Deductive Argument for the existence of God?

[Gary Childress]

...however, I'm not sure how agnosticism deceives anyone about anything.

Oh, we can figure that out easily enough.

What about the person who pretends not to know what the actual speed limit is, so he can feel okay about speeding, or maybe can have an excuse with the cop who pulls him over? He's being "agnostic" so he feels no responsiblity; but he actually knows what the speed limit is, perhaps.

Is that not a form of deception? Can one not deceive by pretending not to know what he cannot help not knowing? And can he not deceive others by telling them nobody can know, when people can?

Knowing what the speed limit is on a road and knowing things beyond the grave or beyond the universe seem much different to me. I'm not agnostic about speed limits if I am aware of them. Do you think I'm lying and know more about things beyond the grave or beyond the universe than I claim to?

[Immanuel Can]

...however, I'm not sure how agnosticism deceives anyone about anything.

Oh, we can figure that out easily enough.

What about the person who pretends not to know what the actual speed limit is, so he can feel okay about speeding, or maybe can have an excuse with the cop who pulls him over? He's being "agnostic" so he feels no responsiblity; but he actually knows what the speed limit is, perhaps.

Is that not a form of deception? Can one not deceive by pretending not to know what he cannot help not knowing? And can he not deceive others by telling them nobody can know, when people can?

Knowing what the speed limit is on a road and knowing things beyond the grave or beyond the universe seem much different to me.

Well, they are.

But on what basis would an agnostic be able to say, "I don't know if God exists, and nobody can"? If all he wants to say is, "I don't know God exists," then maybe he's just being honest about his own confused situation. But the minute he adds the conclusion that such knowledge cannot be available to anybody else, then we have every right to ask him, "How did you decide that?"

It can't be on merely the agnostic's own confusion. If I don't know the capital of Eritrea, I can't say that you don't either, or that such knowledge is simply not available to anybody. (It's Asmara, by the way.)

So an agnostic who adds, "and nobody can" is a deceiver. He has absolutely no way of knowing that. He's purely assuming it. And it must be on the rather sketchy assumption that nobody is allowed to know anything the agnostic doesn't know.

Moreover, and worse for the agnostic's case, what is his evidence that even he, himself, could not come to know something he doesn't know yet? Is he going to claim he never learned a single new thing in his life? On what basis would he assert, then, "I don't know, and I can never know"? You see, he cannot even speak for himself beyond the next five minutes. What if, in those few minutes, something came into his life -- some new information -- that gave him assurance of the existence of God? On what basis can he assert that such a thing cannot happen?

I'm not agnostic about speed limits if I am aware of them. Do you think I'm lying and know more about things beyond the grave or beyond the universe than I claim?

I don't claim to decide what you can or cannot know. That's what the agnostic is trying to do, not me. But I can tell you this much: God says He's told us. And that He's done enough that we really ought to know He's real. Still, he's left us in an equilibrium condition in which we still have the ability to willfully reject the evidence, and conclude we don't know. We can still claim not to know "the speed limit," so to speak.

That's up to us. And whether or not we're prepared to hear and believe God is the basis of our own disposition. Faith is saying to God, "I believe you," and disbelief is saying, "I will not"...or "I cannot." At the end of the day, those are effectively the same utterances. But we need not add the agnostic deceptiveness of telling others, "...and you cannot either."

[Alexiev]

My point is that if (as Belinda points out) we use "cause" in the more general way that you suggest, it becomes meaningless. If everything is the cause, then nothing is the cause (or, at least, there is no reason to differentiate "causes" from "coincidences").

You are stuck in faulty mode of reasoning and you are going to waste everybody's time over semantics.

Try this instead:

P1. Generally speaking, everything which begins to exist has an X.
P2. The universe began to exist.
C. The Universe most probably has an X.

Once you accept the logical validity/form of the deductive argument we can then begin to iterate over what X is.

For X in [explanation, origin, Raison d'être, existential dependency, necessary conditions for doing so, ...].
You can use any one of those phrasings and the argument retains its core message/point.

