— The burden of truth for positing a divine deity lies with the people making that assertion. If they are unable to do so, then i maintain that we should not accept said deity. One doesn’t claim to be agnostic in regards to the existence of purple unicorns, such things are held as mere mythical fantasy until proved otherwise. Isn’t agnosticism a thinly veiled attempt to enshrine ignorance? Maybe the agnostic secretly hopes in his heart, that if there is a God and i don’t disbelieve him then i will still inherit eternity. Is this the ace the agnostic has up his sleeve?
Greetings Marshall McDaniel,
although I have flirted on occasion with athiesm, I am clearly an agnostic. I have known people who, unlike me, believed that whether God exists or not, they are keeping themselves safe through agnosticism. I find some of their arguments interesting, but most of them fail to raise my curiousity whatsoever. Personally, I believe that if there is a God, the God is not like anything we have know. It would be a God we could never know and need not talk about. It would not be a good that sits upon the extremes of our hueristics of logic, reason, and rationality. I believe there is a higher power than ourselves. Whether it be just another race(s) out there in the cosmos, or some kind of substance that is beyond comprehension, or some ultimate being that surpasses our most extravagant imaginary conceptions, is unknown to me. But I feel that there is more to life than Earth having us on it. That’s about as religious as I get. Some say that this feeling I have is the God of Christianity, others say its the God printed within the Qur’an. I have read and studied these religions and I assure them that their God is not the one I feel, nor any religion I have ever read about.
I was unpleasantly surprised in reading The Apology and other Plato works, when I found out that one of the greatest philosophers who was unafraid of those three simple words “I don’t know”, was so sure that there was a God.
I do not try to outdo or play some kind of trick on God, and fit myself into as many categories of belief in order to cover enough religions and Gods to increase my chances of being accepted by whichever religion is correct so that I may reserve my seat upon the good side of the reign in power.
I do not wish nor expect anyone to hold the same belief as I. As for agnosticism being an ignorance. I think you are quite right, and I am proud of it. I would rather, when asked “Do you believe in God” answer honestly and say “I don’t know”, then to say “Yes” or “No” and lie not only to the questioner but also to myself. I am ignorant of whether there is a God or not. I know I feel something, but for all I know there is no God but there is another race with which we share the universe, a race more sophisticated than us whom we will find and share the universe with. Or maybe my feeling is altogether unwarranted and there is no God and no other race in the universe.
So as you can see my cards are all on the table, are yours? (not trying to be confrontational, just like the sound of that)
— I’m glad that you seem to take a fairly honest position. The only honest theology is negative theology, as meister Eckhart said, “I pray to God to rid me of the idea of God.” Who are we to give God attributes? You haven’t been bamboozled by Pascal’s wager either.
— I am not afraid to say “I don’t know”, being the fallible Human that i am. In the words of Mark Twain (aka Samuel Clemens), " I was happy to answer the teacher’s question, i responded, ‘I do not know’ ". I have never, however, considered that statement a final resting place. Science has never been content to stay there. Humanity, if it is to progress, must move on from there.
— I think it is important to distinguish between ignorance of the BELIEF in God and ignorance of the EXISTENCE of God. I’m not sure all Agnostics are clear on that point. We are all ignorant of the existence of God; that is not the question.
— As for equating another race (or species if you prefer) for God, that is an equivocation and a subtle attempt to evade the question.
— Cards are an example of a game of imperfect information (A game where it is not possible for both players to see all of the information that pertains to the game, as opposed to chess for instance where all of the information is on the board in plain view), somewhat like the God dilemma. In view of that this whole converation is rather academic, either one of us (or both) could have a royal flush.
Marshall McDaniel stated:
Though I agree with you, I feel I should clarify that I never said that ‘I don’t know’ should be a final resting place, since your words could be interpreted to be meaning that. I am also aware that we never TRULY know anything. Therefore, all knowledge is a matter of probabilities of different degrees. The application of this knowledge should be apparent to consist, within our context, at the point of ‘is the belief in God something we have adequate probability to believe in?’ - to which my answer is that such information has failed to penetrate my mind on its own, nor has anyone provided adequate, let alone strong, evidence for such a belief. I believe that when we don’t know something, or when the few of us who have the guts to say it, to say ‘I don’t know’ should never be left alone, as life may then be left alone as well, but a continuous search, wonder, and curiousity should push us forward into continued investigation. My qualm is with people who reach the ‘I don’t know’ stage in any manner of life, don’t say it, and instead replace it with ‘God’. Which is the reason God has been pushed back so many times. One of the first beliefs in God was that fire was God - it was the only element that didn’t stay fixed at any point, which led us to be bewildered by it many millenia ago. Then we figured out fire and didn’t know what thundering bolt was coming from the sky, so we said it was God angry. We didn’t know what the lights were in the sky, so we said it was the presence/light of God. Presently, we have figured out what these things are and why they happen, what we are presently ignorant of is what created the universe, so once again we have God sitting in the throne of ignorance.
