Not true. Not true because it depends on what it is. Some things are easy to determine while others aren't. So even by saying that you don't have enough info to definitively make a call one way or the other is also making a decision. Decisions don't have to be between two choices only.
What is "enough information" anyway? Is a decision to postpone deciding any difference than not deciding? Where is the distinction?
You are granted waving precision for the sake of decisiveness, what is your basis on postponement? It surely cannot be accuracy. It surely cannot be because there is an equal amount of equally convincing arguments down to the iota on both sides of the questions.
What is it then?
You are buttressing my point above - based on the information that is available to date, I can't definitively make a call whether god exists or not. Now tell me Pontiff, what is wrong with that?
Certainly, with an encyclical.
Perhaps a more insightful approach - than the simplistic right/ wrong labeling- would be to examine the finer details.
Are you talking about information available todate or information available to you todate? There is a big and important distinction. A blind man may be fully justified in saying, based on information available to him, the sun does not exist, that does not make that to be a fact.
Moreover, it is worthwhile to zero in on the specific information. What information are you referring to?
Nope, the information we have so far is inconclusive to get us to a convergence point.
Let's get to the nitty gritty. What information are you referring to?
Why not? It took almost a century for the Poincare's conjecture to be proven, what is 500 years for god?
Because there is no reason that this question would be settled in 500 years. It is entirely possible that the question is not knowable just as it is unknowable that the sun will rise tomorrow.
Is it unreasonable to use the past experience which converges towards the sun rising tomorrow, even as we do not know for sure that that will be the case?
And that's exactly what I do.
Whatever qualifiers you are using are taxing you without any benefit.I am afraid you are getting the disadvantage of using qualifiers (you are not comprehensive and definitive) without even benefiting from the advantages of using qualifies ( converging systematically) which in theory should converge towards discarding qualifiers.
At this rate, you will always use qualifiers and not converge anywhere. This is why, despite all protestations, I termed agnosticism as indecisiveness.
Based on the info we have to date, we can't conclusively tell whether god does really exist or not.
Again, we would do well to concentrate on examining the info, with details. The info I have today shows that god is becoming irrelevant with each passing day, and at some point down the line he will be a quaint object of nostalgic sentimentality for future historians when they ponder the human psychology and why it took us so long to admit that there is no god.
See, that's why the difference between atheists and agnostics is marginal. It seems like we agree on almost 99% except that one - conclusion. Don't you think?
The difference between atheists and agnostics is the one between a general who wants to examine all of Newtons equations anew, and Einstein's relativity as well, conduct all experiments involved, just to be sure that he can fire a gun at close range and kill his enemy.
This general is the agnostic one, he is sure to lose the war.
The atheist general is decisive and fires at once based on past experiences.
A sure fighting chance.
Patton did not win the war because he wanted all the trajectories figured out to the millimeter.
He was decisive.
This difference could prove to be a matter of life and death, tell the dead soldier that he is "dead only marginally".
