Instigator / Con
0
1420
rating
396
debates
43.94%
won
Topic
#3608
Your best argument for any person not to be an agnostic.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
Novice_II
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 27,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
2
1890
rating
98
debates
93.37%
won
Description
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
Just plain and simple. What is your best argument to not be an agnostic?
What could you offer as an argument ideally I suppose for yourself, myself, anybody else to not be an agnostic ?
Is it the strongest?
Is it totally non-debunkable?
Let's see.
Questions about the topic, please leave a comment or send a message.
Round 1
What is your best argument to not be an agnostic?
x. Interpretation of the resolution
- Since this is a 5 round debate, I will take the round to interpret the resolution and lay some essential groundwork, as this debate is unorthodox and needs a standard by which we can evaluate the winner or loser respectively.
- The resolution states: "your best argument for any person not to be an agnostic." I suggest the most reasonable way to evaluate this is for me to play the advocate role of the mentioned position and, as stated, simply present what I believe to be my best argument for the topic.
- Mall shall propose an argument that is supposedly better than my argument and we shall engage with one another in deliberation upon which argument is indeed, the best. I propose the debate shall be judged accordingly. Weighing my argument against whether or not Mall has demonstrated a better one.
Round 2
What is your best argument?
Overview
- In round one, I propose a reasonable interpretation of this unconventional and peculiar topic resolution that has no descriptional specifications. Mall drops this revealing that he does not object to my framing, thus, I will continue this debate under the proposed framework. I encourage voters to observe this and vote accordingly.
x. Interpretation of the resolution
- Dropped. Extend.
- The resolution is not even a proposition, (a statement that can be proven true or falsified). Instead, the object of the debate becomes the presentation of my best argument against agnosticism. To evaluate this, we can judge the debate on your critique of my argument with a better one. I propose this is the most reasonable way to resolve the issues presented in the resolution and establish a definitive winner.
I. Argument
- My best argument against agnosticism is simply the fact that it leads or collapses to infinite skepticism, and that people should more prudently seek to make claims based on the most convincing mode of evidence presented to them in the long term. Observer:
- Agnostic: I am unsure as to whether God exists
- Me: Why not make claims based on the strongest deductive forms of evidence?
- Agnostic: I don't know
- Me: Okay...so why can't this be applied to literally anything else?
- Agnostic: How so?
- Me: How do you know that cup exists
- Agnostic: I can see it
- Me: How do you know you can trust your senses?
- Agnostic: Hmm, I don't know
- Me: How do you know you exist?
- Agnostic: I think, therefore, I am.
- Me: How do you know that is a sound argument?
- Agnostic: The law of logic necessitates that.
- Me: How do you know the laws of logic are constant and hold true?
- Agnostic: Hmm, I don't know.
- Me: I guess you must be Agnostic about everything
- I argue that agnosticism can be cross-applied to every aspect of reality and in order to progress in uncovering the truth of reality (objective states of reality), one should avoid taking agnostic positions of deductive matters of philosophy.
Round 3
"My best argument against agnosticism is simply the fact that it leads or collapses to infinite skepticism, and that people should more prudently seek to make claims based on the most convincing mode of evidence presented to them in the long term. "
I have some questions here to clarify your statement.
It goes into infinite or virtually always being skeptical. A person that is skeptical will require evidence. Is that true or false?
So the remainder of that statement mentions or relates to evidence .
So you will have to clarify a distinction here that points out a skeptic looking for evidence to change their skepticism and any other person looking for evidence.
The reason a person is agnostic is due to no evidence. That's no evidence for either side . The agnostic says we can't know something due to an absence of evidence. The agnostic is all about evidence. They don't even want to settle with a belief. As beliefs are separate from facts.
"Agnostic: I am unsure as to whether God exists "
Highly valid based on what I just stated.
Let me ask, is anybody sure on this planet?
Those that are sure, if they exist, why would we be having this debate?
We're not debating about the sun being hot, that's evident.
"Me: Why not make claims based on the strongest deductive forms of evidence?"