Man, for some reason that is beyond me, is extremely uncomfortable with not talking of certainty nor of having a lack of knowledge. Many wo/men speak with an overlaying theme of fact. As if they have no opinions only facts, and laugh and put on facial expressions expressing anything short of “Are you that stupid?” - as if to say, that anyone with a different view point from them must be stupid. Some are worse than others. There are others who will start off with honesty, unsurity, and make sure to express the fact that they are expressing their own opinion, what they wonder about, specify what it is they have heard, read, and think themselves. But sooner or later they slide right back into speaking of generalities and facts backed with no logic, reason, or rationality.
Please understand that I hold you in high regard, but I will show you an example of the above using one of your own paragraphs to illustrate the point further…
Marshall McDaniel stated:
The above consists of THREE statements/sentences. The first is very honest and open in that you express what YOU think to be important, which is understood to be your opinion. So far so good. The second is also honest, open, and expressing unsurity which is great , but there is an overlaying generality of you not being sure what ALL AGNOSTICS are clear on. Ofcourse, we can never be sure what ALL AGNOSTICS are or aren’t clear on in totality. There may, be overlaying general principles, but never will you find the complete list of agnostics in the world to have the same points in reference to agnosticism. And finally, we come to the slide in your paragraph, your third statement, where you come out writing with an apparent God complex (excuse the pun) telling me that WE ARE ALL IGNORANT OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. I know a handful of people who would disagree with you on the spot if they ever read that statement. I know atleast two handfuls of people that would not only tell you your wrong, but they would proceed to prove to you that the existence of God is quite evident. I also know, from reading many philosophers, that there are quite a number of philosophers and theologians that believe Gods existence to be a fact. For example, Anselm, Aquinas, Aristotle, Plato, Plantinga, to name a few.
Marshall McDaniel stated:
Now I must ask you to be careful with your words from now on. For you to suppose that you can tell me that I am subtly attempting to evade a question is pretentious assumption, and premature judgment on your part. Furthermore, it belittles everything I stand for. I am not here to evade anyones question, I thought that much was apparent from my posts. I have carefully explained to you why I believe what I believe, whether it be based on evidence, experience, or just feeling. I have nothing to hide, and for you to judge me and label me is quite honestly not in the realm of logical possibilities open to you given the material you have to work with. To set the record clear, I am not evading the question or any question. I clearly came out in my previous post and postulated…
Marshall McDaniel stated:
I was under the impression from your last post, that you were asking if the aforementioned statement was an ace up the agnostics sleeve as a figure of speech commonly used, and not the elucidation you provide above. Apparently I misunderstood that.
What’s your take?
— As for your response to the “I don’t know” part. I consider your view very scientific, realistic and naturalist. Once again you have shown yourself to be a worthy debater.
— As for your second response, you have completely missed the mark. It matters not as you say
All of those philosophers ARE IGNORANT OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD (whether they believe in his existence or not) or i must assume that because none of them have produced first-hand evidence or proofs. Once again as i stated in my earlier post we are confusing belief and existence. I can believe that the tooth fairy is going to leave Pamela Anderson under my pillow. All of the belief in the World won’t make that happen.
— I stated that you attempted to equate God with a superior species. In your own words…
Is that not equivocation or the loosest definition of God that i am aware of?
— I am simply stating with the cards analogy that neither one of us has the option of actually testing whether there is a God or not, so the point is rather academic.
