The Instigator
Truth_seeker
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MailboxVegetable
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Agnosticism makes no sense

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
MailboxVegetable
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/8/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 932 times Debate No: 60204
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

Truth_seeker

Pro

It's not a good philosophical approach to God

First round acceptance
MailboxVegetable

Con

I accept. I will be arguing that agnosticism does in fact make sense, and also that it is a good philosophical approach to the idea of God. Looking forward to an intelligent debate!
Debate Round No. 1
Truth_seeker

Pro

agnosticism is the belief that because there's no evidence that God exists, nor is there evidence or reason to believe he doesn't exist, it is therefore safer to take neither side and conclude that it cannot be known whether or not he exists.

ironically, this is most likely not applied to all phenomenon. For example, if I were to ask you if you believe that Santa Claus exists and you say no, that would conflict with your reasoning with the supernatural.

furthermore,no evidence can be given for an immaterial being. however, this does not completely rule out the possibility that he exists as he can still act and prove to you that he is God. you cannot prove that humans exist either, it simply an assumption based on experience. If that's the case, you base knowledge on experience and not necessarily on science. With all of the things that are not known (planets, stars, etc.), you would then have to say that you are uncertain they exist.
MailboxVegetable

Con

Stated simply, Agnosticism's basic belief is that the existence of God is irresolvable. There are a great many people who believe this is untrue and that their specific belief or version of God is absolutely right. These people are commonly referred to as gnostics, whether they are gnostic theists, gnostic atheists, etc. At its very core, agnosticism recognizes the dangers in saying something like, "I absolutely know that what I believe is correct, and nothing will convince me otherwise." The danger in saying this is that you will close yourself off to new and better evidence that may reveal yourself to be more likely wrong or ignorant. Agnosticism is a recognition of the limited capacity of one's knowledge about the truth or falsity of certain claims, especially the claim of whether or not a deity exists.

It should be important to recognize that agnosticism does not restrict people from having beliefs based upon evidence. An agnostic should never say that he knows certainly that a claim is true, but they can still say that one claim is more likely true than the other. Because of the limited capacity, scope, and logical functions of our minds, we cannot say certainly that one claim is true or false without entertaining the idea that there may be some evidence we don't know about or that we have misinterpreted. Because of this possibility for error, we as humans must recognize that we could always be easily wrong about something at any given moment. Agnostics are limited to saying that they believe a certain claim is more likely than the other only based upon the available evidence and their interpretation of that evidence. Agnostics usually express their beliefs using probability and estimations of whether one claim is more likely than the other. Expressing your beliefs through probability always leaves the possibility that you could be wrong, which is a healthy belief to maintain and check yourself against.

There are people who have certain beliefs while still remaining agnostic, so you can still be a theist or an atheist while also being agnostic. As long as you recognize that your belief is based upon the available evidence and your interpretation of that evidence, and that you could easily be wrong about your belief, you can be considered an agnostic.

Regarding God, many theists have gone to great lengths to render the idea of a deity unfalsifiable. Since there seems to be no compelling evidence for the existence of a deity, and there also seems to be no evidence that could possibly falsify it, we are forced to remain agnostic on the issue of God. The human mind cannot even comprehend a spaceless, timeless, eternal, omnipotent, and omniscient consciousness, so many attempts by humans to either prove or disprove the existence of God have been futile. Since many versions of God are incomprehensible, humans really cannot prove or disprove its existence. The only thing we can do is try to estimate its probability based on the available evidence we have.

If God were even supposedly to reveal itself to a human, the human could not even be certain that it is God. The voice or figure could easily be a product of psychosis or schizophrenia, mental illnesses that have been reported to cause devestating effects. This brings up a startling fact; we can't even be certain that our experiences are real. Our reality could easily be a computer simulation, programmed into our minds, or even a false story that our minds have made up because of a mental illness. On top of this, our memories have repeatedly been shown to be inaccurate in various studies [1], causing us to question whether or not some of the things we remember are real.

Because of all of this uncertainty about whether or not our experiences are real, whether or not certain things that we remember are real, and whether or not we have all of the available evidence and the correct interpretations of that evidence, the most rational course of action to the existence of God is agnosticism. The very idea of God is incomprehensible, and the beginning of our universe seems to be riddled with events we can't even begin to comprehend. The human mind cannot prove or disprove something that is incomprehensible to it, so agnosticism is really the only choice that makes sense.

