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

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Your argument fails right here. What human knows all? That is besides me?

 

[viole]

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

Let me add the hypothesis along the way, which is valid all the time, and tell me if sounds equally convincing.

1. Hypothesis: some human knows all.

2. Among his knowledge is knowledge of own existence. Assuming that such human exists

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

4. Therefore, our hypothesis has been proven.

Now it is obvious that the conclusion should read : therefore our assumption has been assumed. Which is useless.

Now, your sleight of hand is to promote some statements the middle to make them look like they magically lost the character of assumption. And that should be clear if you add it to any step, since it is still valid along the way.

Ciao

- viol

 

[PureX]

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.

Everyone can and does "consider the possibility" of God, and therefore of no God. But such consideration does not define anyone as embodying a conclusion.

 

[Dan Mellis]

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

You have some very odd ideas. For anyone to accept your argument, they'd have to accept the original (tenuous) premise that god exists. If they accept that, then why would your argument need to be made? Here's another crappy argument but from my side of the fence:

Hypothesis: all religious people are untrustworthy.

Let us assume that god doesnt exist.

If thats true, then all religious people are either liars or delusional.

Liars cannot be trusted as they willfully mislead people, and delusional people cannot distinguish truth from lie therefore cannot be trusted either.

Voila! Hypothesis proved .... except it isnt because I started with "god doesnt exist" which I'm sure you'd have an issue with.

It might not be circular, but it is an astoundingly bad argument.

 

[Dan Mellis]

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

You're being plain offensive at this point. I believe your intention is to incite some sort of response; you have 0 credibility left at this point.

 

[Dan Mellis]

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.

Wrong.

Theism/atheism deals with beliefs.

Gnosticism/agnosticism deals with knowledge claims

A gnostic atheist claims to know god doesnt exist - which is every bit as bad as a gnostic theist who claims to know god exists.

An agnostic atheist simply says "I can't prove god doesnt exist, so cannot claim to know for sure, but I don't believe he does."

And agnostic theists say "I can't know for sure he exists... but I think he probably does".

Therefore, agnostics are not necessarily theists.

 

[siti]

Let us assume, that Omniscient exists.

OK - Lets go with this one...

Omniscient [one] exists
Omniscient [one] must of necessity know that he exists
Omniscient [one] cannot know what it is like not to exist since he knows very well that he does exist
Therefore there is something that omniscient [one] does not know
Therefore omniscient [one] is not omniscient
Therefore omniscient [one] does not exist

Oops!

 

[QuestioningMind]

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.

ROFL... thanks for proving yet AGAIN that you don't have the slightest clue how logic and reason work.

 

[questfortruth]

Let me add the hypothesis along the way, which is valid all the time, and tell me if sounds equally convincing.

1. Hypothesis: some human knows all.

2. Among his knowledge is knowledge of own existence. Assuming that such human exists

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

4. Therefore, our hypothesis has been proven.

Now it is obvious that the conclusion should read : therefore our assumption has been assumed. Which is useless.

Now, your sleight of hand is to promote some statements the middle to make them look like they magically lost the character of assumption. And that should be clear if you add it to any step, since it is still valid along the way.

Ciao

- viol

My proof works good with assumption words too: Assumingly Omiscient human knows own existence. Thus, the existence of Omniscient is knowledge.

 

[Willamena]

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. Okay

2. Among his knowledge is knowledge of own existence. Unlikely, but okay.

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

4. Therefore, our hypothesis has been proven. Or stated, yes.

Great! What was your hypothesis again?

Theorem of Theology:

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

How does one become assumed?
Are you assumed?

How does having assurance that the existence of 'god' is unknown (agnosticism) prove that one is a 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.

I cannot accept the second premise. Existence isn't a 'thing,' as much as modern man likes to make it a thing. Existence is the objective tense of awareness. Awareness is aware of things, but isn't itself a thing.

I don't know what the sense of 'self' is. Alan Watts proposed that the sense of 'self' is muscle tension. I'm not inclined to disagree.

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.

I like that: Omniscient One, like Individual One.

If entities are individual, and Omniscient One is an entity independent of Individual One, then there is no reason to assume that Omniscient One would be anything like Individual One.

Perhaps Omniscient One detects the error in the second premise above.

Or maybe Individual One does.

Would Omniscient One validate something that only pretend-exists in the mind of Individual One as a consequence of self-imposed grammar?

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.

Laws may come from the mind of Omniscient One, but nothing here proves it.

 

[Dan Mellis]

The atheists are very weak in will power: "Hawaii missile-scare fills churches, sends confession lines out the door" January 18, 2018 (LifeSiteNews), Hawaii missile-scare fills churches, sends confession lines out the door

Yeah, most of these would probably have been theists I reckon. If there was a missile scare here in the UK, the vast majority of people would do something important like spend time with family.

 

[Dan Mellis]

My proof works good with assumption words too: Assumingly Omiscient human knows own existence. Thus, the existence of Omniscient is knowledge.

You cant base an argument on an assumption. Even if we were to accept the assumtion momentarily for the sake of the argument, as soon as you're done we stop accepting it and the argument collapses.

 

[viole]

My proof works good with assumption words too: Assumingly Omiscient human knows own existence. Thus, the existence of Omniscient is knowledge.

Yes, and that knowledge is assumed.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Rational Agnostic]

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.

Gibberish.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

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.

DUDE! If you were to go to the Definition of Arguments, under the heading "Circular Reasoning/Boot-strapping Logical Fallacy"?

You would find examples very much like your post, above-- in fact? Yours might even be in there.

 

[PureX]

Questfortruth is quite rightly pointing out that agnosticism allows for the possibility of the existence of God/gods and therefor an agnostic may well 'become' a theist (or an atheist) in a difficult, stressful, and confusing situation, like a war. But this does not mean that agnosticism IS theistic, or atheistic. It just means that we humans can adopt more than one philosophical stance at any one time, even when they contradict each other. He is wrongly, I believe, trying to paint the philosophical proposition with this multiplicitous human conceptual capacity, and that is both illogical and disingenuous. The terms define three distinct philosophical propositions: that God/gods exist beyond and apart from the human imagination (theism), That we do not/cannot ascertain whether or not God/gods exist beyond or apart from the human imagination (agnosticism), and that God/gods do not exist beyond or apart from the human imagination. We humans are capable of holding more that one of these propositions simultaneously. But that does not mean that the propositions themselves are synonymous or interchangeable. They are logically distinct, and they remain logically distinct regardless of how we humans choose to feel about them at any given time under any given circumstance.