Agnosticism is a painkiller for the suffering of a lack of clarity by those who have no interest for various reasons in pursuing it. It justifies to ones conscious their inability to face their skepticism by neglecting their innate curiosity through which they can find truth.
“One couldn’t possibly know” is no answer when one hasn’t hit a wall-so to speak-in pursuit of the answer. Rather it is a way to show unwillingness, disinterest or fear of participating in discoveries made daily, that take us closer to an answer-to-all, by science. Furthermore, it puts the philosophical mind in comatose and gives the individual a false sense of clarity.
Most annoying-to say the least-part of it all is the claim that they know the limits to which human intelligence is bound. To claim that no one can know that a deity exists or not is not only a direct insult to human intelligence but also by claiming that they know humans are incapable of answering a question they haven’t yet failed to, is no different than a claim that there isn’t a god or otherwise.
How can we know if a tree exists when we are not looking?
Humans are sight dependent however it is no more yet no less but equal to the remaining senses. Therefore if we can see a tree but not feel it, it doesn’t seize to exist, it is still there. Applying the same logic, whether or not the tree is available to any of our senses is irrelevant to it’s existence. If it were to be otherwise, it would suggest that our minds create what’s around us which produces the destructive question of “Why are we then, incapable of creating what we desire on command?”.
An argument could be made that our subconscious mind has created the world without the knowledge or consent of the conscious, however it would be a frail attempt to preserve the idea as there would be many ways of explaining why that is impossible whether it be logical or medical. One way to explain it would be that the subconscious mind of a toddler is ought to be different than an adults. Which leads one to wonder why the world has remained the same since our childhood. There is one problem with that idea though. How can we make sure our memories are reliable? How can we know there’s a tomorrow and yesterday was real? The only thing we probably know for sure is right now. This thought process suggests a self-sabotaging view of oneself thus being less pleasant to the mind which makes this idea seemingly less probable, which (objectively) it isn’t.
What do you think? Share you thoughts with a comment, this is an entirely subjective matter!
If there’s a grand architect of the universe, then who created him?
When you ask that question you create a paradox. If somebody created God than who created him? If something did, then who created that god? You then end up with an infinite number of gods that created each other and it becomes an endless circle.
The way modern religions relieve themselves of this is to propose an omnipotent god. That also is a paradox in itself. The omnipotence paradox aka the stone paradox goes like this:
“Could an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that even that being could not lift it?”
If the being could create such a stone than it would no longer be omnipotent since being unable to lift the stone. If not, then it seems the being was not omnipotent after all.