[1] http://www.northwestern.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
Truth_seeker

Pro

while I do agree with you on some points, I will show you how you present an inconsistent method

You start with saying "At its very core, agnosticism recognizes the dangers in saying something like, "I absolutely know that what I believe is correct, and nothing will convince me otherwise." The danger in saying this is that you will close yourself off to new and better evidence that may reveal yourself to be more likely wrong or ignorant"

As a Christian, i have only seen that Jesus is the son of God. Your welcome to bring in other evidences, but as far as i know, i haven't seen it yet. I found that the Bible itself has helped me while other religions never did. You assume the negative, you only look at the possibility of being wrong rather than the possibility of being right.

"It should be important to recognize that agnosticism does not restrict people from having beliefs based upon evidence. An agnostic should never say that he knows certainly that a claim is true, but they can still say that one claim is more likely true than the other. Because of the limited capacity, scope, and logical functions of our minds, we cannot say certainly that one claim is true or false without entertaining the idea that there may be some evidence we don't know about or that we have misinterpreted. Because of this possibility for error, we as humans must recognize that we could always be easily wrong about something at any given moment. Agnostics are limited to saying that they believe a certain claim is more likely than the other only based upon the available evidence and their interpretation of that evidence. Agnostics usually express their beliefs using probability and estimations of whether one claim is more likely than the other. Expressing your beliefs through probability always leaves the possibility that you could be wrong, which is a healthy belief to maintain and check yourself against."

First of all, you defined an agnostic as someone who believes that God's existence is ressolvable. An agnostic doesn't necessarily have to use science and logic to be agnostic. A Christian can be just as logical and scientific as an agnostic. You claim there is no such thing as absolute truth, but your uttering an absolute. You place everything under the test, how can we test your claim that nothing is certain? Either you don't accept everything by evidence or you would then have to design an experiment to prove that claim correct.

On top of that, you haven't addressed my starting point. You claim that it's uncertain that God exists, however if you apply evidence to everything, you would also have to use the same logic on everything (new stars, new planets, etc.) not discovered yet and claim that your uncertain of their existence as well.

"The human mind cannot even comprehend a spaceless, timeless, eternal, omnipotent, and omniscient consciousness, so many attempts by humans to either prove or disprove the existence of God have been futile."

I agree and that's why only God can reveal himself to us.

"If God were even supposedly to reveal itself to a human, the human could not even be certain that it is God. The voice or figure could easily be a product of psychosis or schizophrenia, mental illnesses that have been reported to cause devestating effects. This brings up a startling fact; we can't even be certain that our experiences are real. Our reality could easily be a computer simulation, programmed into our minds, or even a false story that our minds have made up because of a mental illness. On top of this, our memories have repeatedly been shown to be inaccurate in various studies [1], causing us to question whether or not some of the things we remember are real."

You claim you could be wrong, but you only practically consider the possibility that he doesn't exist. By explaining the experience through natural means, you just contradicted yourself when you said "there seems to be no compelling evidence for the existence of a deity, and there also seems to be no evidence that could possibly falsify it, we are forced to remain agnostic on the issue of God." You seem to lean towards the possibility that God doesn't exist when you just said there's no evidence that could possibiliy falsify his existence.

It's my conclusion that agnosticism makes no sense as it's own beliefs are inconsistent in attempting to examine the world but put an unceratinty on God. My advice is: gain experience through testing and observation. You want to know if God exists? pray to him and find out because doing so is what is "testing" and through that, you gain results.
MailboxVegetable

Con

"You claim there is no such thing as absolute truth, but your uttering an absolute. You place everything under the test, how can we test your claim that nothing is certain? Either you don't accept everything by evidence or you would then have to design an experiment to prove that claim correct."

I never said that there is no such thing as an absolute truth. I said that we cannot be certain of absolute truths because of the infinite unfalsifiable claims that could render our beliefs false and illusory. But I think I see what you were trying to say. You were trying to say that if I claim that we cannot be certain of any absolute statement, then we can't test the certainty of this claim itself, correct?