Now, if you insist on unpacking the meaning of words - I'll just keep adding to the list of alternative phrasings/expressions while still retaining the essence of the argument.

That is to say - If you insist being a sophist and a nitpicker over the precise meaning of imprecise words - I will gladly and intentionally waste your time in the sandbox of your own making.

If we are to use the Philosophical vocabulary: the debate is over the (non?)contingency of the universe. That's it.

Theism says the universe is contingent.
Atheism/materialism says the universe is not contingent.

So...

P1. Generally speaking, everything which begins to exist is contingent.
P2. The universe begins to exist.
C The universe is most probably contingent.

The debate isn't about the meaning of words.

The debate is about shaping the mindset and paradigm used to interpret the world with.

So instead of dragging us into the semantic rabbithole trysome questions instead:

Is the gneral pattern of contingency for things that begin to exist applicable to the universe? If not - what justifies this special pleading?
What evidence supports or challenges the idea that the universe began to exist? Do we have a scientific paradigm which considers the universe without beginning e.g non-contingent?
How does the contingency or non-contingency of the universe shape our broader worldview?

I agree that arguing about semantics tends to be a waste of time -- so I'll stop in just another minute.... I don't think "contingent" is a synonym for "cause". Events are "contingent" upon what is necessary for their occurrence; contingencies are not necessarily sufficient to be "causes".

Following this line of reasoning: Believing that God is the "first cause" is contingent on believing in God in the first place. But it is not "caused" by believing in God. Plenty of people believed in Gods (Zeus, Odin, Baal, etc..) without believing they were the first cause. Creation myths vary. Indeed, the Christian God evolved. The God of the Old Testament was hardly omniscient (He didn't know where Adam and Eve were hiding in Eden.
as just one of many examples). He resembled pantheistic Gods in many ways, including being jealous of them acc. the Ten Commandments.

[Skepdick]

I agree that arguing about semantics tends to be a waste of time -- so I'll stop in just another minute.... I don't think "contingent" is a synonym for "cause". Events are "contingent" upon what is necessary for their occurrence; contingencies are not necessarily sufficient to be "causes".

If the universe is the contingency and the explanation is the necessity. It doesn't matter if you call the explanation a "cause".

Or if you call the the explanation "the origin" - and the universe "the originated".

Is just words.

The folklore that follows this conceptual shift is neither here nor there.

[Gary Childress]

Oh, we can figure that out easily enough.

What about the person who pretends not to know what the actual speed limit is, so he can feel okay about speeding, or maybe can have an excuse with the cop who pulls him over? He's being "agnostic" so he feels no responsiblity; but he actually knows what the speed limit is, perhaps.

Is that not a form of deception? Can one not deceive by pretending not to know what he cannot help not knowing? And can he not deceive others by telling them nobody can know, when people can?

Knowing what the speed limit is on a road and knowing things beyond the grave or beyond the universe seem much different to me.

Well, they are.

But on what basis would an agnostic be able to say, "I don't know if God exists, and nobody can"? If all he wants to say is, "I don't know God exists," then maybe he's just being honest about his own confused situation. But the minute he adds the conclusion that such knowledge cannot be available to anybody else, then we have every right to ask him, "How did you decide that?"

It can't be on merely the agnostic's own confusion. If I don't know the capital of Eritrea, I can't say that you don't either, or that such knowledge is simply not available to anybody. (It's Asmara, by the way.)

So an agnostic who adds, "and nobody can" is a deceiver. He has absolutely no way of knowing that. He's purely assuming it. And it must be on the rather sketchy assumption that nobody is allowed to know anything the agnostic doesn't know.

Moreover, and worse for the agnostic's case, what is his evidence that even he, himself, could not come to know something he doesn't know yet? Is he going to claim he never learned a single new thing in his life? On what basis would he assert, then, "I don't know, and I can never know"? You see, he cannot even speak for himself beyond the next five minutes. What if, in those few minutes, something came into his life -- some new information -- that gave him assurance of the existence of God? On what basis can he assert that such a thing cannot happen?

