the subject of GOD, because all information is relative to The Question.
Agnosticism is - in essence - a way of dealing with information, and scientists who apply strict rules to the process of science are able to stick to those rules because they are being
agnostic in the way they go about formulating and following said rules.
In the same way, agnostics - re the subject of GOD - allow for
all information to be tabled, and sorted. Theist-based information and atheist-based information are on the sorting table as there is no bias as to what type of information is or is not acceptable to Agnosticism/agnostics.
Whether one believes it or not is what is relevant here. Your effort to wield bias -accusations to discredit atheism does you no good.
I am not trying to discredit atheism. I am simply pointing out that there is resistance to some types of information over other types of information in - and coming from - both Atheism and Theism positions.
The pointing out the observation is not an attempt to discredit. It is an acknowledgement of actual reaction and actual reaction is information and information is what agnostics are interested in, for the purpose of trying to understand the information from the more reasonable position of the non-bias nature of Agnosticism - per the OPQ.
Reasonable people should consider any valid evidence whether they like it or not.
Precisely an aspect of the creed of Agnosticism, with the exception of 'valid' and 'like it or not' as this infers bias. Information is not filtered in that manner, by agnostics.
Reasonable people [agnostics] should consider any evidence. [ftfy]