Sure, I admit that Agnosticism is even uncertain about itself. We can't be sure that Agnosticism is correct, but we believe it because it is the most well supported theory. The alternative to Agnosticism is Gnosticism. The Gnosticism I am talking about is a belief that you know absolutely that a certain statement or belief is correct, and no other alternatives can possibly exist. There are Gnostic Theists and also Gnostic Atheists alike who believe that their beliefs are correct with no other alternative. Gnosticism is ultimately unsound because of the infinite number of unverifiable and unfalsifiable alternatives that could exist opposing a belief. In order to be a Gnostic, someone has to not only prove their belief or claim, but also disprove every possible belief or claim that could render the Gnostic's claim false.

For example: In order for a Gnostic Christian to be rational in their beliefs, they have to prove that Christianity is correct and also disprove every single other religion, concept of God, or concept of reality that would render Christianity false. If your reality is the product of psychosis, then Gnostic Christianity is invalid. If it turns out that Islam is actually the correct religion, then obviously Gnostic Christianity is invalid. If this all turns out to be an extremely intricate and detailed dream that we may barely remember when we wake up, then Gnostic Christianity is invalid. These possible alternatives stretch on to infinity, so there is no feasible way to prove that your beliefs are absolutely correct.

I'd like to ask you directly, do you believe that Christianity is absolutely correct, and there are no other possible alternatives that could render Christianity invalid? Because if you believe so, then you are a Gnostic Christian. If you believe that you could be wrong, then you are an Agnostic Christian.

Ultimately, Agnosticism is the best choice because there are a near infinite amount of unfalsifiable possibilities that could render our beliefs invalid. If you are Gnostic about anything, you are most likely ignorant to the numerous alternate possibilities that could exist despite your beliefs.

"On top of that, you haven't addressed my starting point. You claim that it's uncertain that God exists, however if you apply evidence to everything, you would also have to use the same logic on everything (new stars, new planets, etc.) not discovered yet and claim that your uncertain of their existence as well."

I stated in my previous argument that we can't even be sure that our reality is real. So yes, I did apply agnosticism to everything, even our own reality and the existence of stars and planets. Our reality could easily be a product of a dream, psychosis, or even the result of a computer program which was made by an alien or even a God. The point is that we don't know and we can't possibly know because these claims are unsubstantiated and unfalsifiable.
Although, stars and planets are visible objects that we can use a combination of mathematics and brightness measurements to determine. [1] Sure, we're uncertain of their existence to a certain point, but the evidence supports the conclusion that these objects exist extremely far away. Science is always open to new evidence and ideas as long as it is supported by evidence. The idea that these objects exist is the most well supported idea, so we generally tend to believe the most well supported one. Again, agnosticism does not restrict people from having beliefs based on evidence. It only restricts them from claiming that those beliefs are absolutely correct.

"My advice is: gain experience through testing and observation. You want to know if God exists? pray to him and find out because doing so is what is "testing" and through that, you gain results."

Actually, researchers have tested whether or not prayer makes a difference. In a landmark study conducted with various medical patients, Christian researchers tested whether or not prayer actually helped one group's mortality rate and recovery rate compared to a control group. The study was conducted with 1,802 patients spanning from six different hospitals. Every single patient was undergoing the same surgery: coronary bypass surgery, in which doctors reroute circulation around a clogged vein or artery.
"The patients were broken into three groups. Two were prayed for; the third was not. Half the patients who received the prayers were told that they were being prayed for; half were told that they might or might not receive prayers." - New York Times [2]
In the first 30 days after the surgeries, the researchers found no difference between the two groups who were prayed for and the group that wasn't prayed for. After those 30 days, they found that a significantly higher percentage of people who knew they were being prayed for had complications (59%) compared to 51% for the group that was uncertain whether they would receive prayer but did receive it. The researcher's hypothesis was that being aware that one is being prayed for may cause a sort of performance anxiety. The study also found that 18% of patients in the uninformed prayer group suffered major complications like heart attack or stroke while just 13% of patients who weren't prayed for did.

These results should lead people to conclude that prayer in fact does not help medical patients but instead may cause anxiety to patients when being told they are being prayed for. In conclusion, prayer has been shown to be ineffective, thus invalidating Pro's attempts to site prayer as evidence. I challenge you to show me a study that observed prayer having a beneficial effect to people.
You can read all about the study here: http://www.nytimes.com...
And I remind you that the study was conducted by Christian researchers who were trying to prove that prayer does work, but instead the results told them otherwise. But even though prayer has been shown to be ineffective, this doesn't falsify the idea of a God

"You claim you could be wrong, but you only practically consider the possibility that he doesn't exist. By explaining the experience through natural means, you just contradicted yourself when you said "there seems to be no compelling evidence for the existence of a deity, and there also seems to be no evidence that could possibly falsify it, we are forced to remain agnostic on the issue of God." You seem to lean towards the possibility that God doesn't exist when you just said there's no evidence that could possibiliy falsify his existence."

