Talk:Agnosticism

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 September 2021 and 11 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jod28. Peer reviewers: Cjv419.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Agnostotheism: make page

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:2149:8286:5d00:fc1e:e047:b002:3866 (talk) 12:55, 25 October 2017‎ (UTC)

Agnosticism isn't a worldview on the metaphysical actuality of the cosmos itself

Agnosticism isn't a worldview on the metaphysical actuality of the cosmos itself, but a state of mind of the individual or a limitation of the individual. That isn't tautological to the workings of the cosmos. The "limitations of the individual", either personally or cosmically posed, are not the "mechanism of the universe"; thus agnosticism is a worldview about the opinions of the individual, and not about the cosmic actuality. The possibly hidden nature of the cosmos, isn't its only attribute, nor its deepest mechanism. Agnosticism is not the purest metaphysics on the cosmos, but it is pure ontic metaphysics on the individual (the thinker).

make page: antiagnosticism

Why metaphysical personocracy (metaphysical personocracy: to deem [explicitly] personhood [god is the cosmogonic person], or [implicitly] the projected purpose people ascribe and project unto the universe, its content and to all hypotherical cosmoi) is one out of an infinite list of alternative biases; but humans value personocracy more because they themselves are persons.

We could have the theory of metaphysical bus-ocracy (to deem everything mechanically related to buses, itineraries, fuel consumption, mechanical malfunctions, tickets, etc); and all that deemed cosmically fundamental and causal.

We could have the theory of metaphysical bookcase-ocracy (to deem everything literarily related to authors, languages, book genres, types of wood, types of paper, types of ink, etc); and all that deemed cosmically fundamental and causal.

If these biases seem silly, mind that all biases are equally silly; but humans relate more to biases that promote their own personhood; explicitly or implicitly. The personocratic bias is also a problem of agnosticism (not only of religion and supernaturalism); because all forms of agnosticism value metaphysical personocracy as a superior bias, but without justification.

Why out of the infinite possible biases humans selected the theories of metaphysical personocracy? Because they are persons themselves.

Sean M. Carroll (cosmologist) and Max Tegmark (mathematical physicist) apply mathematics to describe the cosmos (and the hypothetical cosmoi). They aren't exactly mathogonists, because mathematics is a tool of logic. Not all mathematics is materialisable/substantial (see: decision theory). These theorists are struogonists (struō is the Latin etymon of structure; see: mathematical structure) because the materialisable cosmoi must satisfy various requirements; thus their set of formulas is smaller than the whole of mathematics.

Even scientists have biases, and they make mistakes; but the mathematical universe hypothesis doesn't set beforehand a specific predetermined goal deemed as the cause of everything. The scientific theories are tested and corrected through time (religion deems change heretical); and even their general idea might change, because no predetermined goal is set, other than understanding a bit more the nature of the universe and of the other possible worlds.

The entry definition MISSES the impersonal divine field (implicit and not explicit form of metaphysical personocracy), which still is a projection of human (self-aware thinker; because we don't know if only humans are such) biases unto the physical cosmos and the hypothetical worlds; and is examined by many agnostics

Agnosticism also considers the possibility of implicit metaphysical personocracy/impersonal divine field (which opposes metaphysical naturalism; here the difference between atheism and metaphysical naturalism is obvious (why don't we have the page: Similarities and differences between metaphysical naturalism and atheism or succinctly comparison between metaphysical naturalism and atheism [metaphysical naturalism comes first, because it's more rigorous philosophically, atheism is more known but less specific; the greatest dictionaries focus only on the inexistence of god in the atheist doctrine, also milder variants, and the unprovability declaration as variant subdoctrines]). |}

Nonsense

This is nonsensical. Agnosticism is not a "belief system." Gnosticism has nothing to do with what you belief. It about what you know. Theism is belief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.241.240.42 (talk) 14:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)