There is either evidence or there is not. There is no evidence. There are theories and suggested syllogisms. But no evidence, deductive reasoning sure.
But the agnostic just wants the evidence like the evidence of gravity.
"Agnostic: I don't know"
Once again, valid. We're looking for honesty in the facts, the facts.
"Me: Okay...so why can't this be applied to literally anything else?
Agnostic: How so?
Me: How do you know that cup exists
Agnostic: I can see it
Me: How do you know you can trust your senses?
Agnostic: Hmm, I don't know "
By that last response, evidence is pointless. We have to start somewhere, namely at the base.
So when the question is asked how can we trust senses, it's like asking how can we trust our parents to tend to us , take care of us, provide from whence we couldn't for ourselves?
We don't concern ourselves with trust because either way, we have no other to our aid. It's like a take it or leave it. There's no other place to go.
So I would trust, no pun intended, that the person with the agnostic view would have thought about this question and have a solid basis or substantiated one to answer with. Something fundamental such as I conveyed.
"Me: How do you know you exist?
Agnostic: I think, therefore, I am. "
How does one know anything exists?
Again it's that thing called evidence.
"Me: How do you know that is a sound argument?
Agnostic: The law of logic necessitates that.
Me: How do you know the laws of logic are constant and hold true?
Agnostic: Hmm, I don't know."
Perhaps you don't know what an agnostic may say. But I understand that they're concerned with evidence. Something you're asking about that is being questioned as trustworthy.
That's one thing about facts is their testability, repeatability nature. Something that is true is that which is, not which isn't.
"I guess you must be Agnostic about everything "
You're going to have to ask them about everything. Highly doubtful anybody has that kind of time including the agnostic person you're talking to.
"one should avoid taking agnostic positions of deductive matters of philosophy."
As long as you're not saying to avoid the agnostic positions that are inclusive of evidence .
I believe you are downplaying, reducing the merit of the agnostic position.
People will do this particularly when trying to upstage the atheist position.
But hey, let's not get into comparisons. Just realize what you said about evidence and skepticism.
A skeptic will exist as long as evidence is not present. Now that's a wide spectrum for all kinds of people, let alone agnostics .
Overview
- In round one, I propose a reasonable interpretation of this unconventional and peculiar topic resolution that has no descriptional specifications. Mall drops this revealing that he does not object to my framing, thus, I will continue this debate under the proposed framework. I encourage voters to observe this and vote accordingly.
x. Interpretation of the resolution
- Extend.
- Fairly establishing continuity with my overview. Pro's burden is to simply provide his best argument, and if every round of the debate is waived subsequently, pro currently has won the debate. Con needs to somehow falsify my argument presented as my best one. Granted, I have provided an avenue for this: the presentation of a better one, which will de-facto become my new best argument if decided so by the voters in order to fulfill the most rudimentary interpretation of the resolution.
I. Argument
- First, we can note that pro is yet to provide a better argument as consistent with my unchallenged framework.
- Let's begin with some quick rebuttals to con. He does not reject nor deny that agnosticism collapses to infinite skepticism. He goes on slight tidbits and rambles on the evidence that exists for God etc. however, my argument is that to deny that anything can be known about the existence or nature of God is to deny any mode of empiricism for any aspect of reality.
- I think Mall has made our jobs a bit easier here. Mall himself seems to admit that he subscribes to testable evidence and its revelation about the truth of reality. Now, all I need to do is exhibit how his own ontology entails a contradiction with agnosticism.
The reason a person is agnostic is due to no evidence.
- False, agnosticism is fundamentally an epistemological position, which stipulates that "nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena." The agnostic rejects the possibility of inductively or deductively uncovering the ontological nature of God's existence. To do so is to reject both modes of reasoning themselves, which can apply to every aspect of reality.
But no evidence, deductive reasoning sure.
- Deductive reasoning that is consistent with the laws of logic (valid & sound) is evidence. In fact, it can be seen as superior to traditional empiricisms because it requires less induction. Consequently, while deductive reasoning begins with a premise that is proven through observations, inductive reasoning extracts a likely (but not certain) premise from specific and limited observations.