You are mistaking my refutation of Christian's eyewitness stories for attempts to falsify God's existence. By explaining eye witness accounts of God through natural means such as psychosis and schizophrenia, I only refuted the evidence offered for the existence of God. I did not falsify his existence, but only showed that the evidence is unreliable and not compelling. Again, there is no compelling evidence for God and there is nothing that could falsify the possibility of its incomprehensible existence. God could still technically exist even if people mistake hallucinations for it. In fact if no one had any supposed visions or contact with God, that still wouldn't falsify his existence. There could still easily be a morally neutral God who doesn't mettle or care for the affairs of mortals.

In Conclusion:
Agnosticism is the only rational choice because of the infinite number of unverifiable claims that could exist to oppose a claim. Because Gnosticism has been shown to be irrational and ignorant to this infinite amount of claims, we can assume that Agnosticism is the most well supported theory of reality and God. There is still no compelling evidence for God, and there is also still nothing that can falsify God. I hope I have shown that Agnosticism is consistent with itself, and that Gnosticism is irrational and completely unsubstantiated.

Sources:
[1] How to determine the distance of a star: http://earthguide.ucsd.edu...
[2] Study on prayer's effect on medical patients: http://www.nytimes.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Truth_seeker

Pro

You commit the fallacy of circular reasoning:

1, There is no such thing as absolute truth
2. You say that we cannot be certain of absolute truth
3. Therefore, that implies that absolute truth can't be found

You just admitted that agnosticism is uncertain of itself which is why it makes no sense.

1. Agnosticism is not a theory, it's a system of belief.

Agnosticism according to Wiki is a claim that absolute truth such as God is unknown.

Scientific theory according to wiki is a substantiated explanation of the natural world incorporating facts and tested hypotheses.

I'm not a gnostic, so it doesn't apply to me. You claim that anyone who believes in God (absolute truth) is close-minded but on the contrary, your closing your own mind in rejecting absolute truth. No matter what I show you on God, you won'tacc eptit bec ause it's absolute. It is better to have truth value and claim its absolute than to question everything.

You claim that the agnostic bases his evidence on probability, but not once in this debate did you mention your mathematical calculations on how you know that God "probably " doesn't exist, so you fail to follow your own rules.

As a Christian, I'm not concerned with being gnostic or agnostic. I don't concern myself with being all knowing and disproving every single religion out there. I'm concerned about what I have been revealed.

You claim that gnostics could be wrong about their beliefs, but you as an agnostic could be just as wrong about yours.

Science isn't concerned with proving the existence of natural things, but how the world works. Thus, you assume that stars exist without scientific evidence. By that, you somehow "know " that they exist. Your welcome to show me one scientific study on the existence of stars.

As for the prayer study, the claim "prayer works " makes no sense because prayer is communication with the divine. To attribute the effects of prayer to purely natural causes would becommiting the masked man fallacy. Just because their prayers were not answered doesn't mean God doesn't answer prayer. You can pray and validate the power of prayer for yourself.

Again I don't claim to have evidence for God, but since you imply that you canexpl ain it through natural means, I challenge you to go back in time and explain using science how the experience in my mind is not God.

As we have seen, agnosticism makes no sense because of these reasons. I rest my case.

Thanks for this debate.
MailboxVegetable

Con

"I'm not a gnostic, so it doesn't apply to me."

If you're not a Gnostic Christian, then that makes you an Agnostic Christian. So you either have to admit that you actually are a Gnostic Christian or concede the debate on the grounds that you are actually an Agnostic Christian.

"You claim that anyone who believes in God (absolute truth) is close-minded but on the contrary, your closing your own mind in rejecting absolute truth."

It's important to recognize that I didn't only claim that anyone who believes that Christianity is absolutely true is ignorant, but I also claimed that anyone who holds a belief of anything they think is absolutely true is also ignorant. This includes Atheists, Christians, Muslims, Cultists etc.
And if I am closing my own mind to absolute truth, then that is a lot better than closing my mind to an infinite number of unfalsifiable claims and opportunities. If you claim that something is absolutely true, then you are in effect saying that those infinite number of unverifiable possibilities that could render your claim false are all invalid. The odds are not in your favor. Better to close your mind to the idea that your beliefs are absolutely true than to close it to every single other option that could possibly exist.

