Do you believe; and why?

[Dill]

(05-18-2019, 05:58 PM)Lucidus Wrote: In my opinion you're speaking of "know" in a very practical / colloquial sense. When I speak of "know" in regards to agnosticism, I'm referring to the truth or factuality of something, as to it's demonstrable certainty.

In your McDonald's example, I would ask how you wouldn't be agnostic as to the proposition that "there is no McDonald's on the far side of the moon"? How can we demonstrate that we can know factually, and with certainty, that it couldn't be the case? What if it's undetectable by us for some reason? It seems to be the most reasonable position would be to say both:

We can't yet prove (or know with certainty) there isn't a McDonalds on the moon.

and
Neither have we seen conclusive (factual and certain) evidence that it couldn't be the case.

Actually, I am speaking of "know" with an eye to the history of philosophy, and of "demonstrable certainty"--the latter term begging the question of "demonstrable."

In my view you are framing the question of whether god/the supernatural exists as an empirical test, while at the same time adopting a conception of "certain" knowledge (and agnosticism regarding which) embedded in a long (Ancient and Medieval) metaphysical discourse about matters beyond experience. The latter poses answers to questions of knowledge--e.g., can two angels can occupy the same space?--in apodictic terms on the order of analytic (e.g., mathematical and/or logical) necessity. 

This metaphysical discourse continues into modern times, but as theology, alongside a modern philosophy which breaks from it rather decisively from it in the 17th-18th centuries, e.g., Spinoza, Hume, Kant.  The cumulative effect of their work is to move questions about the existence of god/the supernatural out of the realm of possible knowledge.

You might respond--"well there you go: agnostics!" But its more than that. It is the death of "god" as a living philosophical question.

Because the ground of knowledge has shifted from metaphysical deduction to  induction based upon experience, which deals with probability, you can always claim that such knowledge is never 100% certain.

But in this context, the claim "we cannot know for certain" can have pernicious effects, especially the confusion of empirical and non empirical "knowledge," which hampers our ability to form judgments of relevance and priority--or worse embrace equivocations which run counter to the ends of philosophical and scientific inquiry.

Below is an example

(05-18-2019, 05:58 PM)Lucidus Wrote: That is to say, I might assume that I "know" it won't rain tomorrow based off what I think based on my perception that weather forecasts are generally accurate predictors. However, I can't actually know (factually and for certain) if my assumption is true until tomorrow gets here and I have a way to verify it. Once that happens, only then can I truly know if I was correct in my assumption or not.

It could be the case a supernatural realm exists and we currently just have no way of detecting or examining it.
However, I see no justification to actively "believe" it is the case until which time it can be demonstrated.

What if the evidence has existed all along, and we've simply haven't found it yet? As I said in response to this before, just because a murder weapon has yet to be found doesn't mean there isn't a murder weapon. In that case, the evidence is only "absent" in the sense that it hasn't been discovered yet.

If one has already experienced rain, then wondering whether it will rain tomorrow is rather different from wondering whether the supernatural exists, though one can pose conditions for determining the truth or falsity of such claims with equal ease.

In your sense of the word "know," one can posit a multiplicity of claims which cannot be proven 100% false--there is not only a dragon in your garage, but an invisible mouse in your pocket, and both used to work at that McDonald's on the far side of the moon. It is possible the evidence for these claims has "existed all along" but we have not found it yet. That we have not found it yet does not mean it does not exist. etc. The number of such "possible" truths is infinite and, I would add, infinitely IMprobable.

The problem of sorting knowledge/truth claims is especially acute now, I think, in the age of Trump, when absence of evidence proves no barrier to conspiracy theories in a public sphere where no one can be "100% sure" that the Clinton's didn't kill Vince Foster and Obama wasn't born in Kenya, but they can doubt there was a moon landing or that Russians interfered with the US elections.
NB: enjoying the discussion, Lucidus. I think you raise serious questions that I hope I am not dismissing.