That's one thing about facts is their testability, repeatability nature. Something that is true is that which is, not which isn't.
- Sure, however, the agnostic must deny all facts, and deny that we can know anything about reality because his position that we cannot possibly know about the nature or existence of God rejects every mode of reasoning. Thus, the agnostic must reject anything he observes as testable because it is predicated upon less certainty than deduction, and consequently, the agnostic must question his own presuppositions as they are not sufficiently grounded by any mode of reasoning.
By that last response, evidence is pointless. We have to start somewhere, namely at the base.
- See above. As the agnostic denies the possibility of evidence in our discussed respect, he can by the same token, deny the possibility of sensual accuracy which is typically presuppositional. Here is a modus ponens justification for the above proposition:
- (p1) If presuppositional accuracy is grounded in less certainty than deduction, presuppositions are less evidenced than God. (p2) Presuppositional accuracy is grounded in less certainty than deduction. (c) Presuppositions are less evidenced than God.
I.1
- Pro concedes that he accepts and subscribes to modes of empiricism that exhibit testability. Pro also concedes we can know things exist through such empiricism saying
"How does one know anything exists? Again it's that thing called evidence."
- So pro's own assertions entail a contradiction with agnosticism in which he asserts that his epistemology allows him to "know," facts of the world through induction, where he would logically have to be agnostic about reality as such evidence exhibits less certainly than deduction, which he rejects as evidence here:
But no evidence, deductive reasoning sure.
Round 4
"False, agnosticism is fundamentally an epistemological position, which stipulates that "nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena."
Due to no evidence. Hello, hello, hello, hello, no thing is known without evidence and no thing can be known without evidence.
What is complicated about that?
"The agnostic rejects the possibility of inductively or deductively uncovering the ontological nature of God's existence. To do so is to reject both modes of reasoning themselves, which can apply to every aspect of reality."
Does that mean the agnostic rejects evidence?
There is no evidence for God to exist. There is no evidence for God not to exist.
So therefore the agnostic view of a neutral stance exists.
That's all there is to it.
"Deductive reasoning that is consistent with the laws of logic (valid & sound) is evidence. In fact, it can be seen as superior to traditional empiricisms because it requires less induction."
Whatever you want to call it. There's no evidence. If there was evidence for God, then religions would no longer exist. Having a faith would no longer be necessary.
Can you dig it ?
"Sure, however, the agnostic must deny all facts, and deny that we can know anything about reality because his position that we cannot possibly know about the nature or existence of God rejects every mode of reasoning. "
Hold it right there. Are you saying the agnostic ignores or would ignore evidence if presented?
If you're saying all agnostic people would do that then you have to prove that.
Agnostic theists or agnostic atheists can be open to evidence. They're open to beliefs, they can spir more room for any known facts .
The reality is nobody but nobody knows the true existence of deities.
"Thus, the agnostic must reject anything he observes as testable because it is predicated upon less certainty than deduction, and consequently, the agnostic must question his own presuppositions as they are not sufficiently grounded by any mode of reasoning."
I don't know if you really thought about this thoroughly although it need not in depth thought, why has an agnostic come to the stance that they have?
It seems like your understanding of an agnostic is someone who is biased to keeping a close mind period.
So in response to everything else you had to say, you have a different take on agnosticism.
Going by what I mean by agnosticism which is a neutral stance on the existence of God due to no evidence, your argument is good for anybody to be an agnostic.
Maybe the best, a little rough around the edges but it's a start to arguing for anybody to be an agnostic.
Which would translate that you don't have an argument, let alone the best.
Overview
- Pro does not challenge my framework, meaning he accepts it.
- Extend all arguments. As usual, pro drops all rebuttals and continues to repeat what he said previously.
x. Interpretation of the resolution
- Extend.
I. Argument
- First, we can note that pro is yet to provide a better argument as consistent with my unchallenged framework.
Due to no evidence. Hello, hello, hello, hello, no thing is known without evidence and no thing can be known without evidence.