Marshall McDaniel stated:
Although YOU believe you must assume them to be ignorant of the existence of God, it doesn’t actually make them ignorant of Gods existence. It does matter what I said, because your generalization makes it appear that there aren’t such people with such beliefs. To them, they thought they did provide proof and evidence beyond the amount one should need. For all we know there really is a God and Aquinas was right on the mark with his five proofs. For that exact reason, as you put it, “none of them have produced first-hand evidence or proofs” you as well fail to provide evidence or proof against the existence of God. From which point I could use your own logic and argue that because you fail to prove God, there is one. I would, in this case, be committing as you are guilty of committing what is called the Argument from Ignorance Fallacy. Specifically, the fallacy refers to “This kind of argument occurs when I claim that because you cannot prove a proposition false, I am justified in believing it to be true.”
I will provide a possible scenario that may help you understand what I am trying to postulate. Imagine that there is a God, no one can prove it, but some of us believe God exists - while others don’t. This means that we can never be certain if God exists, and all that we have is our belief. Whether you are a believer or not, you have no more evidence for the belief or against it, and so you are free to believe whatever you want to believe. Let’s take the other side, imagine that God doesn’t exist, no one can prove that God doesn’t exist, but some of us believe God exists - while others don’t. This means that we can never be certain if God exists, and all that we have is our belief. Whether you believe or not, you have no more evidence for the belief or against it, and so you are free to believe whatever you want to believe. One thing in either scenario that would seem out of place is someone being convinced that there is proof for God (like those I mentioned), but it would be just as strange to witness a person who is convinced that there is proof of the non-existence of God.
Marshall McDaniel stated:
I don’t see how I am. I am saying that we can never know, or as far as we have come thus far we are disabled from knowing whether God exists or not. I am also saying, that everyone is free to believe whatever they want to believe, I just think that keeping an open mind and not being convinced (since there is no reason to be convinced either way) by either end is the most intelligent, comprehensible, and sane option.
Marshall McDaniel stated:
You really like Pamela Anderson that much? You’re generalizing again, if enough people believed that a tooth fairy is going to leave Pamela Anderson under your pillow, who knows, with enough money, connection, and conviction - anything can happen. Ofcourse, it wouldn’t be a REAL tooth fairy, would Jenna Jameson in a tooth fairy outfit suffice?
Marshall McDaniel stated:
So go over my words once more. I clearly state I believe in a higher power. That doesn’t mean God. I come out and giving hypothetical options for what this power might be, in order to illustrate that I really don’t know, don’t care, but am open minded to the idea of it being just about anything. All I am saying is that I have a feeling in my heart that life as it is for me, is not enough, there is something more, and that something more is something more sophisticated then us. None of that necessitates God of any kind. I purposefully failed to mention the word GOD anywhere in that paragraph!! Yet you come out telling me that in my own words I attempt to equate GOD with a higher power!?!
Marshall McDaniel stated:
Why are you asking me? How am I to know what the loosest definition of God is that you are aware of? I don’t read minds…yet 
. Personally, I wish the word GOD disappeared from the English language altogether.
What’s your take?
— I said no philosophers had produced proofs, i should have said proofs that haven’t since been disproven. I am perfectly aware of the so-called proofs of God’s existence.
— There are some who say that the person postulating a God should be the person to provide the proof for his existence and not the other way around. If i meet a guy who tells me he has just met Jenna Jamieson in a Tooth Fairy outfit and i ask him to prove it, and he retorts, “Well you can’t disprove it!”, who has demonstrated more intellectual integrity?
— I have to agree with you. I don’t know what people mean by the word God either.
Granted, you would have. But that’s not necessarily the point I was getting from this topic.
When one comes to the point of questioning the existence of God, we have basically three options.
Option #1
You can answer that you have been given neither evidence for nor against God. And therefore, since you have been given no proof either way, or at least no substantial proof (people will attempt to give you proof in both cases) you can reply: I don’t know. Which is obviously honest.
Option #2
You can state that you have been given proof. This is either through logical analysis of your own (none of this I’ve seen seems to be adequate in the least, but that doesn’t mean it lacks the ability to convince others), through divine enlightenment (whatever that means) or through some sort of extraordinary experience (Paul being struck blind, etc.).
As such, you can then say: There is a God.
Option #3
Normally, when attempting to justify a belief, we state some sort of evidence. When I see someone is crying, and they look “sad” I assume they are sad. Why? Because I myself have experienced such emotions, I know what they’re like, and having knowledge of myself in such circumstances, I can reasonably assume that another human being (or what appears to be a human being) in similar circumstances, would likely be feeling what I was feeling at the time, or at least remarkably similar to what I was experiencing.
