"Justified true belief" presents a significant philosophical problem, because the premise for justification is usually flawed.

However, agnostic theism is not necessarily being uncertain. It only means that the theist concedes empirical knowledge of a god can never be obtained. Objective knowledge on the other hand, does not need to hold up to scientific scrutiny.

One may consider any knowledge that does not hold scientific water as "non-knowledge", but this simply means that the person's basis for knowledge is empiricism.

I for one, am not an agnostic atheist, but just an atheist. I don't believe in god, but should he exist, I think we would be able to empirically prove it, as well as prove it unscientifically.

I think that you are mixing the ideas of belief and knowledge oddly. For me, knowledge would be something which is certain and known. For example, my cat is gray with gray stripes. OTOH, belief requires either a lack of actual knowledge or a deliberate ignorance of actual evidence.

So the YEC crowd is engaging in the voluntary ignorance of a mountain of evidence that the earth is far older than the bible appears to indicate.

Past that, I could rework your basic idea and ask if it is possible to fit into more than one category of atheism. I would have to say that that is certainly possible.

On the most basic level, I consider myself to be a nihilist. Although I must qualify as the concept is somewhat broad. I do not mean to say that I cannot even trust my senses, as in being trapped in the matrix. Rather, I will go with what I perceive until such time as there is a demonstration that such is a problem. However, I require a high standard of proof.

Could something along the lines of god exist? Well sure and in that light, one could assume that I am agnostic. However, I require the same high standard of proof as I would to prove that reality is not what it seems to be.

So if it turned out that there was some being that had something to do with how we came to be, I would still require to have clear evidence of what that even means. Perhaps the monolith builders from 2001 are (or at least were) real. They helped our protohuman ancestors become what we are today.

Alternatively, there is something more like the maker of the universe. He inhabits a place which is outside of what we call the universe. However, in that case, the universe must be embedded in the place where god lives.

To say that god is the maker of space and is outside of space is incoherent. That would mean that god was not in a place. Well, if god is nowhere, then it makes no sense that god exists.

I tend to agree...the YEC crowd does seem to ignore evidence. WLC and Pal's seem to embrace modern cosmology. If I was to choose, I'd choose WLC over a YEC. Kent Hovind doesn't count. Many YECist don't even like him.

I suppose one could either be willfully ignorant or just plain ignorant concerning knowledge of a god's existence. I tend to agree with you concerning nihilism, but consider myself an anti-nihilist because of the void one could create if the only sort of certainty allowed was absolute certainty. If this is the case, then empiricism is deductively screwed from the get-go unless of course one has omniscience.

This is a complete aside, but where does the universe exist?

That's my point though. Ironically, god is only meaningful when it is meaningless. As soon as it is defined and quantified, it doesn't fit with reality, and obviously doesn't exist. Only when staying amorphous can one claim sanity through belief, no matter how tenuous.
Unless there's a definition that works and we're all yet unaware of it.

Reality is real. That which exists exists. It makes no sense to doubt the reality of the real. No god shares this quality. It is therefore a bad argument. I can point at anything which is real. Even thought, which comes from the brain. I can't point at a god. The only question begging comes from supposing a god in the first place. Without such begging, there is no argument.

No, I'm pretty sure I'd call that man god, and shit my pants.

I hold that the phrase "justified true belief" is a very flawed attempt to define "knowledge", begging the question by incorporating the word "true", which is simply not 'knowable' about most items of knowledge, making the definition useless. It just one of the reasons I detest most philosophy, when it keeps coming up with crap like that.

I see 'knowledge', 'belief', and 'assumption' as lying on a spectrum, going from high confidence and good supporting arguments to low confidence and no real logical or evidentiary support.

The data on which the arguments are based may be wrong, which would mean the belief is untrue,  but that just means the terms have to be treated as contextual. I mean by that that if someone in ancient times accepted the common belief that the Sun went around the Earth, it would have been perfectly valid at the time to say he 'knew' that as a 'fact'.

We should not really be using the term 'knowledge' so freely in serious discourse because it really is so slippery. Better to say 'convinced of ' or something similar, except maybe when speaking of 'knowledge' of things such one's own name, or that one is sitting on a chair. We 'know' that for an individual, even such 'beliefs' may actually be incorrect, but from their point of view, it is still correct to say they 'know' those things. It could be described as "false knowledge", but you still need to get rid of that "true" in the 'definition'. And justified is still a subjective term.

"You would? Why?"

Because he just broke every law of physics, which I understand and have observed to be impossible.

"You have no objective or empirical reason to believe this"

See above.

"he could just as easily be buddha, or super-buddha after achieving enlightenment."

Then buddha is god.

"Or simply some alien race that has managed to achieve omnipotence."

Sounds like a race of gods.

"The concept of god itself is logically contradictory, so isn't that the last thing you should be calling whoever that guy is?"

This guy just proved irrevocably one of two things: he is god, or I'm delusional. Absent evidence that I'm delusional, he is god.

True does not imply truth. True is a descriptor for a proposition, but in and of itself is not true or false. In that, it is not question begging.

But this is exactly what justified true belief is getting at. Propositions that map onto to some sort of justification (i.e. evidence etc.)

This is confusing common beliefs with facts. The fact is that earth revolved around the sun.

I do not think that knowledge is subjective if it is true. At a minimum level, knowledge is true belief, in that it is not false. I any case, saying "convinced of" results in the same ambiguity, it just shifts the terminology. I hardly think that is an adequate solution to any sort of problem, but I really do not think there is one.

This is exactly what I'm getting at thought. Insomuch as I define it, I preclude that certain state of affairs are "real" and others are not. I'm not saying that we should not define such things, but in doing so, realize that there are consequences to the definitions. Saying that "Real is real" though, is not a definition than "god is god". If that is permissible, then why can I not do that for any state of affairs?