proof only agnosticism is true
|Voting Style:||Open||Point System:||7 Point|
|Updated:||6 months ago||Status:||Debating Period|
|Viewed:||417 times||Debate No:||93554|
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
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...
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
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.
"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.
i dont have a hat
you are not arguing against agnosticism you are arguing against theism..
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).
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.
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.