Instigator / Con
1341
rating
72
debates
18.75%
won
Topic

Your best argument for any person not to be an agnostic.

Status
Debating

Waiting for the instigator's fifth argument.

The round will be automatically forfeited in:

00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Religion
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Winner selection
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
27,000
Contender / Pro
1662
rating
15
debates
90.0%
won
Description
~ 797 / 5,000

Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.

Just plain and simple. What is your best argument to not be an agnostic?
What could you offer as an argument ideally I suppose for yourself, myself, anybody else to not be an agnostic ?
Is it the strongest?
Is it totally non-debunkable?

Let's see.

Questions about the topic, please leave a comment or send a message.

Round 1
Con
What is your best argument to not be an agnostic?
Pro
x. Interpretation of the resolution
  • Since this is a 5 round debate, I will take the round to interpret the resolution and lay some essential groundwork, as this debate is unorthodox and needs a standard by which we can evaluate the winner or loser respectively.
  • The resolution states: "your best argument for any person not to be an agnostic." I suggest the most reasonable way to evaluate this is for me to play the advocate role of the mentioned position and, as stated, simply present what I believe to be my best argument for the topic. 
  • Mall shall propose an argument that is supposedly better than my argument and we shall engage with one another in deliberation upon which argument is indeed, the best. I propose the debate shall be judged accordingly. Weighing my argument against whether or not Mall has demonstrated a better one.


Round 2
Con
What is your best argument?
Pro
Overview
  • In round one, I propose a reasonable interpretation of this unconventional and peculiar topic resolution that has no descriptional specifications. Mall drops this revealing that he does not object to my framing, thus, I will continue this debate under the proposed framework. I encourage voters to observe this and vote accordingly. 

x. Interpretation of the resolution
  • Dropped. Extend. 
  • The resolution is not even a proposition, (a statement that can be proven true or falsified). Instead, the object of the debate becomes the presentation of my best argument against agnosticism. To evaluate this, we can judge the debate on your critique of my argument with a better one. I propose this is the most reasonable way to resolve the issues presented in the resolution and establish a definitive winner. 

I. Argument
  • My best argument against agnosticism is simply the fact that it leads or collapses to infinite skepticism, and that people should more prudently seek to make claims based on the most convincing mode of evidence presented to them in the long term. Observer:
    • Agnostic: I am unsure as to whether God exists
    • Me: Why not make claims based on the strongest deductive forms of evidence?
    • Agnostic: I don't know
    • Me: Okay...so why can't this be applied to literally anything else? 
    • Agnostic: How so?
    • Me: How do you know that cup exists
    • Agnostic: I can see it
    • Me: How do you know you can trust your senses? 
    • Agnostic: Hmm, I don't know
    • Me: How do you know you exist?
    • Agnostic: I think, therefore, I am. 
    • Me: How do you know that is a sound argument?
    • Agnostic: The law of logic necessitates that.
    • Me: How do you know the laws of logic are constant and hold true?
    • Agnostic: Hmm, I don't know.
    • Me: I guess you must be Agnostic about everything 
  • I argue that agnosticism can be cross-applied to every aspect of reality and in order to progress in uncovering the truth of reality (objective states of reality), one should avoid taking agnostic positions of deductive matters of philosophy.


Round 3
Con
"My best argument against agnosticism is simply the fact that it leads or collapses to infinite skepticism, and that people should more prudently seek to make claims based on the most convincing mode of evidence presented to them in the long term. "

I have some questions here to clarify your statement.

It goes into infinite or virtually always being skeptical. A person that is skeptical will require evidence. Is that true or false?

So the remainder of that statement mentions or relates to evidence .

So you will have to clarify a distinction here that points out a skeptic looking for evidence to change their skepticism and any other person looking for evidence.

The reason a person is agnostic is due to no evidence. That's no evidence for either side . The agnostic says we can't know something due to an absence of evidence. The agnostic is all about evidence. They don't even want to settle with a belief. As beliefs are separate from facts.

"Agnostic: I am unsure as to whether God exists "

Highly valid based on what I just stated.

Let me ask, is anybody sure on this planet?
Those that are sure, if they exist, why would we be having this debate?

We're not debating about the sun being hot, that's evident.

"Me: Why not make claims based on the strongest deductive forms of evidence?"

There is either evidence or there is not. There is no evidence. There are theories and suggested syllogisms. But no evidence, deductive reasoning sure.
But the agnostic just wants the evidence  like the evidence of gravity.

"Agnostic: I don't know"

Once again, valid. We're looking for honesty in the facts, the facts.