I'm not agnostic about speed limits if I am aware of them. Do you think I'm lying and know more about things beyond the grave or beyond the universe than I claim?

I don't claim to decide what you can or cannot know. That's what the agnostic is trying to do, not me. But I can tell you this much: God says He's told us. And that He's done enough that we really ought to know He's real. Still, he's left us in an equilibrium condition in which we still have the ability to willfully reject the evidence, and conclude we don't know. We can still claim not to know "the speed limit," so to speak.

That's up to us. And whether or not we're prepared to hear and believe God is the basis of our own disposition. Faith is saying to God, "I believe you," and disbelief is saying, "I will not"...or "I cannot." At the end of the day, those are effectively the same utterances. But we need not add the agnostic deceptiveness of telling others, "...and you cannot either."

Fair enough. I don't know what others know or don't know. I don't know if someone knows there is a God and I don't know if someone knows there isn't a God. I apologize for making unwarranted assumptions.

[Immanuel Can]

Knowing what the speed limit is on a road and knowing things beyond the grave or beyond the universe seem much different to me.

Well, they are.

But on what basis would an agnostic be able to say, "I don't know if God exists, and nobody can"? If all he wants to say is, "I don't know God exists," then maybe he's just being honest about his own confused situation. But the minute he adds the conclusion that such knowledge cannot be available to anybody else, then we have every right to ask him, "How did you decide that?"

It can't be on merely the agnostic's own confusion. If I don't know the capital of Eritrea, I can't say that you don't either, or that such knowledge is simply not available to anybody. (It's Asmara, by the way.)

So an agnostic who adds, "and nobody can" is a deceiver. He has absolutely no way of knowing that. He's purely assuming it. And it must be on the rather sketchy assumption that nobody is allowed to know anything the agnostic doesn't know.

Moreover, and worse for the agnostic's case, what is his evidence that even he, himself, could not come to know something he doesn't know yet? Is he going to claim he never learned a single new thing in his life? On what basis would he assert, then, "I don't know, and I can never know"? You see, he cannot even speak for himself beyond the next five minutes. What if, in those few minutes, something came into his life -- some new information -- that gave him assurance of the existence of God? On what basis can he assert that such a thing cannot happen?

I'm not agnostic about speed limits if I am aware of them. Do you think I'm lying and know more about things beyond the grave or beyond the universe than I claim?

I don't claim to decide what you can or cannot know. That's what the agnostic is trying to do, not me. But I can tell you this much: God says He's told us. And that He's done enough that we really ought to know He's real. Still, he's left us in an equilibrium condition in which we still have the ability to willfully reject the evidence, and conclude we don't know. We can still claim not to know "the speed limit," so to speak.

That's up to us. And whether or not we're prepared to hear and believe God is the basis of our own disposition. Faith is saying to God, "I believe you," and disbelief is saying, "I will not"...or "I cannot." At the end of the day, those are effectively the same utterances. But we need not add the agnostic deceptiveness of telling others, "...and you cannot either."

Fair enough. I don't know what others know or don't know. I don't know if someone knows there is a God and I don't know if someone knows there isn't a God. I apologize for making unwarranted assumptions.

Don't feel bad, Gary. I wasn't criticizing you. I was just pointing out that agnosticism, the position, can be an honest confession of confusion, or it can be a dishonest denial that others can know things. I wasn't saying you were guilty of anything.

[Gary Childress]

Well, they are.

But on what basis would an agnostic be able to say, "I don't know if God exists, and nobody can"? If all he wants to say is, "I don't know God exists," then maybe he's just being honest about his own confused situation. But the minute he adds the conclusion that such knowledge cannot be available to anybody else, then we have every right to ask him, "How did you decide that?"

It can't be on merely the agnostic's own confusion. If I don't know the capital of Eritrea, I can't say that you don't either, or that such knowledge is simply not available to anybody. (It's Asmara, by the way.)

So an agnostic who adds, "and nobody can" is a deceiver. He has absolutely no way of knowing that. He's purely assuming it. And it must be on the rather sketchy assumption that nobody is allowed to know anything the agnostic doesn't know.

