Agnosticism can not support its claims with facts and evidence

What is Agnosticism? According to the Oxford dictionary[1], an Agnostic is: “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.” From the mid- 19th century: from a-1 'not' + gnostic. In the Latin it simply means to have “no knowledge”. However, it is obvious that my opponent has knowledge as a human being. I consider my opponent to be a rational, intelligent, individual. My argument is simply saying that his proposition or what he holds to be true, mainly “agnosticism”, is irrational and false. The Impossibility of Agnosticism Agnosticism is a self-defeating or self-refuting proposition. Why? Well as we can see above, the proposition “We can’t know if God does or does not exist”, is actually making a knowledge claim that requires justification. However, it would be impossible for my opponent to show how he knows that we can’t know if God exits or does not exist since his worldview means to withholding knowledge. Thus he would violate his own claim making it self-defeating because he has knowledge of not having knowledge for the existence or non-existence of God. No Point of Reference Agnosticism does not have a point of reference to verify its claims simply because it is a self-contradiction in terms. I will explain down here below. 1. It violates the Law of Non-Contradiction- There are three versions of the Law of Non-Contradiction: an ontological, a doxastic and a semantic version. Agnosticism does not really have anything to do with the ontological version of the Law of Non-Contradiction since the ontological version is referring to objects. But, Agnosticism does violate the doxastic and semantic version of LONC. The Doxastic version says that “It is impossible to hold (suppose) the same thing to be and not to be (Metaph IV 3 1005b24 cf.1005b29–30).” An alternate way of understanding the second formulation is to treat it not as a descriptive claim about human psychology, but as a normative claim, a claim about what it is rational to believe. On this view, it is not that Con cannot believe that x is F and not F &c, but that Con cannot rationally do so. Therefore, Con can’t rationally hold Agnosticism as true since it is a knowledge claim about not having knowledge. Now to the Semantic version of the LONC. The semantic version is that “opposite assertions cannot be true at the same time”. My opponent can’t now and know at the same time. [4] 2. Origins: Science may explain the process by which we got here; however, Science can’t explain the reason why we are here, and where we came from in relation to the big bang. All Science says is that we got here and that’s final. Agnosticism can’t account for where we came from since it is unsure of our beginning. 3. Meaning: There is no ultimate reason to explain why we exist if Agnosticism is true. Life would become absurd. That doesn’t mean that my opponent can’t live a happy life, but what it means is that my opponent can’t live consistently and objectively because his worldview can’t tell him the reason for why he exists. Agnosticism can’t give us an objective reason or purpose for human existence. 4. Morality: If God’s existence is disputed, then we can’t really have a sound foundation for why or where objective moral values and duties come from. That is not to say that my opponent can’t uphold moral values or duties, but that my opponent would have no reason to since his worldview doesn’t have any standard to place them on. Morality would be preferences on my opponent’s worldview. 5. Destiny: If God’s existence is unknown, then there really is no afterlife. Again life would become pointless and absurd because on my opponent’s worldview there is nothing to really live for since death is the end of all things. There would be no objective reason to live life as an agnostic. Why the Judeo-Christian worldview? Only in the Judeo- Christian worldview do you see a consistency because it has a point of reference to account for the 4 main questions in life: How did I get here? Why am I here? What am I worth? And Where am I going? Also the Judeo-Christian worldview, is the only worldview that has a point of reference to confirm itself through: history, science, prophecy, and archaeology. Origins: As I said earlier, Science can only tell us the process by which we got here. But it can’t tell us from where we came from. It can only explain life up until the point of the Big Bang. There must be a timeless, immaterial, space-less, metaphysical necessary being Meaning: The ultimate purpose for all man-kind in the Judeo-Christian world-view is to be in a relationship with God. However, man broke that relationship and fellowship with God through his sin. It is only through Christ can that be restored. Jesus of Nazareth claimed to be the Son of God and proved