"Me: Okay...so why can't this be applied to literally anything else?
Agnostic: How so?
Me: How do you know that cup exists
Agnostic: I can see it
Me: How do you know you can trust your senses?
Agnostic: Hmm, I don't know "

By that last response, evidence is pointless. We have to start somewhere, namely at the base.

So when the question is asked how can we trust senses, it's like asking how can we trust our parents to tend to us , take care of us, provide from whence we couldn't for ourselves?

We don't concern ourselves with trust because either way, we have no other to our aid. It's like a take it or leave it. There's no other place to go.

So I would trust, no pun intended, that the person with the agnostic view would have thought about this question and have a solid basis or substantiated one to answer with. Something fundamental such as I conveyed.

"Me: How do you know you exist?

Agnostic: I think, therefore, I am. "

How does one know anything exists?

Again it's that thing called evidence.

"Me: How do you know that is a sound argument?
Agnostic: The law of logic necessitates that.
Me: How do you know the laws of logic are constant and hold true?
Agnostic: Hmm, I don't know."

Perhaps you don't know what an agnostic may say. But I understand that they're concerned with evidence. Something you're asking about that is being questioned as trustworthy.

That's one thing about facts is their testability, repeatability nature. Something that is true is that which is, not which isn't.

"I guess you must be Agnostic about everything "

You're going to have to ask them about everything. Highly doubtful anybody has that kind of time including the agnostic person you're talking to.

"one should avoid taking agnostic positions of deductive matters of philosophy."

As long as you're not saying to avoid the agnostic positions that are inclusive of evidence .

I believe you are downplaying, reducing the merit of the agnostic position.

People will do this particularly when trying to upstage the atheist position.

But hey, let's not get into comparisons. Just realize what you said about evidence and skepticism.

A skeptic will exist as long as evidence is not present. Now that's a wide spectrum for all kinds of people, let alone agnostics .





Pro
Overview
  • In round one, I propose a reasonable interpretation of this unconventional and peculiar topic resolution that has no descriptional specifications. Mall drops this revealing that he does not object to my framing, thus, I will continue this debate under the proposed framework. I encourage voters to observe this and vote accordingly. 

x. Interpretation of the resolution
  • Extend. 
  • Fairly establishing continuity with my overview. Pro's burden is to simply provide his best argument, and if every round of the debate is waived subsequently, pro currently has won the debate. Con needs to somehow falsify my argument presented as my best one. Granted, I have provided an avenue for this: the presentation of a better one, which will de-facto become my new best argument if decided so by the voters in order to fulfill the most rudimentary interpretation of the resolution. 

I. Argument 
  • First, we can note that pro is yet to provide a better argument as consistent with my unchallenged framework. 
  • Let's begin with some quick rebuttals to con. He does not reject nor deny that agnosticism collapses to infinite skepticism. He goes on slight tidbits and rambles on the evidence that exists for God etc. however, my argument is that to deny that anything can be known about the existence or nature of God is to deny any mode of empiricism for any aspect of reality. 
  • I think Mall has made our jobs a bit easier here. Mall himself seems to admit that he subscribes to testable evidence and its revelation about the truth of reality. Now, all I need to do is exhibit how his own ontology entails a contradiction with agnosticism.
The reason a person is agnostic is due to no evidence. 
But no evidence, deductive reasoning sure.
That's one thing about facts is their testability, repeatability nature. Something that is true is that which is, not which isn't.
  • Sure, however, the agnostic must deny all facts, and deny that we can know anything about reality because his position that we cannot possibly know about the nature or existence of God rejects every mode of reasoning. Thus, the agnostic must reject anything he observes as testable because it is predicated upon less certainty than deduction, and consequently, the agnostic must question his own presuppositions as they are not sufficiently grounded by any mode of reasoning.
By that last response, evidence is pointless. We have to start somewhere, namely at the base.
  • See above. As the agnostic denies the possibility of evidence in our discussed respect, he can by the same token, deny the possibility of sensual accuracy which is typically presuppositional. Here is a modus ponens justification for the above proposition:
  • (p1) If presuppositional accuracy is grounded in less certainty than deduction, presuppositions are less evidenced than God. (p2) Presuppositional accuracy is grounded in less certainty than deduction. (c) Presuppositions are less evidenced than God. 

I.1
  • Pro concedes that he accepts and subscribes to modes of empiricism that exhibit testability. Pro also concedes we can know things exist through such empiricism saying 
"How does one know anything exists? Again it's that thing called evidence." 
  • So pro's own assertions entail a contradiction with agnosticism in which he asserts that his epistemology allows him to "know," facts of the world through induction, where he would logically have to be agnostic about reality as such evidence exhibits less certainly than deduction, which he rejects as evidence here: 
But no evidence, deductive reasoning sure.