Moreover, and worse for the agnostic's case, what is his evidence that even he, himself, could not come to know something he doesn't know yet? Is he going to claim he never learned a single new thing in his life? On what basis would he assert, then, "I don't know, and I can never know"? You see, he cannot even speak for himself beyond the next five minutes. What if, in those few minutes, something came into his life -- some new information -- that gave him assurance of the existence of God? On what basis can he assert that such a thing cannot happen?


I don't claim to decide what you can or cannot know. That's what the agnostic is trying to do, not me. But I can tell you this much: God says He's told us. And that He's done enough that we really ought to know He's real. Still, he's left us in an equilibrium condition in which we still have the ability to willfully reject the evidence, and conclude we don't know. We can still claim not to know "the speed limit," so to speak.

That's up to us. And whether or not we're prepared to hear and believe God is the basis of our own disposition. Faith is saying to God, "I believe you," and disbelief is saying, "I will not"...or "I cannot." At the end of the day, those are effectively the same utterances. But we need not add the agnostic deceptiveness of telling others, "...and you cannot either."

Fair enough. I don't know what others know or don't know. I don't know if someone knows there is a God and I don't know if someone knows there isn't a God. I apologize for making unwarranted assumptions.

Don't feel bad, Gary. I wasn't criticizing you. I was just pointing out that agnosticism, the position, can be an honest confession of confusion, or it can be a dishonest denial that others can know things. I wasn't saying you were guilty of anything.

It seems true. I am guilty of making unwarranted assumptions whether you intended to point it out or not. I ought to be more restrained in or cognizant of my assumptions. Such knowledge seems good for me and everyone around me.

[Age]

When you say, "these people", who are you specifically referring to, Age. Are you referring to me as well?

Yes, if you are consciously, and/or, even in or sub consciously, 'trying to' deceive any one here.

Age, I'm not consciously trying to deceive anyone.

I never ever even thought you were, nor would even want to nor try to.

If I'm trying to do so "subconsciously", then I guess I wouldn't know it,

But, with the use of the word 'sub' this means that if you 'considered' things 'somewhat more' here, then you could actually work out, and thus 'know', if you were, or not.

While, with the use of the word 'un' meaning that you would have to 'do more' deeper considering with 'much more' open and honest 'deeper self-refection'.

however, I'm not sure how agnosticism deceives anyone about anything.

Well if you provide 'us' with the definition of how you personally use the word 'agnosticism' here, then I can show and reveal if there is 'deception' here, or not. Als remember that if one"themself' has already been deceived, then they can be completely and utterly oblivious to the fact that they are deceiving others, especially so in the exact same way that they had been deceived by others, previously.

But, anyway since the word that you chose here ends with an 'ism', then the likelihood that you have been deceived, and are deceiving others, is more so likely. But, obviously, 'we' will have to see what you are actually meaning here with and by 'that word'.

Most "deceivers" try to tell people that they know more than they do. I mean, you talk about knowing "thee truth" a lot as though no one but you knows it. [/quote]

LOL Most of the Truth that I talk about that 'I know' absolutely all of you human beings 'also know'. But, again, most if It is, still, just 'unconsciously known' but 'deep within' all of 'you' just waiting to come to 'the surface', to be revealed.

By just guiding and instructing those who want to learn, how to find all of these answers all on your own, or by, and for, 'yourselves", only, then this is how you will, 'also know' that you, also, have and 'know' 'the Truth'.

Just telling others answers never really works by itself. people only accept answers when they can agree with the answers by "themselves", at least. And, what takes for this to happen and occur is Truly deeper introspection and Truly Honest deeper 'self-reflection'.

Absolutely ALL of the Truly meaningfully answers are 'within' all of 'you' already. you just need to learn how to 'look within', from and with the Truly open and honest perspective, to 'find', and 'see', that the Truly meaningful answers have always already been 'within you', and were actually always :already known'. Again, they have just been 'unconsciously known', and were, or are, just 'hiding' within the very 'fabric and make up' of 'your being:. Or, as those who only 'look at'' and 'see' things from the 'materialistic only perspective', 'the answers' have always been 'withheld', in the very 'dna' of 'the body'. And, is the very 'information', build into 'the body', just waiting, through evolution, to become 'consciously known', and to become the 'current knowledge'.

