@David1955 Atheists are indeed closer to the christian way of thinking than Agnostics by degree, (obviously, not by some 50-50 split), but my contention is simply that they are more alike than Agnostics are.
.
Many years ago, there was a total absence of formal proof that Force = Mass * Acceleration, but absence of formal proof does not mean that such a formula was bogus. Years ago, there was no proof that black holes existed, but that did not disprove their existence. Atheists insist that it is bogus, in the same manner, with regard to some supreme power in the universe, yet they are not much more than ants, not even that, when confronted with the vast expanse and confounding nature of the universe.

Absence of "proof", that something exists, does not in any way prove that it doesn't exist.

The Agnostic view IS a position, it is a position less arrogant in the face of a vast universe, even Einstein himself had a sense of the awesomeness of the universe.

An Agnostic is well aware of the pitfalls of making unwarranted assumptions based upon deficient evidence.

@David1955 Do you think unicorns exist?

There is no reason to be agnostic about the existence of a supreme power in the universe, and no complicated proof is needed - it’s self-evident. The observable natural laws of physics, taken as a whole, are clearly “supreme” relative to any powers humans might possess.

@skado Except . . . no one has definitively proven that these laws are universal throughout the cosmos, a cosmos that we have no sure evidence proving just how vast it really is, or whether or not there are alternate universes, and, physicists have even speculated that in alternate universes, different laws would apply . . . . so there you go.

@Archeus_Lore
None of that changes the obvious fact that whatever is out there is clearly supreme relative to us.

@skado In what way "supreme?"

@Archeus_Lore

In every way the word is defined. It is of the highest order. It created us - we did not create it. We are subject to its laws - it is not subject to our laws. It was here before we existed, and will be here after we are gone.

[dictionary.com]

@skado So, it creates . . . . I think you would find that hard pressing to prove. There is nothing that proves that everything in the universe did not exist beforehand . . . . and if it was "superior" to us, it would posses superior intelligence . . . . proving that will take some doing.

@Archeus_Lore

"Creates" in the sense of being brought into existence. Like dripping mineral-laden water creates stalactites and stalagmites. It requires no intelligence.

By your reasoning there is nothing that proves anything. We can't prove Russell's teapot isn't out there, but we have no evidence that it is. If we are to just go by the evidence we have, Homo sapiens has existed for only two or three hundred thousand years. And life on this planet for only four or five billion. Sure, maybe life has existed elsewhere, but they are not us. We came into existence on this planet due to the combined natural forces inherent in the universe. We did not make the universe - it made us. We are products of its laws and energies and substances; not the other way around. There is nothing to prove - it is self-evident. There isn't a scientist in the world who thinks otherwise.

Your original comment - to which I was responding - brought up the topic of "supreme power". There is nothing in the definition of "power" that requires the inclusion of intelligence. A tornado is a lot more powerful than any human, and I'm pretty sure it has no intelligence at all. "Supreme power" just means the greatest or most ultimate power. And that, axiomatically, belongs to whatever system brought us into existence. It has nothing, necessarily, to do with intelligence, and no proof is needed. It's observable. The universe was here before you and I were born, and it will be here after we no longer exist. It has the ability to generate life, but we don't have the ability to generate universes. The supreme power resides with it, not us.

@skado My reasoning is similar to that of science . . . . in science, there is no absolute, and ANY theory or hypothesis is open to questioning . . . . . and indeed, there are many valid questions. While proof in science is based on statistics, it is understood that one instance of a counter-example of a proof can throw a monkey wrench into the whole thing, just as in our time, the standard model of physics is being scrutinized more critically because there are problems with it.
Once again with regard to your last paragraph, you are claiming a "creation", which is unprovable in the face of the possibility that the cosmos always existed. You cannot prove a creation happened. The Big Bang does not answer that question, Roger Penrose, one of the most preeminent physics of our time is not as certain as you are that there was a single big bang creation event that created the cosmos. If he is correct, the big bang was just one small event in an infinite universe.

Now you think you can prove creation still? I don't think you have the credentials.

@Archeus_Lore

I'm not suggesting any absolute. "Supremeness" is a relative term. It's a direction - not a destination. It's an abstraction - not a concrete entity. I'm not talking about certainty or proofs. I'm not a "Creationist". I'm not using the word "create" like religious fundamentalists use it. I'm just using it generically, as in "to cause to exist".

I'm not claiming a beginning or a "creation" of the universe. I'm claiming a beginning of humans. I've not heard any scientist claim we've always existed. As for the universe, my assumption is like Roger's. I think it's likely to have always existed in some form or other. But that has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

All I'm saying is that reality itself is the supreme power. What's more powerful than the entirety of reality? The entirety of reality has more power than any other conceivable thing, does it not? That makes it supreme. That doesn't mean we understand its nature, or that we can quantify it, or that we know anything about it absolutely. But if we agree that there is an objective reality ( and I know some folks don't ) then we have to acknowledge that the entirety of it must be more powerful than any part of it. No?

@skado Supremeness is usually associated with some form of volition. Once again, something damned hard to prove. Some folks believe the universe is teleological, I don't.

Geometry has multiple forms including Euclidean, Hyperbolic and Elliptical, and how that ties in to the nature of the cosmos is still being debated.

Everything is questionable, even our number system is highly suspect. I give you 6 apple seeds, and from that you are to define a "unit" . . . . while each apple seed varies in the size and number of atoms it has . . . . then you want to calculate using that "unit", and expect it to be perfectly accurate? This is one of the reasons science is so obsessed with statistics.

None of that makes the foundation that we are working with all so secure. Humans crave order, that is likely what drives them to try to create the solid foundation, but underneath it all is still a lot of questions, imperfections and mysteries.

@Archeus_Lore

You keep putting words in my mouth and then telling me I can't prove them. I haven't said or implied anything about volition or teleology. Where's the teleology in being the "greatest, utmost, or extreme? Where's the volition in a Taco Supreme? Where's the certainty in the concept of "largest"?

All I'm saying is the whole is bigger than any of its parts. What's so mysterious about that? No human can be absolutely certain about anything. It doesn't mean we shouldn't use reason to arrive at practical solutions, or that we can't use words to communicate those solutions. If we can't agree that the biggest is the biggest, then we needn't bother trying to have a conversation.

@skado You said 'The agnostic view is 'I don't know', which to me is a non position, like 'I don't know if leprechauns exist, or if I can know if they exist". That's silly to me.'

"I don't know." Is a position after all.

@Archeus_Lore

You have mistaken me for David. Now I see why I felt like you were talking to someone else the whole time!

@skado Yes, indeed . . .

@TheMiddleWay My preferred car wash spot with hand wash promises free hot dogs on Sundays though this only happens when they feel like it. And I would still need to supply my own onions.
I have no faith the hot dog cart will be there on any given Sunday.

Meanwhile, later that same night in a tawdry part of Toronto. the supervisor responsible for giving the nod to the design of this PhD drivel was taken out and served with several sacraments.

To have not formed the holy quadrinity of agnostic/gnostic/theist/atheist is an apostasy before all that is academic.

To discover different stereotypical opinions are attached to agnostic/atheist/christian people is somewhat unsurprising.

One can only hope that the paper was strong, yet gentle and flexible.

I consider myself an A-theist but you can call me anything you like ... I am that I am.