This is reasonable belief. You are given a reason, and thus you come to a belief based on said reason. The reason is derived from what evidence is at hand, and processing it accordingly in a logical fashion.
This is how we judge nearly everything. Anything else either requires proof (math and logic, which can be argued against themselves), or faith.
Additional point:
Note however, none of this gives us “knowledge” of God, only reason to believe, to not believe, or to state ignorance. None of this is truly convincing, in the same way I am convinced that I am sitting here typing this.
This is perhaps why many atheists are so adamant (note I’m not saying all, but I’ve noticed many who are). In every other issue in our lives, we demand more evidence than what people seem to be capable of giving in the instance of God. Yet, they believe anyway. No one would believe you if you said you have a unicorn in your backyard. Yet, the concept of “God” as put forth, to all appearances, seems even more ludicrous, yet people are still vehement about it. This seems…odd.
Thus, we must assume they either A) have adequate evidence of their own to believe such or B) have other bases for this belief.
The agnostic is interesting. They wouldn’t believe the unicorn idea either, not without concrete proof. Yet, they aren’t willing to go so far as to say, “There’s no such thing.” They’re instead, willing to say, “There may be a unicorn, there may not be. I won’t say there is or isn’t.” However, the God issue appears to be the only one where they are willing to do this, since I doubt they would concede so quickly in the unicorn example.
I can come up with three possibilities.
-
They aren’t willing to trash another’s belief, out of sympathy and possibly simple diplomacy, and therefore console us all by taking a middle stance.
-
They believe they have neither sufficient evidence to disprove or prove such a thing. This is regardless of the fact that none of us would require proof in the unicorn example either way. The very concept goes against all prior knowledge and experience, thus the instinctive impulse (and most logical reaction, i.e., I have no reason to believe a person can fly, all prior experience and knowledge goes against it, therefore why should I believe other than that this is false, without sufficienct proof to even make me question my prior knowledge?) would be to say: no. But perhaps they think such an issue as God is so profound, that they aren’t willing to wholly dismiss it without adequate justification.
-
They believe they have some proof for, against, or both, but none of it seems enough to be conclusive.
–
I hope this was all sensical enough to make sense.
Comments?
No. But that would be nice, wouldn’t it? I’d want someone besides Pamela Anderson, but that’d be ok I guess. Can I request someone else?
Shybard. I read your post in it’s entirety, you make some salient points. I would like to add that some people use faith to justify belief in the great deity, but rarely use this (faith) in other parts of their life. For example, they wouldn’t use faith when it comes to their checking account balance. People seem to get very vehement (as you point out) and go to extreme measures to justify God. I take these as good signs.
Shybard said
I don’t believe Gadfly’s stance to be that of one. Much to his credit, he has never been afraid to make his case. I would say his stance is closer to the italicized portion of two. In any event, i will now let him speak for himself.
Perhaps a pertinent question at this point is what do we mean when we talk of “God”? Certainly I have always thought that God implied some sort of active involvement in the world, a “creator” being a different and almost separate idea, though many Gods are also the creator. There are some examples where they are not, not all Gods were part of creation, humans could become deified, like Augustus or the Egyptian pharoahs.
While I’ve never denied the existence of a “creator” I am still an atheist. After all something must of created us, be it an alien race, a potentiality in nothingness or a being from a different dimension. But by being our (perhaps in)direct creator this doesn’t necessarily make them our God.
Now when we talk of God in a spiritual sense surely we are talking about some kind of supernatural force or being that has some sort of control/influence over our lives or afterlife?[1] Is it not useful to have a distinction between the two different concepts of God and Creator? Perhaps the agnostic’s mistake is believing that because most Gods are said to be the creator too, it logically follows that a creator is a God.
Oh and to elucidate the point that people can Know of the existence of God, if we are to believe that Jesus did all those miracles, in the conventional sense of Know all the Disciples and witnesses would Know there was a God if, and only if, there really was a God who had really sent down Jesus. Although I don’t think it’s worth starting a discussion of knowledge here, if you do want to question this start a new thread and post the thread link here to keep us on topic.
[1] I say supernatural because now we have an understanding that there could be aliens out there I don’t think these can be classified as Gods anymore, just another type of natural being. However they could have been defined as Gods until we had that realisation, perhaps showing the fuzzy nature of the definition of a “God”.
If i understand you correctly Matt, you are an Atheist who denies evolution. That is a very interesting combination. I’ll start a thread in Religion.
