Arguing against Agnosticism

[Yttrium]

Are there any "strong" agnostics around here? That is, those who believe we can't know whether God exists or not.

[Yttrium]

It is also normal for agnostics to be concerned about existence of God. Therefore my assertion that agnosticism is indifferent to the existence of God is true.

How is that not contradictory?

I only have to show one part of the agnostic position is in error. This was done in the OP. Hence agnosticism is false.

JM, there are two different versions of agnosticism. Well, okay, there are apparently three.

"Strong" agnosticism - the belief that we can't know whether God exists or not. You are apparently arguing against this version. I'm pretty sure that if you should manage to disprove this, no one would mind. I don't know of any "strong" agnostics. That means I've met more geocentrists (2) than strong agnostics (0). If you really want to continue a discussion on this, sure, but keep in mind that it's not really worth it.

"Soft" agnosticism - those who have simply concluded that they don't know whether God exists or not. This is the common form of agnosticism. I know quite a few of people of this type. I'm one of them. This is not a belief. This is a lack of a belief. You can't disprove this version. Disproof doesn't work here. Any attempt to disprove this version will fail horribly, because you would have to prove that every single one of us "soft" agnostics actually knows whether God exists or not.

"Apathetic" agnosticism - no one cares about this one. Seriously. Forget I mentioned it.

[JohnMartin]

Atheism says man may live as though god does not exist.

No, it doesn't. Conjoined with other premises, it may imply that, but atheism alone doesn't say it.

Atheism says only that there is insufficient reason to believe that any god exists. It is logically possible, however, for an unbeliever to decide, for reasons unrelated to God's actual existence, that he should live as though he were a believer, i.e, as if God did exist, and there would be no contradiction in his doing so. Obviously, such a life would not be entirely honest, but atheism per se neither is nor entails any ethical principle.

No, atheism says there is proof that theism is false. Consequently, because theism is false man may live as though god does not exist.

JM

[Roy]

So change the word conclude to means - Practical atheism means that man may live as though god does not exist.

Still wrong.

Try:

"Practical atheism" means "living as though god does not exist".

Alternatively:

The existence of "practical atheism" means that man may live as though god does not exist.

Pick whichever you prefer as the first line of your argument.

Then you can work on the second line, which is also wrong.

Yes I do thin its a bit pedantic.

Perhaps that's why you rarely manage to produce an argument that gets beyond the first line without error or fallacy. Although when you are trying to defend indefensible positions, impreciseness and inconsistency are necessary tools.

[Roy]

How is that not contradictory?

It is contradictory. JM probably missed out a 'not' somewhere.

[JohnMartin]

Still wrong.

Try:

"Practical atheism" means "living as though god does not exist".

Alternatively:

The existence of "practical atheism" means that man may live as though god does not exist.

Pick whichever you prefer as the first line of your argument.

Then you can work on the second line, which is also wrong. Perhaps that's why you rarely manage to produce an argument that gets beyond the first line without error or fallacy. Although when you are trying to defend indefensible positions, impreciseness and inconsistency are necessary tools.

Atheism requires that the necessary being does not be. That is most certainly an indefensible position.

JM

[Doug Shaver]

No, atheism says there is proof that theism is false.

[shunyadragon]

Atheism requires that the necessary being does not be. That is most certainly an indefensible position.

JM

More easily defended than the ancient mythical worldview of Hebrew and Christian Theism, because it is based on the brute fact of the objective verifiable evidence of the nature of our physical existence and Natural Law. No such objective verifiable evidence supports your belief in God.

I believe in God, but I will not stoop to such foolish egocentric illogical selfish circular arguments you resort to.

[Roy]

Atheism requires that the necessary being does not be.

No it doesn't. Atheism requires only that any necessary being still in existence is not a god.

That is most certainly an indefensible position.

Most straw-men positions are.

[Carrikature]

Are there any "strong" agnostics around here? That is, those who believe we can't know whether God exists or not.

I think I qualify.

[Yttrium]

I think I qualify.

Aha. What do you know. John has been speaking ill of you.

[Carrikature]

Aha. What do you know. John has been speaking ill of you.

Since I probably also qualify as an apathetic agnostic, that doesn't bother me a bit.

[JohnMartin]

Quote Originally Posted by JohnMartin View Post

Atheism requires that the necessary being does not be.

No it doesn't. Atheism requires only that any necessary being still in existence is not a god.

The necessary being is God. Atheism denies the necessary being is God, then if it affirms the existence of the necessary being, then it must affirm the necessary being is not God and therefore is a creature. If the necessary being is a creature, then the necessary being is contingent, which infers the necessary being is not necessary. Hence if atheism affirms the necessary being, but denies the necessary is God, then it concludes to a contradiction, which is - the necessary being is a creature, which is not necessary.

Hence atheism is false, for it either

1) denies the existence of the necessary being, which is an error. For the necessary being is required to account for the existence of the contingent.

2) affirms the existence of the necessary being, but then concludes that the necessary being is a creature and thereby a contingent being.

Either way, atheism is false as shown above. Consequently, as atheism is false, then theism is true.

JM

[Roy]

The necessary being is God.

Unsupported assertion.

Atheism denies the necessary being is God, then if it affirms the existence of the necessary being,

No it doesn't.

then it must affirm the necessary being is not God and therefore is a creature.

False dichotomy.

You could at least try to limit your errors to less than one per sentence.

[JohnMartin]

Unsupported assertion.No it doesn't.

False dichotomy.

You could at least try to limit your errors to less than one per sentence.

Two Arguments for God as the necessary being.

Argument 1

The necessary being is either God or a creature.
If a creature then the necessary being is a contingent being, which is absurd.
If God, then God.
Hence the necessary being is God.

Argument 2

The necessary being is either a creature or not.
If a creature then the necessary being is contingent, which is absurd.
Therefore the necessary being is not a creature.
What is necessary but is not a creature is given a name that fittingly indicates the necessary is other than a creature.
That name of the necessary being which indicates the necessary is both a thing and a thing other than a creature, is God.
Hence God is the necessary being.


JM