"No matter what I show you on God, you won'tacc eptit bec ause it's absolute. It is better to have truth value and claim its absolute than to question everything."

If you were to show me valid evidence on God, then I would accept it as valid evidence towards God. I wouldn't just disregard compelling evidence. If your holy book, The Bible, were to make a highly specific prophecy that made it highly unlikely that it were inspired by anything other than God, then I would accept that as compelling evidence. If the Bible were to make the prophecy that nine meteors on December 25th, 2015 at 5:00 pm will strike a specific deserted island and turn it into the shape of a smiley-face, then that would be extremely compelling evidence for the validity of Christianity. It could still be possible that our reality is a computer program or the prophecy was caused by an alien, but that would still significantly sway the evidence in Christianity's favor to where I would become a believer. Although, I would become an Agnostic Christian still claiming that I could always be wrong.

Unfortunately, you have shown no such evidence throughout this debate. In fact, it seems like you have refused to show me any evidence for your God under the assumption that I would just disregard it. I would have enjoyed considering any evidence you would offer up, but you haven't done so. So the proposition still stands that there is no compelling evidence for the existence of God(s).

"Science isn't concerned with proving the existence of natural things, but how the world works. Thus, you assume that stars exist without scientific evidence. By that, you somehow "know " that they exist. Your welcome to show me one scientific study on the existence of stars."

If you had taken the time to read the source that I put in my previous argument about how scientists determine the existence and distance of stars, then you would know that I did give scientific evidence for the existence of stars. Here is some more scientific evidence for the distance and existence of stars: [1]
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...
But based on your previous actions, I doubt you will read this either. Also, I never claimed to "know" that stars exist. I even admitted that there was some amount of uncertainty that I have of our reality and our star's existence, but the theory that it exists is the best and most well supported one. So, naturally I believe that.

"Again I don't claim to have evidence for God..."

This is exactly my point. You concede that you claim no evidence for God, so you cannot rationally expect anyone to believe what you believe. Since there is no compelling evidence for God, and there isn't anything that can falsify its existence, we must conclude that the existence of God is irresolvable.

"... but since you imply that you canexpl ain it through natural means, I challenge you to go back in time and explain using science how the experience in my mind is not God."

Well I can't literally go back in time, but I accept your challenge. I am completely unfamiliar with what kind of experience you think you had with "God", but nonetheless I will attempt to explain it.

You are no doubt familiar with the Placebo Effect, correct? When someone takes a placebo that that they are told will cause a specific effect in the individual, the individual will still feel either negative or positive symptoms and attribute it to the non-active pill. [2] The point is that when someone sincerely believes that something fake is actually real, they can experience symptoms that they've been told they will experience. Extrapolate this to religion, and we can see that the mind can easily illude itself, causing feelings of other-worldliness or a feeling of an entity's presence. These can explain rather minor feelings resulting from religion.

Another explanation for various theists' claims of contact with the divine is the development of the God Helmet and advances in neuroscience. [3] Jeff Schimmel was a mid-life atheist man who had grown up in a conservative Jewish home. After he had a surgery to remove a tumor on his left temporal lobe, he began to suffer mini-seizures. He would hear conversations that didn't exist and would also report that the people around him looked animated rather than real. Then he started reporting visions of swirling colors on the ceiling that eventually settled into a shape; the Virgin Mary. He has continued to have some visions that he interprets most of the time as non-religious and other times as religious. He became fascinated by spirituality and has since become a Buddhist. Brain imaging revealed that his left temporal lobe had been gradually shrinking, had been covered in scar tissue, and had become misshapen. This apparent change in his neurological make up has led him to develop a disease called epilepsy and had undoubtedly led to the visions. The interesting part is that Schimmel never reported having a religious experience or vision before the surgery and apparent misshapening of his left temporal lobe. This lends credit to the theory that spiritual experiences may be nothing more than neurological mistakes.
In addition to this, Michael Persinger, a neurologist at the Laurentian University, has developed a magnetic helmet that when turned on is reported to cause spiritual and other-worldly experiences. [3] By using small magnetic waves to affect the temporal lobes, he has been basically successful in turning spiritual experience in test subjects brains on and off. Persinger notes that many religious prophets may have had epilepsy in order to have their claimed spiritual experiences (or had been outright lying for that matter). Those who have had strong spiritual experiences in their lives may be neurologically more prone to have them because of their temporal lobes, while those who don't report any experience in their lives may be actually unable or unlikely to experience such things.