Again,.all of what I have been, and can and will be, saying and claiming here already has, and can and will be, backed up and support with irrefutable proof.

'The Truth' that I just want to show and share how absolutely every one can 'find', and 'know', for and by "themselves" is absolutely not only 'known' by me. It is 'known' by absolutely every one, although for most, in the days when this is being written, It is, still, only just 'unconsciously known'. Evolution resolves this though.

And, just like all knowledge comes-to-light by one first, and then 'the rest', later on, so to is 'the case' with 'the Truth', Itself, or 'Truly meaningful answers', themselves.

Do you think you might be trying to deceive others, or do you think it's possible that you might be "subconsciously" trying to deceive us about something?

I 'know', exactly, what I, accidentally, stumbled upon, and, exactly, what I am doing here.

I am coming across as just another 'obnoxious know-it-all', like many others, before me, and who.also at times appear absolutely slow, autistic, and stupid', again like many others, before me. But, I am doing this to show and prove that it is best to never ever 'judge' another on 'past experiences'. See, if and when what has been happening and occurring here is that all the very many varied different perceptions and perspectives 'of me' have all be based upon you responders own very many varied and different 'past experiences'.

Making 'Assumptions' about others, or any thing, based upon 'Past Experiences', only, or what I call APE-thinking, before actual clarification/verification is sought out, and obtained, can lead to absolutely False perceptions and/or misinterpretations. For example, even when I have been saying and written here, 'APE-thinking', some of you never even considered to just ask me what I was actually meaning and instead you were just 'assuming' I was meaning something else entirely, which I was absolutely NOT. But, because 'clarification' was never sought out, all of the False and Wrong misinterpretations those ones had remained.

[Age]

...however, I'm not sure how agnosticism deceives anyone about anything.

Oh, we can figure that out easily enough.

What about the person who pretends not to know what the actual speed limit is, so he can feel okay about speeding, or maybe can have an excuse with the cop who pulls him over? He's being "agnostic" so he feels no responsiblity; but he actually knows what the speed limit is, perhaps.

What is 'this one' on about here?

If some one is 'pretending' to not know some thing, then this is very different from some one, actually, not knowing some thing.

This makes me wonder how 'this one' defines the word 'agnostic', exactly.

Is that not a form of deception?

If one 'knows' some thing, but 'pretends' that it does not, then yes this could be 'seen, 'known', and 'understood' as a 'form of deception'.

But, what has this got to do with one who does 'not know' whether God exists or not, for example?

'This one' here, really, does continually use words and language in 'a way' to 'try to' deceive, fool, and trick the readers here.

Can one not deceive by pretending not to know what he cannot help not knowing?

What is 'this one' even on about here?

Is it 'trying to' claim that one, or every one, always 'knows' the speed limit at every time at every place on earth?

If yes, then it is more stupid than I first recognised.

But, if no, then people, quite often, are not aware of, and thus do not know, what the speed limit is, exactly. Which is absolutely nothing at all surprising, considering just how often road capabilities and/or speed limits change.

Or, is 'this one', laughingly, 'trying to' claim that cannot help but know some male gendered thing call God exists?

And can he not deceive others by telling them nobody can know, when people can?

If any one says and claims that some thing cannot be known, then 'that one' is deceiving, or is 'trying to' deceive, others in the exact same way that it has been deceived, and has been decided about as well. For example, some people claim that there are some things about 'God' that could never be known.

By the way, what does the word 'agnostic' mean to 'this one'?

Does it mean that one cannot know some thing, or, one does not yet know some thing?

[Age]

Oh, we can figure that out easily enough.

What about the person who pretends not to know what the actual speed limit is, so he can feel okay about speeding, or maybe can have an excuse with the cop who pulls him over? He's being "agnostic" so he feels no responsiblity; but he actually knows what the speed limit is, perhaps.

