If God becomes assumed, He must be accepted. Thus, any agnostic is Theist.

[questfortruth]

Some human knows more, some knows less. Let us find the maximum of knowledge. I have no circular element:

1. Hypothesis: some human knows all.

2. Among his knowledge is knowledge of own existence.

3. Therefore, there is knowledge that such human exists.

4. Therefore, our hypothesis has been proven.

Theorem of Theology:

If God becomes assumed, He must be accepted. Thus, any agnostic is Theist.

Proof of Theorem:

Let us assume, that a X knows everything. Thus, this X knows about the existence of himself. Now, because X knows everything, and he knows about existence of himself, then the Existence of X is knowledge.

Let us assume, that Omniscient one exists. Thus, he knows about the existence of himself. Now, because Omniscient one knows everything, and he knows about existence of himself, then the Existence of Omniscient one is knowledge.

The DNA, design, and Laws in Nature is Information. Thus, it must have source.

The set of Natural Laws is as much complex as the Nature itself. Where the design of Laws came from? Naturalist would say, that the Laws of Nature simply have always existed. But he is wrong. The Nature has started, there was Virtual Big Bang. Thus, Laws of Nature have origin.

my argumentation has no circular element.

 

[HonestJoe]

my argumentation has no circular element.

But if we assume there is a circular argument and therefore it’s an argument for itself, your argument must be circular.

 

[Sunstone]

Your OP is very funny. Thank you.

 

[crossfire]

Any sentient being is sentient due to having a subjective mind.
Confusing the subjective for the objective is called delusion.
Therefore, any sentient being (possessing a subjective mind) is subject to delusion (confusing the subjective for the objective.)
Assumptions are subjective, since they are subjectively processed.
What a conundrum!

 

[PureX]

"God thinks therefor God is". Very creative.

But the agnostic doesn't assume that God thinks, or is.

 

[questfortruth]

Your OP is very funny. Thank you.

You can pay for your fun by giving the like. Please give it.

 

[questfortruth]

"God thinks therefor God is". Very creative.

But the agnostic doesn't assume that God thinks, or is.

He assumes it for the times he needs Him. Thus, there are no atheists in Wars.

 

[questfortruth]

But if we assume there is a circular argument and therefore it’s an argument for itself, your argument must be circular.

No, somebody is hallucinating! Look how simple: Let us assume, that Omniscient exists. Thus, He must know own Existence. Thus, Existence of Omniscient is part of Omniscience.

 

[PureX]

He assumes it for the times he needs Him. Thus, there are no atheists in Wars.

Many agnostics have no such need. Also, you are confusing 'the agnostic' with 'agnosticism'. People are capable of holding more than one opinion on reality at a time, whereas the philosophical/theological designations are the respective opinions, themselves. Agnosticism as a philosophical opinion does not assume the existence of gods. "If God becomes assumed ... ", the person doing the assuming is no longer agnostic.

 

[questfortruth]

Many agnostics have no such need.

Agnosticism is the absence of the final judgement. Thus, the agnosticism allows these theists to consider possibility of God. Atheism or not atheism. Thus, the agnosticism is theism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

He assumes it for the times he needs Him. Thus, there are no atheists in Wars.

Now that's a lie and a personal attack against atheists in the military.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Agnosticism is the absence of the final judgement. Thus, the agnosticism allows these theists to consider possibility of God. Atheism or not atheism. Thus, the agnosticism is theism.

You don't seem to understand logic.

 

[questfortruth]

Now that's a lie and a personal attack against atheists in the military.

Military Atheists are under verbal attack! Somebody, call Trump to use Nukes!

 

[questfortruth]

You don't seem to understand logic.

No, write to me [email protected] and I give you the link to my top-researcher academic CV.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Let us assume, that a X knows everything.

She assumed she did, hence the divorce.

 

[HonestJoe]

No, somebody is hallucinating! Look how simple: Let us assume, that Omniscient exists. Thus, He must know own Existence. Thus, Existence of Omniscient is part of Omniscience.

Yes, if you assume an omniscient being exists, you can prove an omniscient being exists. How is that not circular?

Can you prove an omniscient being exists without that assumption though? Can you prove omniscience can even exist given its fundamentally circular and infinite nature (it knows everything, including knowing it knows everything, including knowing it knows it knows everything and on ad infinitum)? It’d be line using dots on a piece of paper to count the dots on the same piece of paper.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Military Atheists are under verbal attack! Somebody, call Trump to use Nukes!

What you did was a wrong as if I would be if I claimed that all theists were idiots.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, write to me [email protected] and I give you the link to my top-researcher academic CV.

No need. Everyone has seen that you have trouble with proper reasoning here. Calling your "logic" here circular is generous.

 

[ChristineM]

He assumes it for the times he needs Him. Thus, there are no atheists in Wars.

Bullpoop. I know of several atheists who have fought in wars. The person who came up with that quote was a very disturbed individual who considered lying for his god about what he didnt understand to be of more value than truth.

 

[ChristineM]

Military Atheists are under verbal attack! Somebody, call Trump to use Nukes!

Think, who is the bravest soldier...?

• One who goes to war with a cuddly teddy bear for comfort.
• One who goes to war with the (mistaken) assumption that the god sitting on their shoulder will protect them from harm
• One who goes to war with no talisman, just their own conviction they are doing what is right