Seeing as I am one of the most vocal and almost militant supporters of evolution on this board it would be doubly strange. When I talk about creator I talk of creator of the universe, I thought that would be taken as said, sorry.
The majority of christians in this country believe in evolution, 90% I think, creationism is quite alien to us Brits, that’s part of the reason why I am so insulting towards it and any of its proponents, cause its only loonies in this country who believe it. Genesis is taken as a (very bad) metaphor for the big bang and evolution, in a desperate attempt to save face by the Anglican Church. Twits.
I am a devout atheist myself. It is interesting that evolution is taught at major Christian universities and yet a few still think (as Ben has pointed out), that it is either a choice of evolution or creation with no middle ground.
I’m afraid this country (USA) has a way to go in that regard.
It is VERY difficult to prove that something does NOT exist.
Can anyone PROVE to me that purple unicorns do not exist??? I am agnostic on many subjects, not just “God”…whatever that word means.
Maybe there is a whole planet of purple unicorns?
For you to say that a particular thing does NOT exist, you yourself would have to be God to know for sure.
To say that purple unicorns don’t exist inside your ability to percieve them…that is a far more honest answer.
So no, I am not evading the question.
My personal definition of agnosticism is that we humans have a PROFOUND INABILITY to know certain things.
So, as far as I can percieve personally, there is no God and there are no purple unicorns, but I cannot say with authority that they do not exist ANYWHERE or maybe in any form that I cannot see myself.
I think IT IS THE ATHEIST who is avoiding the question altogether. An atheist is TOO AFRAID to admit not knowing, TOO ARROGANT to face the truth of their own REAL ignorance on the subject.
We are all terribly ignorant on these type things and by being agnostic, I am not afraid to admit it.
Couldn’t agree more. According to Socrates it is the agnostic, the one who “realizes s/he knows nothing” when it comes to God, who actually possesses the most wisdom.
Having said that, I don’t really think there’s much difference between the Atheist and the Agnostic. They both say, “there’s no reason to believe in God, so I don’t.” The difference for me seems to lie in whether or not we should accept the possibility of God’s existence. Of course, certain concepts of God are logically contradictory or have been debunked by science. For instance, I think it’s reasonable to be an avowed atheist about the Christian idea of an all-powerful, all-loving God. The concept simply doesn’t make sense given the state of the world we live in.
However, I think we should allow for the possibility that there is some kind of ultimate intelligence guiding things. After all, intelligence does exist; who’s to say it doesn’t form the ground of existence? There’s so much we don’t know, and so much wierd shit that goes on in our universe. Humans have always hypothesized about why the world exists and how it came to be. Many physicists are now postulating an infinite number of universes, and I don’t see how such a thing can be proven. How’s it any different to postulate a god, as long as one acknowledges the limitations given by reason and science–and as long as it is recognized that no one really knows either way?
I have been accused of sitting on the fence so many times here and the one time i don’t i hear about it 
Gamut said:
granted. that does not preclude one from taking a stance on something.
The fact that purple unicorns have had little to do with my life has generally kept me from thinking about them, let alone enshrining them.
As i have said before here, the burden of proof lies with the one making the assertion.
Do you often assign attributes to beings that you don’t know about. as you said, ‘“God”…whatever that word means.’
Exactly! Within the extent of my knowledge, purple unicorns don’t exist, therefore i don’t acknowledge them.
Logo said:
as i said in another thread
Which is basically what I said. I have no reason to believe in them. So why should I? My reason is limited upon my own abilities. We’re saying the same thing in different ways.
Which is not the definition usually given, and thus how were we to know this is the definition you’re assuming?
Precisely.
-
Our percetions, reasoning, etc., all that characterizes us, is limited.
-
We use these limits to determine what the world around us is, how we and it work, and what we’re dealing with. Our “reality” basically. To determine “what is.”
-
None of what we encounter gives us credibility for the belief in God or purple unicorns.
-
Conclusion: We have no reason to believe they exist.
-
Yet, since everything else we find existant has come from our limits, it’s perfectly rational to determine that said entities (God and Unicorn) don’t exist, since we have no “reason” to believe them.
5A And it can be argued that we have reasons to not believe in them.
-
Even if they do exist, it’s beyond our ability to conceive of them, and therfore has no import to us.
-
It is possible (technically) that they exist. But since it has no noticeable bearing on us, it’s irrelevant to us.