Is that not a form of deception? Can one not deceive by pretending not to know what he cannot help not knowing? And can he not deceive others by telling them nobody can know, when people can?

Knowing what the speed limit is on a road and knowing things beyond the grave or beyond the universe seem much different to me.

Well, they are.

But on what basis would an agnostic be able to say, "I don't know if God exists, and nobody can"?

Is this what absolutely all so-called "agnostics" would, and do, say and claim?

If all he wants to say is, "I don't know God exists," then maybe he's just being honest about his own confused situation.

Here is another prime example of 'this one', AGAIN, 'trying to' fool and deceive the readers here.

'Trying to' claim that any one who does not know that God exists 'is confused' shows, and reveals, just how Truly deceptive 'this one' tries, and wants, to be.

But, then again 'this one' might not even be 'consciously aware' of what it is doing.

After all this not knowing of what one is Truly doing is greatly because they have been deceived, "themselves".

But the minute he adds the conclusion that such knowledge cannot be available to anybody else, then we have every right to ask him, "How did you decide that?"

And, 'we' could ask 'this one' why it has added the, 'such knowledge cannot be known' into, and/or onto, a definition for the 'agnostic' word?

Did 'this one' believe that by adding 'that' on helps 'this one' in some way, when arguing, fighting, or debating against others here regarding whether a male gendered thing, labelled God, exists, or not.

It can't be on merely the agnostic's own confusion. If I don't know the capital of Eritrea, I can't say that you don't either, or that such knowledge is simply not available to anybody. (It's Asmara, by the way.)

Again, does any or every so-called "agnostic" say and claim that there is some or any thing about God that cannot be known?

So an agnostic who adds, "and nobody can" is a deceiver.

Now, here 'we are getting to the actual Truth of things here.

Is it 'other people' who have been adding the, 'and nobody can', or has it just been "immanuel can" doing this?

He has absolutely no way of knowing that.

Why is 'this one' claiming that is others do this that they are 'male gendered', also?

He's purely assuming it. And it must be on the rather sketchy assumption that nobody is allowed to know anything the agnostic doesn't know.

Making assumptions and claiming that others are not allowed to not know some things is, exactly what 'this one' has been doing here.

'This one' even knows that no one is 'not allowed' to 'not know' that God exists.

Moreover, and worse for the agnostic's case, what is his evidence that even he, himself, could not come to know something he doesn't know yet?

The 'shock' word or face here is just another form of attempting to deceive here by "Immanuel can".

Now, where is the evidence, and better still the proof, that they are all "he's", and that all of them claim or believe that they 'could not come-to-now some thing?

Is he going to claim he never learned a single new thing in his life? On what basis would he assert, then, "I don't know, and I can never know"? You see, he cannot even speak for himself beyond the next five minutes. What if, in those few minutes, something came into his life -- some new information -- that gave him assurance of the existence of God? On what basis can he assert that such a thing cannot happen?

Talk about 'this one' providing another absolute prime example of adding some thing and going completely and utterly off-tangent in regards to 'it', to 'try to' discredit 'it', which, laughingly, my not even be existing anyway.

I'm not agnostic about speed limits if I am aware of them. Do you think I'm lying and know more about things beyond the grave or beyond the universe than I claim?

I don't claim to decide what you can or cannot know. That's what the agnostic is trying to do, not me.

Another 'red-herring', as some would say, and absolutely False claim.

But I can tell you this much: God says He's told us.

LOL 'This one' appears to, still, not yet be aware and thus, still, does not yet know how Truly absurd and ridiculous this here looks. Well to those of 'us' who have not been BLINDED, TRICKED, FOOLED, and DECEIVED by the beliefs, like 'immanuel can" obviously has here.

Claiming 'God says, "He's" told us', is absolutely beyond ....

And that He's done enough that we really ought to know He's real.

The irrefutable proof of what is irrefutably True, is HERE, NOW for all to 'look at', 'see', and 'know'. That is, if one is open enough to 'LOOK', and 'SEE'.

