DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Hrennilasi** · 12-19-2010, 10:29 PM

Regarding whether what he's saying is rationally sound, then it is clearly not:

1) First he says the proof is for Atheists and not agnostics. Perhaps he is misusing the word agnostic, but an agnostic is someone who neither affirms nor denies the existence of God. That is, they claim that nothing can be known about the existence of God. So the agnostic is also addressed in the proof, since it proves without any room for doubt and with zero possibility of the opposite that a Creator does exist. If a person cannot bring an answer to the proof, they cannot logically be an agnostic.

He says, "I don't deny there might be a God"- this is not enough. The proof does not just disprove this denial, it proves the affirmation. So, if he doesn't have any objections to the proof, he has to say, "I affirm the existence of the necessarily existent". In this case, he will have become a theist.

12-19-2010, 10:29 PM	#35
Hrennilasi Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 426 Senior Member	Regarding whether what he's saying is rationally sound, then it is clearly not: 1) First he says the proof is for Atheists and not agnostics. Perhaps he is misusing the word agnostic, but an agnostic is someone who neither affirms nor denies the existence of God. That is, they claim that nothing can be known about the existence of God. So the agnostic is also addressed in the proof, since it proves without any room for doubt and with zero possibility of the opposite that a Creator does exist. If a person cannot bring an answer to the proof, they cannot logically be an agnostic. He says, "I don't deny there might be a God"- this is not enough. The proof does not just disprove this denial, it proves the affirmation. So, if he doesn't have any objections to the proof, he has to say, "I affirm the existence of the necessarily existent". In this case, he will have become a theist.
	Quote