One should be an Atheist Rather Than an Agnostic.

1. Agnosticism as Epistemology. I do indeed make the claim that anything that is outside the realms of human knowledge may retain an agnostic class. However, my opponent's characterization of this set as "almost infinite" is egregiously flawed. Only those things that are by principle unknowable would fall into this class. For example, if we state there are invisible pink unicorns or laundry fairies that only clean clothes when you feed them detergent, we must remain agnostic (if skeptical) about such things because they are in principle unknowable. However, if someone claims unicorns exist on the moons of Saturn, we can GO to the moons of Saturn and look around for some blessed unicorns. It's not by PRINCIPLE unknowable. His example of the immaterial soul/mind... it is not in principle unknowable, but it is indeed very hard to prove or discover. A debate on this issue may be interesting, but the mind and the person cannot exist without a functioning brain. A body can be kept alive without a brain. Thus, mind is dependent on body. >> "The very fact that something is supernatural lowers it's "warranted assertability"" The fact that something is supernatural removes it from the ambit of warranted assertability - without any sort of epistemological existence, there is no way to find any warrant to make an assertion. >> "Apply Occam's Razor, and one can see what I mean." How does one apply Occam's Razor to the proposition "God exists" if the proposition is to be considered "There exists a being that is in principle impossible to verify" ?? The simplest explanation is "I don't know" because one cannot provide any sort of reasoning to back up "This being does not exist." Consider: JCMT: Apply Occam's Razor to the proposition "God exists." TS: The being doesn't exist. JCMT: Defend your position. TS: Um... well... I have no evidence FOR its existence. JCMT: That's an appeal to ignorance. Try again. TS: Crap! I really don't know if it exists or not. JCMT: Now you're thinking. 2. On Evidence Collected. Russel's teapot does not apply, as it is a disanalogy... unless we hold Russel's teapot to be in principle undetectable, it is not the same thing. With enough time, one COULD go examine space and find this teapot. The problem with the evidence issue is that there would be (in principle) no evidence. It would be like asking someone who made a claim about a gerbil that didn't poop to prove their position by bringing forth the lack of poop. When they present.... nothing.... this only goes to prove the points of both sides. ****************************** >> "he states that can't judge the likeliness of the proposition "God exists". This is erroneous to claim." The erroneous claim here belongs to my opponent. If I ask him to back up his assertion that God does not exist, he cannot. It would be akin to asking him to provide evidence for the evidence-less being's existence. >> "Just because something is possible/logically tenable, doesn't mean it's likely or probable." No, but it DOES mean that cannot be dismissed as logically untenable. >> "Unless you argue Mackie's version of the AOE, which makes the claim that evil and a good God's existence is logically incompatible. But that's besides the point ;D" This can easily be circumvented by theists by claiming that God is not omnibenevolent - hell, he spends half the Old Testament destroying things. They just need to claim that his benevolence outweighs his malevolence to save the notion that he is worthy of praise. And since they will argue that eternal salvation is infinite benevolence compared to some historical instances of malevolence.... sigh.... I hate these arguments. >> "Always a pleasure JMCT." The pleasure is of course mine. And prolly the clueless theists that read this. >> "Vote for PRO." I respectfully dissent - vote CON. ******************************************** I'm going to repost my conclusion from the last round because I don't feel The Skeptic adequately addressed some of the issues in it: Conclusion: * God's existence is in principle unverifiable. * Under the "likeliness standard," this existence is inconclusive, if unlikely. * Under the "logically coherent standard," this existence is possible, if unlikely. * Under the "absolute knowledge standard," this existence is inconclusive, if unlikely. Thus, since the answer to the proposition "God exists" is inconclusive under all standards, yet still logically possible, the only logically tenable position on the issue is agnosticism. NEGATED.