I've heard this before, and just don't buy it. From an epistemological sense, it's basically impossible to prove a negative. That doesn't mean that I have to provide evidence that everything I don't believe in doesn't exist. The default position is to withhold belief for things that you cannot prove or have significant evidence DO exist.
It's like the claim that we're all living in some other much higher order entity's computer simulation. I.e. that we're a version of the video game "The Sims" and we don't know it, or that we're just all in The Matrix and don't realize that our observed reality is a made up construct to satisfy us.
I don't believe we're in a sim, or that we're in The Matrix. But can I prove that we're not? Of course not. Does that mean that I should consider myself agnostic on the matter, and not claim that I don't believe it? I don't think so.
People tend to apply this test ONLY to the atheism / agnosticism question. I don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster either, but it seems that people don't consider me an agnostic on that question, I'm allowed to be a non-believer.
I'd turn it back on you. Do you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Well, if you don't, then you need to PROVE it doesn't exist, otherwise you're agnostic on the matter...
I don't believe you're agnostic on the matter, I think you believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist. But you can't prove it, can you?
And I've heard
this before, I don't don't buy it. You'll have to pardon me, I'm sure this will be a lot clunkier than the much more articulate thinkers I'm drawing from.
You seem to be referring to Properly Basic Beliefs--beliefs which are appropriately grounded and may be rationally accepted as basic beliefs not grounded in argument. i.e.--neither of us think we're living in The Matrix, we can't prove that, but for reasons I can't get into here, qualifies as rational thought. Or again, the belief that betarhoalphadelta is a person on the other end of these interwebz wire thingys. I can't prove that. Could be a bot beyond what I know bots to be capable of, could be I'm delusional and I'm making you up. I can't prove that's not the case, however I'm justified in thinking you are a real person. The agnostic is not being asked to prove such a negative.
The flying spaghetti monster is a famous example getting into the philosophical concept of "Possible Worlds," which you may know about, and if not, I don't have the capacity to get into here. Here I'll just say I don't think it's helpful or particularly relevant for the discussion at hand.
That's all beside the point. The agnostic absolutely makes a
positive claim when they say "We can't know if there's a god." That is a claim which requires at least some support.
We can't know if there's really a sun. Technically true, much like the Matrix, but we can assign properties of being to what we mean when we say "sun" and then there's a threshold of rationally acceptable evidence for such a thing.
We also can't know if there's a Loch Ness monster, would be a similar claim. Again there has to be some definable qualities assigned to whatever/whomever, and failing to find such a thing may leave one without proof of its
nonexistence, but finding sufficient evidence of something matching those qualities is a logically possible outcome which would negate the positive idea of not being able to know if it exists. If it is logically possible to know if something exists, then the agnostic does not get to wave their hand and magically dismiss the burden of proof he seeks to put on everyone else when they say "it's not possible to know."
"God" may be assigned qualities*, and then there is either sufficient evidence for this being or not, the presence of said evidence making the original claim incorrect. It would probably be more correct to say "We can't know that there's
no god." Proving that would be proving a negative, but that's a position more likely to be held by a theist. In saying we can't know something, the agnostic makes as positive a claim as the theist in asserting God exists, and the atheist in asserting God does not exist. Only, the agnostic does not make a claim about existence, but rather about knowledge. That still is an assertion which requires support.
That is why I say I accept the agnostic (statement 1, if you will): "I don't know if there's a God." Fair. Maybe the evidence of lack of evidence isn't enough to move someone firmly either direction. But the agnostic statement 2: "We can't know...." 1) is a positive statement 2) in asking for support is not being asked to prove a negative 3) thus requires support.
*This is not unimportant. People need to be sure they're referring to the same thing, or person, in a topic like this. Most arguments from popular atheists present arguments against a being that I, as a theist, don't believe in either. Sometimes people tell me "I don't believe in God" and my first thought is "Which God don't you believe in? Because I can point you to a lot of televangelists or cults or what have you, or a Sistine Chapel painting of some bearded Santa Clause looking grandpa surrounded by cherubim, and I don't believe in that guy either." This is where most popular atheistic authors and thinkers lose me....most often they set up straw men and then proceed to knock them down, which doesn't move me at all. And while they clearly don't do enough research, they're not entirely to blame for this, which brings me to my earlier statement about Christians in a previous post. The reason why a lot of non-theists have concepts of God I'm not even interested in engaging in--because I find that "god" equally ridiculous--is because on the whole, Christians have done a crap job of conveying or even understanding what they (supposedly) believe. I shouldn't criticize too harshly though, I fell in that category most of my life.