Difference between revisions of "Debate:Do agnostics have proof and evidence that agnosticism is valid?"
Conservative (talk | contribs) (Created page with "== No == Agnosticism") |
Conservative (talk | contribs) (→No) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== No == | == No == | ||
| − | [[ | + | [[Christian apologetics|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)[http://www.greatcom.org/resources/secular_religions/ch01/default.html] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:34, 29 June 2012 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 16:34, June 29, 2012
No
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)