Which seems strange, since we just basically agreed on everything save your accusations against atheists.
I say this about the atheist because the very position seems to say “THERE IS NO GOD” as if it is a proven fact and they know it to be so as if they have the ability to know for sure.
Atheism = I know
Agnosticism = I can’t know
It reminds me of a “Real TV” type show I was watching once where this guy in Peru had climbed up on a building to touch a high voltage line. Well, in the video, he grabbed it and fell off the building from the shock. Luckily, he survived.
They had a camera in his hospital room a few day later for an interview. When the reporter asked him why he had touched the line he said:
“I did not believe it was true - electricity in the wire - because I cannot see it. I thought they were lying to me and nothing would happen.” 
Now, to us this seems rather dumb, for him to say “there is no electricity” just because he could not see it.
Were he a very intelligent person at all, he would have said “I don’t know if there is any electricity, therefore I will not touch the wire.”
If he were agnostic to the electricity, it would have saved him from nearly losing his life. Since he was atheist about it, he had come to a conclusion of certainty. Of course his conclusion was dead wrong.
I suppose you atheists would only be sastified if you could point to god (if there is one) and say “there he is” and since you can’t you say “he is not.”
Just becasue you cannot see it in your finite abilities, does not mean it does not exist in any form.
The only logical way you can be sure of your beliefs would be if you could occupy every inch of the entire universe at the same time so you could know there was no god anywhere.
That my friend, would make you god. And since you are not, I stand by the FACT that you don’t know. You are an agnostic in denial.
Greetings,
Just want to interrupt the proceedings to introduce SUPERCHRISTIANITY, or a conceptual view of Christianity that holds that Christ assumed the identity of every human that has ever lived within his mind while dying on the cross.
Superchristianity ultimately incorporates a view that consciousness is not exhausted to just some epiphenomena created by the brain and that we have no way of knowing that only consciousness comes from the brain, only that the brain is (causally?) linked to the consciousness that we can spot (our own) and does not in itself reveal the extent of consciousness in the world (if there is more).
Superchristianity assumes the existence of the Judeo-Christian God, and that other gods(and goddesses?) of other religions are only allegories and metaphors of this God and Christ. It also assumes that free will does not exist (except subjectively as only a “feeling” that we are in control of ourselves)and that God’s ultimate intention in creating human beings is to created for his “amusement” psychological deviations from the psychological state that is Jesus Christ, with the ultimate intention of transforming all of these deviant states into copies of the originial psychological primitive (Christ).
The rationale behind this view is simple: ontological fundamentalism, or the view that things are what they are for no other reason than that they are. We don’t ask why matter exists, we only know that it does. So it goes with the intentions of God(if one believes in God)
I have created a book that goes into Superchristianity in more detail, and I hold that it is a more logical look at Christianity than that which is commonly known. I argue that given our perceptual evidence about the world in philosophy the world observationally could be one of many conceptual worlds that could any one of them be true, and that Superchristianity makes up a logically possible version of the real world, as does atheism and so on.
Thanks for your time,
Jay M. Brewer
4712 Oldfort Hills Rd.
Austin, Texas 78723
I’d just like ot point out that talking about planets of purple unicorns is nonsense, the point about not believing in unicorns is not believing in them as they are commonly portrayed, i.e. living on Earth. There’s no point in making such wild statements and then saying you don’t know, of course you don’t. I don’t believe in Unicorns, I KNOW they don’t exist, but that doesn’t mean I KNOW there isn’t a planet with purple unicornESQUE creatures inhabiting it. However they are NOT unicorns. They are similar to our discription of a unicorn. That is all.
I also made the point earlier that we should be stricter on our definition of God, a plea which seemed to fall on deaf ears. My point was that as an Atheist I believe there is no higher being ACTIVELY involved in meddling with Human affairs, that there may actually be a higher being out there somewhere capable of doing so is beside the point!
Be careful to consider what other people are saying when posting philosophy, virtually every philosophical standpoint can be reduced to an absurd “I don’t know” stand point, if you let your imagination run wild. You have to put forward reasonable objections, otherwise every statement you make would have ot start something like “Assuming we are in a true reality that isn’t be influenced by other beings, that the laws of physics haven’t been one huge coincidence as we use induction, assuming I am of right mind and not imagining things, etc., etc., etc.”. There really is no point to doing that.