Instigator / Pro
1492
rating
332
debates
40.66%
won
Topic
#5414

Agnosticism is the most logical/rational based view on the existence of god.

Status
Debating

Waiting for the next argument from the contender.

Round will be automatically forfeited in:

00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
1500
rating
0
debates
0.0%
won
Description

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.

Questions on the topic, send a message.

Explanation of my position as it pertains to breaking down the meaning of the topic will be in round 1. No preliminary details are necessary here.

Round 1
Pro
#1
Hopefully I have an individual here that will participate.

Often times newcomers abandon their post.

Either way I have the site audience to address.

Agnosticism is the most logical based view on the existence of God(s).

Agnosticism is the position of not knowing whether the existence of any god is fact.

Speaking of fact, that brings us to logic. See, logic deals with the principles of validity.

One's thinking on what is valid and according to it is what is logical in accordance to logical rules;rules of logic.

What is valid is factual. For instance, an invalid passcode is an incorrect passcode, a fictitious passcode.

An agnostic for example says it is unknown of any god existing because it is not fact. That's logical.

This agnostic is concerned with facts only.
Therefore any position going by something aside from that is not based on only logic but is rationed or has a ratio of other elements besides facts.

Compared to this agnostic, this agnostic has a ratio basis of 100% facts. 

Which would be more than a ration let's say of a 80% basis on facts mixed with a percentage that is based on beliefs/disbeliefs.


So because this agnostic is operating solely from facts, what one does know and can know , it leaves the agnostic in a neutral position or the "I don't know" position. Not swayed to believe there is no existence of any god. Not swayed to believe there is an existence of any god.

The agnostic is not swayed either way. When asking the agnostics, do they believe in any god? They say they don't know.

Ask them do they lack a belief in any god?

They say, "I don't know" because they're in a neutral position.

There are no facts to sway them in the positive nor negative.

Now I've heard it argued that the "I don't know" position is irrational.

Perhaps the opposing side will elaborate on this portion being in the negative. The way facts work and evidence, when there is no evidence for some thing, you know not of that something being true.

In this case, to opt not to believe is influenced by something other than facts presented. It is not the default position.
Not published yet
Round 2
Not published yet
Not published yet
Round 3
Not published yet
Not published yet
Round 4
Not published yet
Not published yet