- False. The agnostic believes that "humans cannot know of the existence of anything beyond the phenomena of their experience. So he rejects all forms of evidence apart from observable evidence. My argument is that by the same token, the agnostic must reject his presuppositions because they are grounded in less certainty, epistemologically, and ontologically, than deductive evidence as well as inductive observations.
Whatever you want to call it. There's no evidence.
- Pro does not object to/concedes that deductive reasoning that is consistent with the laws of logic is evidence, and as so, there is a lot of theistic evidence in essentially any prominent metaphysical syllogism like the contingency argument or the cosmological argument.
If you're saying all agnostic people would do that then you have to prove that.
- Perhaps try reading, I am saying the agnostic position entails such skepticism, and it would probe contradiction to act outside of it.
If you're saying all agnostic people would do that then you have to prove that.
- See previous rounds/above.
I.1
- I extend my argument from collapse to infinite skepticism. Remember that con has already affirmed he subscribes to the idea that testable observations can reveal to us what is true in reality. however, the agnostic believes that we can't know whether God exists because we can't experience him directly. By the same token, we can not experience our presuppositions, and thus, the agnostic must reject his own presuppositions.
- Derivatively, The agnostic must be agnostic upon the notion that he is himself, as the law of identity is fundamentally presuppositional. If the agnostic can not affirm that he is himself, he must reject all aspects of reality on this alone as his own experiences betray him: they are not his own. There is the encroaching probability that none of them can be trusted or synthesized.
- Second, the agnostic must reject deduction as he only concludes the phenomena of his experiences. However, by the same token, the agnostic must also reject induction as it expresses objectively less certainty than deduction. Thus, the agnostic must reject every aspect of reality as we establish evidence from indication. Consequently, the agnostic must reject any ontological classification claim as they are fundamentally deductive or inductive.
Conclusion
- Mall has not even attempted to refute my argument talking less of engaging with it. Regardless, I have provided my argument and consequently have won the debate as of now.
- Statements like this:
Hold it right there. Are you saying the agnostic ignores or would ignore evidence if presented?
- Suggest that con does not understand, nor is he attempting to understand or synthesize my line of argumentation. Ignore his tangents.
Round 5
"Suggest that con does not understand, nor is he attempting to understand or synthesize my line of argumentation. Ignore his tangents."
I want to address this first. I have no choice but to call this intellectual dishonesty.
I've been asking questions and you ask questions to get understanding. "Ignore his tangents" is more proof or confirmation in just saying ignore what I have to say.
But you weren't specifically, directly invited, you chose this challenge. But you don't choose to communicate. A debate doesn't mean to have your defenses up so high like debating a wall. But I digress.
"First, we can note that pro is yet to provide a better argument as consistent with my unchallenged framework. "
Your burden, not mine. Your burden, your burden, your burden, your burden, your burden.
See this is a classic case when somebody has nothing and resort to "well you prove it then". So amusing.
"False. The agnostic believes that "humans cannot know of the existence of anything beyond the phenomena of their experience. So he rejects all forms of evidence apart from observable evidence. My argument is that by the same token, the agnostic must reject his presuppositions because they are grounded in less certainty, epistemologically, and ontologically, than deductive evidence as well as inductive observations. "
You have not proven that we can know anything so kudos and correct on the agnostic's part.
You could stand to learn a thing or two from them.
"Pro does not object to/concedes that deductive reasoning that is consistent with the laws of logic is evidence, and as so, there is a lot of theistic evidence in essentially any prominent metaphysical syllogism like the contingency argument or the cosmological argument. "
There is no evidence for deity existence or non-existence of.
"Perhaps try reading, I am saying the agnostic position entails such skepticism, and it would probe contradiction to act outside of it. "
Exactly, you cannot meet the challenge of proving that all agnostics reject evidence so therefore you'd have to use a different argument for the ones that don't reject evidence.
I'll say it again, all people that are skeptical that are presented with evidence changes skepticism. That's any person with skepticism, not just agnostics, not just agnostics.
I understand you're looking at agnostics differently than I am. But you haven't proven all of them are the same. So the ones different from the ones you're cherry picking for your position, I happen to not grant admission to this debate.
