The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
The Contender
42lifeuniverseverything
Con (against)

proof only agnosticism is true

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
42lifeuniverseverything has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/10/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 386 times Debate No: 93554
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (25)
Votes (0)

 

vi_spex

Pro

no one can proove, that the agnostic position isnt the right one with evidence.. and that lack of evidence proves only agnosticism true

proof that no one knows god is true, is that no evidence has been presented for or against a god.. no one knows, except gnostic. which is my position but thats for another time i guess
42lifeuniverseverything

Con

Round 5 of the war begins.

I am intrigued by Pro's premise that I must show proof that agnosticism is not the only true viewpoint. To make it exceptionally clear, the way the resolution is worded, "proof ONLY agnosticism is true" means I must prove simply that other ideas about the universe can be correct along WITH agnosticism. So I hope Pro understands what position I am trying to argue.

That being said, let me provide a definition of agnosticism for those not in the know (which was myself a couple minutes ago).

Agnostic: "a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god 2 : a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>" http://www.merriam-webster.com...

So we see that an agnostic is someone who cannot decide whether the ultimate reality is knowable and it is concluded by them to be most likely unknowable.

Therefore all I must prove is that the supposed reality we live in (which we will not discuss whether it is the real reality unless Pro desires) actually can be known.

With that, arguments.

1. Science/Mathematics shows that humanity understands the makeup of this universe.

If the reality we wish to know is our universe, we already know it.

"Scientists are still filling in the missing pieces in the elementary particle world. Where will it end? Around about 1890, scientists were lamenting the death of physics and pondering a life reduced to measuring the next decimal point! Discoveries made in the 1890's proved that the surface had only been scratched. Each decade of the 1900's has seen the frontier pushed to smaller and smaller objects. The explosion of knowledge has not slowed down and as each threshold has been passed the amount of new science seems to be greater even as we probe to smaller dimensions. Current theories (if correct) imply that there is even more below the next horizon awaiting discovery." http://education.jlab.org...

This shows that Science is slowly revealing the nature of our current reality to us on its most basic and fundamental level. This means that humanity KNOWS the reality we live in, the ultimate reality of this universe. Whether or not we can know God is less important, we have full proof that we know how this ultimate reality of our universe works and operates on minute detail in some places. Thus it is proven, Science shows that agnosticism isn't the only correct viewpoint.

What about Mathematics?

Well this evidence should provide some insight.

"
Standard probability theory, long thought to underlie human reasoning, holds that people should answer questions consistently regardless of question order. Such theories cannot account for order effects, so researchers typically consider such phenomena to be unwanted statistical noise. To minimize this noise, survey designers often split respondents into groups and give them different sequences of questions.

But cognitive scientist Zheng Wang of The Ohio State University in Columbus and colleagues suspected that notions of probability borrowed from quantum physics theory might help explain this seemingly irrational reasoning pattern.

"What our research tries to show is that … maybe quantum probability is a better way [than classical probability theory] to explain human cognition and judgment," Wang said." https://www.insidescience.org...

This is proof that mathematics has reached a point where humanity has now begun to understand the mathematics that makes up human thought, and find ways to craft the perfect questions to beat irrationality. This is a new level of knowledge that is not doubtful, but rather a fuller understanding of the universe we live in. This proves that doubting existence and reality, is not always true. Sometimes facts about knowing our current reality, overpower any doubt there is on the subject.

2. Human thought/theory can conclude God might be true based on universal truths.

This is more theory based logic here so be warned.

When people present the idea of a black swan theory, they mean the idea that due to cause and effect being a real cycle in this reality, then any level of alternate universes had to begin from somewhere. Whether that is the Christian God is highly debatable, though definitely probable because of the strong evidence around us of the possibility of existence (note the word possibility). But some argue that whoever the Black Swan that is the starter for evolution is, that thing had to exist inifinitely before us and after us, therefore God must exist.

What this point is proving is that no matter how much doubt is cast on the subject, the idea that everything has a source in our reality proves that our reality needed a source. Because in our reality, nothing cannot spring out something. Thus the point is that other ideas about God's existence being true, logically hold under theory, so agnosticism once again, is not the ONLY correct viewpoint.

With these arguments I await what will surely be a concise response by my opponent.

-42

Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

agnostic is the i dont know position..

your agnostic definition is way false.. i am wearing a green hat on my head on my head or not, so which is it? or is it that you dont know.
the position i am defending is that you dont know, wheather or not i am wearing a green hat right now

i defend agnostic on the god claim not on math... or science
42lifeuniverseverything

Con

Since I have work today at I would forfeit during that time, I will post a quick response now.

First thing to note is that all my opponent provided was clarification of their point of view. In no way, shape, or form did new arguments become presented at any point. There was no evidence that contradicted my evidence.

