When an agnostic says that the existence of gods is unknowable, they're making a claim about the entire extent of human knowledge, past, present, and future. Unless they can magically predict the future, there's no way that their claim could possibly be justified.
Hmmm.
I think that when an agnostic, like me, says such a thing, then he has a specific definition of the word "god" in mind. And this definition will be provided by theists who have the courage to define the god they believe in.
Whenever a theist defines his god to me, it always ends up being a definition that is unfalsifiable and untestable. In other words, the deity is defined in such a way that it literally becomes impossible for us to know about it.
And even if that's not clear enough, this god is also usually "all powerfull". Meaning that this god literally "can do anything". So, EVEN IF the definition would be testable / falsifiable, that "all powerfull" bit always provides a generic internally consistent cop-out.
If the definition makes it possible to create a test which literally would demonstrate a god exists, the "all powerfull" part can be used as a cop-out when the test fails:
"
ow, god made your test fail because he wants you to have faith instead"
It also works for any mythological claim that may or may not be testable.
Take the Noah Flood. That makes predictions that can be tested scientifically concerning geology and genetics, among others.
So geologists and geneticists can test these predictions.
A geologist might say that there is no global flood layer in the geological column which should be there if the story is true.
But once again: "
ow but god is all powerfull and as such he used his powers to rebuild the earth after the catastrophic flood, some sort of clean up if you will. that's why you don't find evidence of flooding".
So, once you allow for magic to take place, then nothing becomes testable as there is a cop-out for literally every test that fails.
All that put together..... I'ld say it is a very valid statement to say that such gods are unknowable.
Not because of any "ultimate knowledge", not because of any fortune telling concerning future technology and its limits or whatever.... but purely by how these gods are defined and the properties that are attributed to them.
It is not just my opinion that these gods are unknowable... Rather,
it is that these gods are literally defined as being unknowable....
It's also a much more extreme anti-theist position than a minimally atheist position. Where an atheist might respond to theistic claims and arguments with just "I'm not convinced by that," by saying that the existence of gods is unknowable, the agnostic is implying that every argument and claim that, if true, would demonstrate the existence of a god is necessarily false.
No. (a)gnosticism pertains to knowledge and not to belief. It's not some "third" position between atheism and theism. It rather is a qualifier thereof.
You can be an agnostic theist (I don't know but I believe it's true)
and you can be an agnostic atheist (I don't know and don't believe it's true)
