Hi Craig, On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 10:33 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
> [Ian] > > Agnosticism can only ever be an incomplete or temporary state. > > Agnosticism is the view that we do not have complete knowledge about god: > in particular, whether god exists or not. So, it is by definition an > incomplete state. > But there is no reason to think we will ever know the answer to whether god > exists or not, > so it need not be a temporary state. > Craig > [Mark] My understanding of agnosticism is also that if God (whatever that is) were to appear before a person, they would accept it existence. An athiest would not see value in such an obvious appearance. This is treated well by Dostoevsky in the the Brothers Karamazov. There is an interlude within called the Grand Inquisitor. The story is that Christ does return and performs miracles. The Inquisitor explains to Christ why the Church no longer needs him (and thus God) because they have it under control. This stance could be considered atheistic. Having been provided by the Church is what makes it interesting. > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
