Debate:Do agnostics have proof and evidence that agnosticism is valid?

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Davidspencer (Talk | contribs) at 12:14, 14 July 2012. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search


Christian apologist Norman Geisler wrote on complete agnosticism:

"Complete agnosticism is self-defeating; it reduces to the self-destructing assertion that "one knows enough about reality in order to affirm that nothing can be known about reality." This statement provides within itself all that is necessary to falsify itself. For if one knows something about reality, then he surely cannot affirm in the same breath that all of reality is unknowable. And of course if one knows nothing whatsoever about reality, then he has no basis whatsoever for making a statement about reality. It will not suffice to say that his knowledge about reality is purely and completely negative, that is, a knowledge of what one cannot meaningfully affirm that something is not – that it follows that total agnosticism is self-defeating because it assumes some knowledge about reality in order to deny any knowledge of reality (Geisler, Apologetics, p. 20)[1] Conservative 12:34, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

Question is meaningless

As defined by the American Heritage College Dictionary, 4th ed. (2002):

n. 1. One who believes that there is no proof of the existence of God but does not deny the possibility that God exists.
adj. 1. Well grounded; just. ... 4. Logic a. Containing premises from which the conclusion may logically be derived. b. Correctly inferred or deduced from a premise.

Because agnosticism is the belief that there is no proof of God's existence, it makes no sense to me to ask them for proof or evidence of their skepticism. GregG 17:14, 29 June 2012 (EDT)