My opponent is simply going off the assumption that I missed the mark. To this voter, I believe my opponent is very wrong.

Responses:

"agnostic is the i dont know position.."

To make this claim, a definition needed to be provided. My credible definition said that agnosticism can be both the I don't know position, and the questioning reality position. It's not just an I don't know matter.

"your agnostic definition is way false.. i am wearing a green hat on my head on my head or not, so which is it? or is it that you dont know."

Numerous things wrong with this. First if my definition was wrong, once again, I would encourage my opponent to introduce a definition of Agnoticisim of competing or higher credibility than Merriam-Webster. Second of all, Science proves that on an atomic level your hat exists and we know how it exists, thus your hat exists. One could still doubt that existence, and that is why Agnosticism can be true ALONG with other viewpoints (due to relativism). But facts are facts, and the facts say Agnosticism is not the ONLY correct viewpoint.

"the position i am defending is that you dont know, wheather or not i am wearing a green hat right now"

Well if you want to do that fine. Just know that your hitting the wrong point.

"i defend agnostic on the god claim not on math... or science"

Vi_spex you must defend it on the math and science as well. This is because my definition expressly proves that Agnostics question our physical reality just as much as our metaphysical. Not only that but you yourself just question your physical reality (the green hat). Therefore if you want to be a part of the whole game, defend the whole game.

With that said I have other things to do, and eagerly await my opponent's next response.

-42
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

you are not arguing against my position

i dont have a hat

you are not arguing against agnosticism you are arguing against theism..
42lifeuniverseverything

Con

Since Pro seems to believe I am arguing against Theism, this round is dedicated to explaining agnosticism.

Here is a definition of Theism: "belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world" From Merriam-Webster. http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Considering this definition, here are multiple definitions of agnosticism (besides my merriam-webster one).


1: "a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience." http://www.dictionary.com...

2: " The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
2. The belief that the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities cannot be known with certainty." http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

3: "An agnostic is a person who believes that the existence of a greater power, such as a god, cannot be proven or disproved; therefore an agnostic wallows in the complexity of the existence of higher beings." http://www.urbandictionary.com...

4: "Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims – especially metaphysical and religious claims such as whether God, the divine, or the supernatural exist – are unknown and perhaps unknowable." https://en.wikipedia.org...

5: "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." http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...


Now what do these numerous definitions hold in common? That an agnostic doubts the existence of a God, and also can doubt the existence of the universe itself. More specifically, these definitions state that all agnostics believe things to be unknowable. So if I prove that we KNOW something, then I can prove that agnosticism is not ALWAYS correct. It is simple logic.

Let me just define Know real quick as well.

"to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2) : to have understanding of <importance of knowing oneself> (3) : to recognize the nature of : discernb (1) : to recognize as being the same as something previously known (2) : to be acquainted or familiar with (3) : to have experience of." http://www.merriam-webster.com...

These all lend to the idea that when something is actually known (disproving agnostics in that area) then it has to be true. Also listen carefully here. We must set boundaries on what we wish to "be in the know of". If we do not, then we try to know everything which is literally impossible. But if agnosticism is going to be the idea that we cannot know everything itself, then I say the idea is worth bull**** to our daily lives. Also it is completely obvious its true, but it's true because its stating what a universal negative proposition is.

Now I've said enough.

Awaiting my opponent's response.

-42

Debate Round No. 3
vi_spex

Pro

show me proof that there is a god or not or admit your forfeit
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 42lifeuniverseverything 4 months ago
42lifeuniverseverything
*sniffs* It seems this debate is done. Round 6 of the war will happen next week. Prepare yourself.

-42
Posted by vi_spex 4 months ago
vi_spex
ye wtf
Posted by 42lifeuniverseverything 4 months ago
42lifeuniverseverything
The real question, someone explain why this debate is postponed. I don't like this. AT ALL.
Posted by vi_spex 4 months ago
vi_spex
reliable source=religion=dragons on the moon
Posted by vi_spex 4 months ago
vi_spex
to have physical evidence of non existence to proove the non existence of what dosnt physically exist is contradictory
Posted by 42lifeuniverseverything 4 months ago
42lifeuniverseverything
My sources......? Are you blind?
Posted by vi_spex 4 months ago
vi_spex
there is no evidence..
Posted by vi_spex 4 months ago
vi_spex
you gave evidence?
Posted by 42lifeuniverseverything 4 months ago
42lifeuniverseverything
Also is this debate dead? I see it saing it has not updated. If so it might end in a tie which I'm fine with.
Posted by 42lifeuniverseverything 4 months ago
42lifeuniverseverything
You didn't argue against myself and you had response. But your problem is as Pro you must provide evidence why agnosticism is always true. Something you failed to do. However I gave evidence to the contrary and this is why I must win arguments. At this point I lose conduct but that was accidental.

-42
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.