"however, the agnostic believes that we can't know whether God exists because we can't experience him directly."
True or false. If false, prove it. I've been asking you to prove these things throughout the discussion. I can come up with blanket assertions but it's futile.
"Mall has not even attempted to refute my argument talking less of engaging with it."
If I'm not refuting some points , it's because I don't understand them. You get into a lot of technical jargon and when I ask questions you tend not to answer or just evade.
But the bottomline, you have come up with an argument concerning the skepticism in agnosticism. Skepticism is not exclusive to agnostics.
They're are skeptical just like anyone else would be before presented with evidence. So I'm yet to hear an argument for all people skeptical. Then you say the agnostic would reject the evidence but then where's the evidence that any or all would do that?
You don't have that proof.
"Regardless, I have provided my argument and consequently have won the debate as of now. "
"Statements like this:
Hold it right there. Are you saying the agnostic ignores or would ignore evidence if presented?"
These are not statements. Maybe that's why you don't answer questions. You confuse them with being what they are not which you see as all statements.
One sentence is an actual question that I see not that you answered. Then you call yourself winning a debate. You can say you won a debate all day long with those who have learned what they have from what was said to change their perspective as the disclaimer states.
It has nothing to do with an argument you think is valid where you haven't even answered a question that would cause invalidity by the answer itself if not from even the question itself.
So you are saying that an agnostic would ignore evidence. I'm an agnostic because I have no evidence, haven't been presented or given evidence.
Once I'm given evidence, I'm no longer an agnostic and it would of meant I accepted, accepted the proof. Which does not only apply to my case but anyone that has a change of view because of evidence.
So I'm sorry that you can't pigeonhole one group of people because it could of helped you out big time .
Overview
- Extend all arguments.
x. Interpretation of the resolution
Your burden, not mine. Your burden, your burden, your burden, your burden, your burden.
- It is my burden to provided my subjective determination of my "best argument." This is all the resolution asks for. Once this has been done we need a way to establish the winner of our debate. If the object of the resolution is my best argument, our debate must interpretively be on the position of a better argument from con. This is the final round, and con has not provided an interpretation of his own resolution. This, I as pro am the only one who has provided an avenue for us to peruse a productive mode of deliberation. Voters ought to vote in accordance with my consistently held framework.
There is no evidence for deity existence or non-existence of.
- The evidence has been shown. As stated previously, deductive reasoning is logical evidence and requires less induction than observation. I have this showcased two prominent forms of evidence for theism in the cosmological and contingency arguments.
I. Argument
- My argument simply, is that an agnostic must deny the possibility of uncovering any aspect of reality because he must reject any mode of arriving at ontological phenomena if he rejects deduction as a means of evaluating fundamental aspects of an entity theists describe as God. Mall himself has conceded that he believes testable evidence can inform us of what is true. He also admits that he rejects deduction as evidence. Con contradicts himself by subscribing to truth evaluations of reality when he can reject his preferred mode of induction by the same token, for the same reasons, he rejects deduction, and consequently, for the same reasons, he can reject his own presuppositions. I argue that is is better not to be an agnostic because the agnostic must reject every means of arriving at truth apt claims of any reality, beyond just theism or atheism. It is even better to make pragmatic claims based on one's most sufficient deductive or indictive conclusions because by the definition of agnosticism, you logically, as I have show, must reject both modes of reasoning.
- Con has not presented a better argument, and he has not even come close to refuting or even reasonably critiquing mine.
Agnostic theists or agnostic atheists can be open to evidence. They're open to beliefs, they can spir more room for any known facts .
- I extend my point that this is contradictory. You cannot be open to facts if you reject the mode used to acquire them. The agnostic must logically reject all facts.
So in response to everything else you had to say, you have a different take on agnosticism.
- I use the literal definition of agnosticism for one, and I simply explore the logical and philosophical entailments of its commitments
Conclusion
- A pretty philosophy heavy debate, but the decision is obvious. Only one debater interpreted the resolution and provided a philosophically sound and valid argument. This is what I label as my "best" argument against agnosticism. As this is the object of the debate, the decision goes towards pro.
