Agnosticism is not a logical stance

[Tigron-X]

...and one can say YES and be questioned prove it, to which they'd have no idea how...

Not necessarily when you think about what you're asking when you ask for the proof of God. First you have to ask yourself, "What does the term 'God' represent." Infinity - Alpha-Omega - Beginning & End.

That last one "Beginning & End" doesn't mean God has a beginning and an end, but IS both at the same time.

Now, I bring that up because every proof has a starting point and ending point which basically allows for one to reach a conclusion of true or false. And really, any and every proof shows whether our understanding of a certain aspect of nature holds true to the terms we use to describe an event that proceeds to move through space whether represented mathematically or with words.

Basically, we cannot debate whether nature exists or does not exist because we have various types of senses that allows us to become aware of our own place in (existence/life/infinity/time/eternity -- all the same thing depending on your perspective). However, we can debate the way life exists in respect to our own sense of being that is held within existence itself.

Again, science is the mathematical portion while philosophy is the linguistic portion. In other words, we can debate the way we exist within nature and how we should exist with nature by discussing our understanding of nature through the use of what we have come to know and label as knowledge --[existing knowledge to be exact]. But again, we can never define existence; only represent it through mind, spirit, and body which we do in various ways that I can't even begin to describe. Just use your imagination.

The point of the matter is that our current logic cannot prove the existence of God when we think infinity starts from zero and expands into all directions and dimensions that can be tracked by variables that represent a specific point on some grid. In other words, the only reason why we have so much trouble proving God's exists is because the question seeks a Point of Origin. The question itself negates the words used to give a notion of God's existence. It's like asking how many integers are in infinity? Someone gives an answer while another wants him/her to prove the equation; usually neither side realizes the problem is the question and not the answer or the equation.

But to humor thought, how many integers are in infinity? -- Zero and One.
I said Zero, because infinity neither has a starting point nor is a sum of any or all conceivable and unconceivable integers, and the term represents an undefined value. Plus, zero is not an integer. And I said One because that undefined value can be represented by an integer that we define. Therefore, zero equals one, but the question is, "one of what?" One of zero is illogical because we just made zero equal one which 1/0 would lead us back to an undefined value when we're trying to define a value in the first place.

So, in the end, there is a logic to the existence of God, but our understanding of that logic is directly related to our initial notion of existence and the way we define it. So, all we really do is debate how we exist, but not really whether God exists or does not exist because we all define God differently if you've been following what I mean.

Also, a supernatural force only represents a force that is not understood or not yet defined; usually a sum of various forces at work. Of course our notion of that force is highly debatable [as in what that force is], but not the idea that there are forces at work.

So, is God a sum of all the known and unknown forces at work?
Or, does the term 'God' only represent the sum of all the known and unknown forces at work?

Those are good questions, but they're still flawed. So, the answer doesn't really matter. I explained why earlier in this post.

 

[moving finger]

I used to claim I was simply agnostic, but I realized this is not logically possible.

When asked the question, "Do you believe in God?", one cannot answer "I don't know". If you do not explicitly express a belief in God, then you are an atheist. There is no middle ground on a yes or no question. You can be a strong or weak atheist, or even an agnostic atheist. Agnosticism pertains to believing that the concept of God can be proven or not. There are agnostic theists and agnostic atheists.

Any thoughts?

It's a bit like asking "when did you stop beating your wife?"
Am I allowed to answer "uhhhhh, I never started beating my wife!". According to your logic, no, I am not allowed to answer that way (the question asks for a specific time/date).

Therefore I would suggest that an acceptable answer to the question "Do you believe in God?" is indeed "I have not yet formed any judgement on that question".

The fact that I do not believe in the existence of God does not necessarily imply that I believe in the non-existence of God.

BTW, I also believe in 3-valued logic the conventional 2-valued logic that most humans seem to prefer is just an approximation.

On second thoughts, another example is the question : "Is the king of France bald?". How do we answer this question, given that it implies a "yes/no" answer? The truth is that there IS no king of France, and yet we are not allowed to answer in this way.

 

[3mpathy]

Agnostism is a logical stance because of the fact that you are questioning the belief of the person, and are Not getting a...direct, Truthful answer.

God has to exist or not exist( i changed my mind after posting something else)
But
The person Does NOT have to know that

therefore they can logically tell you, "i don't know"