So if you have strong visions and voices from an entity that you perceive to be God, I would suggest seeing a mental health professional or a neurologist. You may have psychosis, epilepsy, or another neurological disease that affects your view on reality. If you have somewhat weak spiritual experiences, then you are somewhat normal considering the vast amount of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and various other religions that have reported to have such experiences. Claiming that your experience is valid while all of those other people's are not would seem to be hypocritical.

But again, none of this really falsifies the existence of a God. All of this evidence just seems to invalidate experiential evidence given by people of various different religions for the validity of their specific faith. So again, there seems to be no compelling evidence for God and no possible way to falsify its existence.

In Conclusion:
Pro has done nothing to disprove my claim that there is no compelling evidence for God. In fact, he even admits that he claims no evidence for God and implies that he has refused to give evidence under the assumption that I would just disregard it. He claims not to be a Gnostic Christian but doesn't realize that the only other thing he could be besides Gnostic is Agnostic. On top of all of this, he further contradicts himself by calling me close-minded for rejecting absolute truth. If you are supposedly not a Gnostic, then how can you criticize me for rejecting absolute truth? Your whole stance was supposed to be that of a Gnostic: someone who claims that their belief is absolutely true.

The proposition still stands that there is no compelling evidence for God and that there is no way to possibly falsify God's existence. In effect, Agnosticism is the only view point that makes sense. You can still have a belief or opinion about God based on probability and evidence, but you cannot rationally claim that your belief is absolutely correct while all the infinite other possibilities are incorrect.

Sources:
[1] Evidence of distance of stars: http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...
[2] The Placebo Effect: http://www.cancer.org...
[3] The God Helmet and temporal lobes: http://www.npr.org...
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Jellon 2 years ago
Jellon
Pro - Round 2:
"For example, if I were to ask you if you believe that Santa Claus exists and you say no, that would conflict with your reasoning with the supernatural."

The story of Santa Claus makes certain claims which can be tested and proven false. Therefore, there is evidence that Santa Claus does not exist. It is a failed analogy.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
can't vote.
Posted by Vexorator 2 years ago
Vexorator
"My advice is: gain experience through testing and observation. You want to know if God exists? pray to him and find out because doing so is what is "testing" and through that, you gain results."

That's not an argument against agnosticism, that's preaching.
Posted by HououinKyouma 2 years ago
HououinKyouma
I believe that agnosticism makes sense depending on what kind of God you're talking about. If by God you mean the God of the Bible or the Quran, or any anthropomorphic God (like Zeus, or Ra, or Thor) then agnosticism makes absolutely no sense, I think we can be fairly certain that those gods do not exist. If by God you mean something like the God of the deists, then agnosticism does make some sense.
Posted by evangambit 2 years ago
evangambit
The analogy of Santa Claus is a poor one, because Santa Claus theory actually DOES make a prediction (namely that a chubby fat man will come down your chimney and leave you presents or coal) that are clearly proven false. On the other hand, most widely accepted theories about God offer no feasible way to prove them wrong.

Agnosticism is really just saying that unfalsifiablility isn't grounds to claim a theory as wrong, but merely grounds to reject it as likely right. Similarly, an agnostic would say that they can't say my claim that there is an invisible pink dragon that cannot be touched, felt, or heard is wrong (it is unfalsifiable), but neither are they willing to believe it.
Posted by ArcTImes 2 years ago
ArcTImes
Actually, we do treat things just like god. Probably not santa, but other things like aliens coming to earth.
Agnosticism is not necessarily believing things can't be known, but accepting you don't have the Info right now.

And ir doesn't mean " not picking sides" either. Agnosticism is not mutually exclusive with atheism or theism, only with gnosticism.
Posted by ArcTImes 2 years ago
ArcTImes
Definitions? Por are you waiting a discussion on it?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
Truth_seekerMailboxVegetableTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I could write a lengthy analysis, but fundamentally Pro was required to uphold that Agnosticism made no sense--NOT that it was wrong, which was the tack he took. By arguing a different resolution, he failed to uphold his resolution, and thus fails in his BoP. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.