Nobody is not an agnostic no thanks to this debate, nobody.
There is another question by abhishek he lives in Reuter and he says that of Oscar beed Sahab talks about God in the later Doha's and he doesn't know who God is and why one should strive for him in him why should I answer your question you don't strive for God I do not answer your question next one how do you feel when I do not answer your question that is exactly how one feels when he is godless because you want God what's his
Name Abhishek because you want God Abba Sheikh that's why you want the answer to this question God is the answer to all questions why does anybody ever want anything because he actually wants God God is the end of all the things that you want and therefore those who have gone a little mad have said God is everything that you want that's the syllabus all you need they have said God is all you need the
Thing is you are a man of need you need you need you need and you keep needing you keep needing and you keep needing so there must certainly be something that you are asking for that is called efficient you don't have to strive for God you are striving for God are you not needy then you are spiritual don't you want food then you're a devotee if you are wanting just as much or as little as food on
Your plate or clothes to wear then you are already in the dimension of career cyber meerabhai it's just that you are centuries behind them Kabir Sahab is not 600 years behind us we are 600 years behind cabeza so we will keep roaming for 600 years in various kinds of ways and shapes and bodies till we come to the very shadow of some Kavita we are very very out of touch with ourselves we do not see how desirous we
Are if we chance upon our desirelessness then we hardly ever inquire what all the desire is really about we are extremely skilled at giving ourselves phony objects to desire if there is one speciality that is unique to man it is the skill to cheat oneself and then the woman asks the man are you cheating on me darling since 20,000 centuries he has been cheating on himself how will he ever manage to not to cheat on you go find one man or one woman who does not
Cheat on himself or herself this question is one very glorious example of that kind of cheating why must I strive for God all right don't drink water but it simply doesn't hit us that even mundane daily activities are actually incidents of a spiritual pursuit it simply doesn't strike us for a spirituality is some isolated arena we say right now we're in the early arena Val must we enter the spiritual arena that is out there away there the
Spiritual arena is not out there the spiritual arena is where you are the spiritual arena is all that is when you are chasing a man or a woman you are actually engaged in a spiritual act just a misdirected act but he will cheat yourself and you will not accept that it is really Christian that you want and therefore you are chasing that man you said oh I'm doing something worldly something material and I do not know why there should be something spiritual you
Will with such a apparently no scent and flat face say no but you know I all I want is a man in flesh and blood no you don't want a man in flesh and blood you have had seven point five men in flesh and blood could they appease you you are looking for a krishna no you will not take with that huh so what then is a discotheque it is nothing but Kirsten gone wrong nothing you wanted him through music and through holy company but instead of
Divine music he got hooked to some rapper singing Patiala peg and instead of holy company you got hooked to a man or woman to demonstrative of all the holes there is no place that you are actually not approaching with the will to be liberated it's half a veil actually you know because we are fragmented it's not a total it's half of it so it doesn't succeed it succeeds only in maintaining itself not fulfilling itself you
Understand the difference between these two will succeeding in maintaining itself versus will succeeding in fulfilling itself fulfillment of will is the disappearance of will you decide what kind of success do you want you want to maintain yourself that is one success in prakruti the definition of success is continued to be maintained maintained but your spirit does not consider that a success just as maintaining
And defending pimples on your face is hardly a mark of success oh is it maintaining a cancerous tumor in your stomach is it success but Prakriti just wants maintenance continuation that which is must continue to be and if it goes away then it must leave something else behind it sounds like cancer
"Me: How do you know the laws of logic are constant and hold true?"
This is an interesting philosophical debate to be had. Although not many philosopher say it ends in "hmmm idk"
It is more accurate to say that logic works along the lines of pattern detection, necessity (via contradictions) aka a priori, and order. Without said pattern recognition, there would be no order, no patterns, and then no observation nor life. It's directly contradictory to question the legitimacy of logic while using logic. It is like trying to disprove the legitimacy of maths using maths.
He'll figure something out (presumably).
This is a question.
What are you Con to? That Pro's argument is not the best one he could have given?