The Instigator
GEEZUS
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
AgnosticDeism
Pro (for)
Tied
0 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/30/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 178 times Debate No: 72592
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

GEEZUS

Con

Do you accept?
AgnosticDeism

Pro

I accept!

Agnostic means to be neutral upon the belief if God exists or not!
Debate Round No. 1
GEEZUS

Con

It's not reasonable to be Agnostic because God exists!
AgnosticDeism

Pro

You have no way of proving if he exists or doesn't exist. Lots of people are Agnostic. It literally means neutral about the subject. This can relate to anything in life really.
Debate Round No. 2
GEEZUS

Con

But he does exist. There must be a cause! There must be a cause to motion.
AgnosticDeism

Pro

That's actually a logical fallacy called Petitio Principii. There is motion, so there must a cause to it. That is simply put a fallacy. And by definition, the opponent wins.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.