Round 4
Con
"False, agnosticism is fundamentally an epistemological position, which stipulates that "nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena."

Due to no evidence. Hello, hello, hello, hello, no thing is known without evidence and no thing can be known without evidence.

What is complicated about that?

"The agnostic rejects the possibility of inductively or deductively uncovering the ontological nature of God's existence. To do so is to reject both modes of reasoning themselves, which can apply to every aspect of reality."

Does that mean the agnostic rejects evidence?

There is no evidence for God to exist. There is no evidence for God not to exist.
So therefore the agnostic view of a neutral stance exists.
That's all there is to it.

"Deductive reasoning that is consistent with the laws of logic (valid & sound) is evidence. In fact, it can be seen as superior to traditional empiricisms because it requires less induction."

Whatever you want to call it. There's no evidence. If there was evidence for God, then religions would no longer exist. Having a faith would no longer be necessary.

Can you dig it ?

"Sure, however, the agnostic must deny all facts, and deny that we can know anything about reality because his position that we cannot possibly know about the nature or existence of God rejects every mode of reasoning. "

Hold it right there. Are you saying the agnostic ignores or would ignore evidence if presented?

If you're saying all agnostic people would do that then you have to prove that.

Agnostic theists or agnostic atheists can be open to evidence. They're open to beliefs, they can spir more room for any known facts .

The reality is nobody but nobody knows the true existence of deities.

"Thus, the agnostic must reject anything he observes as testable because it is predicated upon less certainty than deduction, and consequently, the agnostic must question his own presuppositions as they are not sufficiently grounded by any mode of reasoning."

I don't know if you really thought about this thoroughly although it need not in depth thought, why has an agnostic come to the stance that they have?

It seems like your understanding of an agnostic is someone who is biased to keeping a close mind period.

So in response to everything else you had to say, you have a different take on agnosticism.

Going by what I mean by agnosticism which is a neutral stance on the existence of God due to no evidence, your argument is good for anybody to be an agnostic.

Maybe the best, a little rough around the edges but it's a start to arguing for anybody to be an agnostic.

Which would translate that you don't have an argument, let alone the best.






Pro
Overview
  • Pro does not challenge my framework, meaning he accepts it. 
  • Extend all arguments. As usual, pro drops all rebuttals and continues to repeat what he said previously.

x. Interpretation of the resolution
  • Extend. 

I. Argument 
  • First, we can note that pro is yet to provide a better argument as consistent with my unchallenged framework. 
Due to no evidence. Hello, hello, hello, hello, no thing is known without evidence and no thing can be known without evidence.
Whatever you want to call it. There's no evidence.
  • Pro does not object to/concedes that deductive reasoning that is consistent with the laws of logic is evidence, and as so, there is a lot of theistic evidence in essentially any prominent metaphysical syllogism like the contingency argument or the cosmological argument
If you're saying all agnostic people would do that then you have to prove that.
  • Perhaps try reading, I am saying the agnostic position entails such skepticism, and it would probe contradiction to act outside of it. 
If you're saying all agnostic people would do that then you have to prove that.
  • See previous rounds/above.

I.1
  • I extend my argument from collapse to infinite skepticism. Remember that con has already affirmed he subscribes to the idea that testable observations can reveal to us what is true in reality. however, the agnostic believes that we can't know whether God exists because we can't experience him directly. By the same token, we can not experience our presuppositions, and thus, the agnostic must reject his own presuppositions. 
    • Derivatively, The agnostic must be agnostic upon the notion that he is himself, as the law of identity is fundamentally presuppositional. If the agnostic can not affirm that he is himself, he must reject all aspects of reality on this alone as his own experiences betray him: they are not his own. There is the encroaching probability that none of them can be trusted or synthesized. 
  • Second, the agnostic must reject deduction as he only concludes the phenomena of his experiences. However, by the same token, the agnostic must also reject induction as it expresses objectively less certainty than deduction. Thus, the agnostic must reject every aspect of reality as we establish evidence from indication. Consequently, the agnostic must reject any ontological classification claim as they are fundamentally deductive or inductive. 

Conclusion
  • Mall has not even attempted to refute my argument talking less of engaging with it. Regardless, I have provided my argument and consequently have won the debate as of now. 
  • Statements like this: 
Hold it right there. Are you saying the agnostic ignores or would ignore evidence if presented?
  • Suggest that con does not understand, nor is he attempting to understand or synthesize my line of argumentation. Ignore his tangents.



Round 5
Not published yet
Not published yet