The Instigator
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Candid_atheism
Pro (for)
Winning
27 Points

Is it reasonable to be Agnostic?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 4 votes the winner is...
Candid_atheism
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/29/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 391 times Debate No: 72545
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

Con

First round is acceptance. I'll be candid and say It's not reasonable to Agnostic, it infers there is a God.
Candid_atheism

Pro

I accept.

Let's define Agnosticism first.

Agnostic: A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

Source: 'Google definitions'

2nd Round: I will attempt to leave reasonable doubt to the Atheist or the Agnostic that there could be a God.

3rd Round: I will attempt to leave reasonable doubt of a God even existing.

Hopefully in the end I can make Agnosticism seem reasonable.
Debate Round No. 1
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

Con

Sorry let me clarify it infers there might be a God and there isn't!
Candid_atheism

Pro

A common logical fallacy Atheists use is Petitio principii. They state there is no God because we have found no evidence of God, especially in nature. However, is this statement true? No! We just don't know enough about nature to make a conclusion like that, Eventually, the possibility that there is a God could be proven. The universe is made up of matter and most of all know or should know. As an individual system, matter, is in fact sustained by motion. However, motion is not an actual property of matter. Without motion, our solar system simply could not exist. If motion were a property of matter there would be an undiscovered and undiscoverable thing called perpetual motion which would indeed manifest itself. Due to motion not being a property of matter, it is safe to say that perpetual motion is an incapability and impossibility for those whole are not the Creator of motion. Once Atheism can produce their own perpetual motion, which would be paramount and not until then, can they ask to have credit for it. The natural state matter, is a state of rest. Motion; or a change of orientation, has an effect of a external cause acting upon that matter. This type of matter is called gravitation. Gravitation is a phenomenon where all physical bodies attract. In retrospect, everything that has been found, in respect to the motion of the planets in the solar system, relates to the laws of motion that occurs and not to the cause of motion. Gravitation, which is cause of motion for all the planets that make up the solar system, would also be the demolition of the solar system. Revolutionary motion would stop for as the action of making revolutions has a top. Revolutionary motion keeps the planets in orbit, and prevents them from pulling towards the sun. Atheists might say, that matter is in perpetual motion. But the motion I'm referring to is found acting upon the state of matter, and that is only found on the surface of what we call Earth. It may be decomposition, which continually and tirelessly destroys bodies of matter, or may be recomposition. Recomposition regenerates that matter in the same form or another. The decomposition of animals or food crosses over into the composition of other bodies. However, the motion that keeps the solar system in line, is of a different kind and is not even a property of matter. Also it operates to a completely different effect. It operates to something called perpetual preservation, which prevents any change within the state of the system from happening. Giving matter the benefit of the doubt and the properties which philosophical people know it has or indeed all that Atheism knows about it, like the theory of Darkmatter and what it can prove and even supposing that matter to be eternal, it does not account for motion. The day we ascertain and accept a circumstance as not mendacious and of such paramount importance that without it the universe we live in could not exist, and for which neither matter nor any of its properties can account, we are by default urged into the rational acceptance of the existence of a cause to matter, and that cause man calls GOD(s). Atheists are known for their redundant arguments and rebuttals, rotating the burden of proof from themselves to their opponents in a debate. The opponent that believes in God must then in turn prove God, however the Atheist themselves will not defend their position that the universe is either eternal or accidental. We are still in the process of gathering information about the whole "painting" we come to call existence, so trying to define the "painter" is in essence setting up for failure. Also admitting that matters has all the properties, as we see it has, the question that still remains, how did matter come to be, especially by those properties? Some may try to counter, that matter assumed those properties eternally. This however, is not a solution at all, but an assertion. It is then necessary to say, if there is a circumstance that exists that is not a property of matter, and without the universe, or to claim limitation on the solar system composed of so many planets and sun, could not even exist a moment. All the assertions and arguments from Atheism, that are drawn from properties of matter can and will be thrown out, and the existence of some kind of cause or catalyst, which man fathoms as God, can then become ascertainable. First let us examine nature as an ever evolving "painting". Science makes an attempt to examine what the paint and canvass is made up of, how the individual paints are related, and the brushstrokes that accompany it. However, what's wrong with trying to look for a painter? If you admit that nature is like that of a painting, then it's not really too far fetched to conclude that a painter exists, or existed. Atheists like to pull out of their holster the logical fallacy, "argumentum ad verecundiam" when they are in debates. The appeal to modesty here is to that of science. The speak of Science as an ultimate authority. An authority that cannot be challenged. Unfortunately, this appeal to modesty carries no weight because it's poisoned by its own problems. In all honesty, Science makes no claims about a God existing or not existing. It is not the scientists necessarily who are claiming God does not exist on the grounds that there is a lack of evidence, but it is for the most part the scientific charlatans that assert it. We can all agree Science has had major breakthroughs and accomplishment milestones, but it still is in the prepubescent stage. There is so much more to know about nature that we simply don't know, even on this planet. We also know more about space then we do our own Ocean. Science is somewhat bias too. A lot of Atheist Scientists suffer with nearsightedness. Literally what they can not observe even directly or indirectly, they still ignore. I'm sure they went through indoctrination as a child so they probably have PTSD from it in their own way. Things like memory may carry a basis in some biology, but is it safe to say that it's only biology that is at work here? No! Of course not, that is ridiculous! Nobody has ever laid eyes on an emotion nor have they seen a memory, but they exist. Metaphorically speaking Science has only touched the Achilles' head while holding him at the heel in the Styx river. Science therefore can't be utilized to dismiss that a God exists. It's like examining a beach, one cannot understand the beach, if they can't quite examine the grain of sand.
Debate Round No. 2
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

Con

There is still no proof God exists, that's why its not reasonable to be Agnostic, but Atheist!
Candid_atheism

Pro

Again you are committing a logical fallacy! However, you are right about one thing. There is no proof for God, in the literal sense. Which makes it reasonable to be Agnostic when it goes hand in hand with my argument from round 2. Vote pro! This guy didn't back up anything he said.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Combatofawombat 1 year ago
Combatofawombat
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWCandid_atheismTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro showed how it's reasonable to be Agnostic
Vote Placed by GEEZUS 1 year ago
GEEZUS
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWCandid_atheismTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had a solid argument in this debate. Con kind of flopped to be honest.
Vote Placed by AgnosticDeism 1 year ago
AgnosticDeism
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWCandid_atheismTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did a great job of showing how agnosticism is reasonable.
Vote Placed by Gabe1e 1 year ago
Gabe1e
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWCandid_atheismTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made no argument whatsoever. If he did it wasn't well constructed whatsoever, Pro actually had an argument that was solid. Con didn't have a source, Pro did but it was less reliable, it was Google. Still, it counts. Pro's arguments was kind of off topic at some points, but it was well constructed.