The Instigator
Pro (for)
5 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

It is reasonable to be an 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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/30/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 350 times Debate No: 72609
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




Looking for either an Atheist or Theist to challenge my claim. To put it very simply, is there someone that does or does not believe in God, that's willing to challenge my claim?


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.
synonyms: skeptic, doubter, doubting

Source: 'Google Definitions'


I believe the burden of proof is on Pro so I'll relax this round.
Debate Round No. 1


Definition of God that it's reasonable of being Agnostic about: Omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, omnibenevolent.
Source: Theists
2nd round I will try to give reasonable doubt that there is a God. And then 3rd round I will attempt to disprove his existence to show that it is reasonable to be Agnostic and neutral about believing or disbelieving in a God!


So I'll begin by saying that the universe is made up of matter and most of all know or should know. That 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 catalyst of motion, as of now. Once Atheism can produce their own perpetual motion, which would be revolutionary (no pun intended) and not until then, can they ask to have credit. 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, that cause some may call God. Atheists are well 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 or is Agnostic about God, must then in turn attempt to prove whatever God that was defined, 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 matter 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, stars and the 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, which man fathoms as God, can then become discoverable. 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. They 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 even seen a memory, but they exist. Metaphorically speaking Science has only touched 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.


So I opened up this debate and was all like:

Please learn to use paragraphs; they help to convey your ideas more clearly.

Alright, so let's break down what Pro really did in Round 2. They tried to tear apart atheism's attacks on Theism implying that Theism is very entitled to be true. Instead of supporting agnosticism they end up supporting Deism because really they are saying it is absolutely possible for there to be a higher power and atheists have no right to say no.

Agnostics say this: because you don'tn know something, then it is right to say it is impossible to guess. Last time Roulette was played a guy won.
Debate Round No. 2


I was once completely Atheist, Theist and even Deist, however I do not have the energy to have faith and to claim philosophical similarity with a far left or far right ideology. Sure, I'm Atheist Agnostic! However, I'm Agnostic about a lot of things, like the supernatural. The supernatural would be like the afterlife. But, I have my own opinion on it, I personally think it's too good to be true. I mean something supernatural probably had to have happened though to begin this earth, either way if there's a God or not. Being a skeptical Atheist Agnostic I can't really accept that spontaneous entropy through the process of Abiogensis created us yet. I just can't fathom something coming from nothing. And not until I receive reason to believe in it, I will remain Agnostic. A common logical fallacy Atheists or Theists use is Petitio principii. The Atheist may state there is no God because we have found no evidence of God or the Theist will say there is no evidence disproving there to not be a God, especially in nature, so therefore There is a God. However, are these fallacies subsequently true? No! We just don't know enough about nature to make a conclusion like that, Eventually, the possibility that there is a God or not could be proven. However in the mean time, it is reasonable to be Agnostic! I wanted to keep you voters with a reasonable doubt in both directions so it balances it out. So you get a taste of what it feels like to be neutral. Hopefully that is the case and that I've proven its okay to not be too far left or too far right you can just be in between. Con failed to show why it's not reasonable to be Agnostic. Vote pro! Con is obviously trolling.


8elB6U5THIqaSm5QhiNLVnRJA forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by SlipknotAstronaut 1 year ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I agreed with Pro before and after. The both didn't have sources so it's a tie on sources. Pro had better conduct and Con was an obvious troll. Pro had better spelling and grammar and also had a more convincing argument that it's reasonable to be agnostic. Con failed to show why it's not reasonable and he also forfeited the last round.