1.- It is impossible to prove that something does not exist, because we cannot look at every corner of the universe.
2.- We cannot live as if all imagined things exist. For example, we can imagine gods that order morals contrary to each other. Which one should we follow?
3.- Therefore, whoever affirms the existence of something, must prove it. And if he does not prove it, we must live as if that thing did not exist. In other words, he who affirms the existence has the burden of proof. In a criminal trial, the accuser has the burden of proof; that is, the accused is innocent until proven guilty. In debates about the existence of something it is similar: he who affirms the existence has the burden of proof; and as long as he does not prove it, we will believe that it does not exist.
4.- Therefore, in practice, agnosticism leads to atheism.
1.- It is impossible to prove that something does not exist, because we cannot look at every corner of the universe.
2.- We cannot live as if all imagined things exist. For example, we can imagine gods that order morals contrary to each other. Which one should we follow?
3.- Therefore, whoever affirms the existence of something, must prove it. And if he does not prove it, we must live as if that thing did not exist. In other words, he who affirms the existence has the burden of proof. In a criminal trial, the accuser has the burden of proof; that is, the accused is innocent until proven guilty. In debates about the existence of something it is similar: he who affirms the existence has the burden of proof; and as long as he does not prove it, we will believe that it does not exist.
4.- Therefore, in practice, agnosticism leads to atheism.