it through his death and resurrection 2000 years ago. He is the only one who restored that relationship that man couldn’t. Morality: God must be necessary for objective moral values and duties to exist. The ten commandments are best summed up as sacred. Your life is sacred. Your property is sacred. Your marriage is sacred. Your time is sacred. Your worship is sacred, etc. Now of course that doesn’t mean that people didn’t know morality before the Ten- commandments, everyone knows right from wrong because the law is written on everyone’s heart. God is the ultimate standard for objective moral values and duties to exist. Morality is the single most empirically provable fact. We come to know moral values and duties from our five senses. It also makes since that God would be necessary for objective moral duties as well. Moral duties can only arise from an authority figure. Our moral duties reflect God’s nature because God is good, therefore, it logically follows that God’s command’s would be good in order to reflect his nature. Only with an objective moral-law giver (God) can you explain why objective moral values and duties exist. Destiny: On the Judeo-Christian worldview, do we see hope be defined for all mankind objectively. Because Christ died on the cross for all mankind and because he was resurrected from the dead, mankind can have eternal life if they believe in Jesus as their Lord and Savior. He will give them eternal life. That is true hope. (John3:16). Science: There must be a God who exists to explain all the fine tuning of the Universe.[3] History: The Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus are based on overwhelming, established, objective historical facts. Jesus’s Crucifixion is attested to in the 4 gospels as well as 9 secular sources within 150 years(Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Lucian,etc.). Jesus resurrection is based on 4 historical facts as well. The majority of Ancient historians and New Testament scholars, whether religious or non-religious agree upon 4 facts that happened after Jesus was crucified.[3] 1. The burial of Jesus: Jesus’ burial is attested in the very old tradition quoted by Paul in I Cor 15 3 The burial story is part of very old source material used by Mark in writing his gospel. As a member of the Jewish court that condemned Jesus, Joseph of Arimathea is unlikely to be a Christian invention. There was strong resentment against the Jewish leadership for their role in the condemnation of Jesus (I Thess. 2.15). It is therefore highly improbable that Christians would invent a member of the court that condemned Jesus who honors Jesus by giving him a proper burial instead of allowing him to be dispatched as a common criminal. 2. The empty tomb The story is simple and lacks signs of legendary embellishment. A woman’s testimony was discounted in first century Palestine stands in favor of the women’s role in discovering the empty tomb. The earliest Jewish allegation that the disciples had stolen Jesus’ body (Matt. 28.15) shows that the body was in fact missing from the tomb. 3. The post-mortem apperances The appearance traditions in the gospels provide multiple, independent attestation of these appearances. Skeptics like James the brother of Jesus did not believe in Jesus during Jesus lifetime. and Paul the apostle persecuted Christians until Jesus appeared to him. James became a Bishop of Jerusalem, and Paul became a leader in proclaiming the gospel to the Jews and Gentiles. 4. The origin of belief in disciples: The appearance traditions in the gospels provide multiple, independent attestation of these appearances. Their leader was dead. And Jews had no belief in a dying, much less rising, Messiah. The Messiah was supposed to throw off Israel’s enemies (= Rome) and re-establish a Davidic reign—not suffer the ignominious death of criminal. Despite all this, the original disciples believed in and were willing to go to their deaths for the fact of Jesus’ resurrection. Luke Johnson, a New Testament scholar from Emory University, muses, “some sort of powerful, transformative experience is required to generate the sort of movement earliest Christianity was . . . .” N. T. Wright, an eminent British scholar, concludes, “that is why, as a historian, I cannot explain the rise of early Christianity unless Jesus rose again, leaving an empty tomb behind him.” Gert Ludemann, the leading German critic of the resurrection, and atheist himself admits, “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.” Prophecy Jesus fulfilled 351 Prophecies in the OT From his birth to his life, death,resurrection. http://www.accordingtothescriptures.org... Sources [1]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [2] http://www.reasonablefaith.org... [3]http://www.reasons.org... [4] http://plato.stanford.edu...