agnostic is the only true position on non sensical claims

Thank you for this topic Pro. I will be taking the side of Con and arguing that the only possible position to non-sensical claims are there outright rejection and not agnosticism. First we need some definitions: 1) Non-sensical = having no meaning; making no sense (derivation is relating from the lack of sensorial support for concepts) 2) Agnositicm = the view that the truth values of certain concepts (and their claims) " especially metaphysical " are unknown and perhaps unknowable, thus it is correct to suspend belief/disbelief and not claim or counter claim The example given by Pro, namely "how many fingers am I holding behind my back?", is not a non-sensical situation or claim. Clearly between the participants of such an exercise there is a mutual understanding of the intention, understood rules and an overall aim. It has meaning and is therefore not non-sense. Non-sense applies to concepts where there is no meaning intrinsic in that concept. Borrowing from another atheist (apologies I cannot remember the name) a "yellow quantum whisperer" is a concept that we can imagine. We know what yellow is, we know what the quantum world is intended to convey and we know what whisperers do. But given colours and sounds are emergent macro world effects from either quantum activity itself (colour) or physical activity in the air (sound) the "yellow quantum whisperer" DOES NOT exist, because the effects would not be seen at the quantum level. It is not the case that I have to suspend judgement on its existence, it simply cannot exist. In the same way to call water, wet is fine, but to call a water molecule, wet is non-sense, meaningless and false (not unknowable). The same is true for the generalised concept of god. Here we have a proposed deity which is necessarily outside of the universe and time itself, but at the same time is said to have created the universe via causal processes. Causality is the law of identity applied to action and only happens inside of a time-space continuum. The creator concept of god therefore lacks specificity and collides to things together which are mutually exclusive. Namely a timeless agent that can also act causally. But worse than this the god concept only ever includes secondary and relational attributes. Never primary attributes. God the creator (relational to the universe), god the all powerful (secondary to the god-concepts 'nature'). We know the nature of sound, we know the nature of chairs. We know a chair can be red (secondary attribute to its nature), but we know sound cannot be red (an impossible secondary attribute given its nature). As gods nature is never defined meaningfully or positively, we are left only to consider the emptiness of the overall-concept and its impossible mix of free floating secondary features. It therefore not a case that we have to suspend judgement. It clearly does not exist. Worse again is that even to bootstrap the concept the theist must borrow from a naturalist worldview. A nature only exists in the natural world. Thus a god cannot have a nature, only at best a supernature. But whats that?, its is meaningless like red sound, wet water molecules, yellow quantum whisperers. I could go on, but I have put enough on th etable for R1. I have shown agnoticism is not the most reasonable position for the non-sensical.