Still, he's left us in an equilibrium condition in which we still have the ability to willfully reject the evidence, and conclude we don't know. We can still claim not to know "the speed limit," so to speak.

Or, one can, still, claim, to know that 'It' is 'male-gendered', for example. Which is, obviously, far more ridiculous than just 'not actually knowing, 'the speed limit' some time.

The actual irrefutable proof and Truth is right HERE for all to SEE, but some just cannot.

And, again, for the very reason/s that I have already told, and explained.

That's up to us. And whether or not we're prepared to hear and believe God is the basis of our own disposition. Faith is saying to God, "I believe you," and disbelief is saying, "I will not"...or "I cannot." At the end of the day, those are effectively the same utterances. But we need not add the agnostic deceptiveness of telling others, "...and you cannot either."

All moot, because of your False claims and accusations from the start, here.

Also, what actual proof do you have that God exists, and is a "He"? Or, do you just believe this.

Or, do have any, at least, for you unchangeable belief here? Or, again, do you just believe what you do here?

[Age]

Well, they are.

But on what basis would an agnostic be able to say, "I don't know if God exists, and nobody can"? If all he wants to say is, "I don't know God exists," then maybe he's just being honest about his own confused situation. But the minute he adds the conclusion that such knowledge cannot be available to anybody else, then we have every right to ask him, "How did you decide that?"

It can't be on merely the agnostic's own confusion. If I don't know the capital of Eritrea, I can't say that you don't either, or that such knowledge is simply not available to anybody. (It's Asmara, by the way.)

So an agnostic who adds, "and nobody can" is a deceiver. He has absolutely no way of knowing that. He's purely assuming it. And it must be on the rather sketchy assumption that nobody is allowed to know anything the agnostic doesn't know.

Moreover, and worse for the agnostic's case, what is his evidence that even he, himself, could not come to know something he doesn't know yet? Is he going to claim he never learned a single new thing in his life? On what basis would he assert, then, "I don't know, and I can never know"? You see, he cannot even speak for himself beyond the next five minutes. What if, in those few minutes, something came into his life -- some new information -- that gave him assurance of the existence of God? On what basis can he assert that such a thing cannot happen?


I don't claim to decide what you can or cannot know. That's what the agnostic is trying to do, not me. But I can tell you this much: God says He's told us. And that He's done enough that we really ought to know He's real. Still, he's left us in an equilibrium condition in which we still have the ability to willfully reject the evidence, and conclude we don't know. We can still claim not to know "the speed limit," so to speak.

That's up to us. And whether or not we're prepared to hear and believe God is the basis of our own disposition. Faith is saying to God, "I believe you," and disbelief is saying, "I will not"...or "I cannot." At the end of the day, those are effectively the same utterances. But we need not add the agnostic deceptiveness of telling others, "...and you cannot either."

Fair enough. I don't know what others know or don't know. I don't know if someone knows there is a God and I don't know if someone knows there isn't a God. I apologize for making unwarranted assumptions.

Don't feel bad, Gary. I wasn't criticizing you. I was just pointing out that agnosticism, the position, can be an honest confession of confusion, or it can be a dishonest denial that others can know things. I wasn't saying you were guilty of anything.

Or, it can be the position of honestly admitting of just 'not yet knowing'.

Why the position has to be either a confession of confusion or dishonest denial.just shows and reveals what this one, absolutely, believes, which, by the way, 'this one' has yet to provide absolutely any proof at all for.

Which is some thing that is best pointed out, acknowledged, and admitted, especially so within philosophy forums.

[Age]

Fair enough. I don't know what others know or don't know. I don't know if someone knows there is a God and I don't know if someone knows there isn't a God. I apologize for making unwarranted assumptions.

Don't feel bad, Gary. I wasn't criticizing you. I was just pointing out that agnosticism, the position, can be an honest confession of confusion, or it can be a dishonest denial that others can know things. I wasn't saying you were guilty of anything.

It seems true. I am guilty of making unwarranted assumptions whether you intended to point it out or not. I ought to be more restrained in or cognizant of my assumptions. Such knowledge seems good for me and everyone around me.

Here is further proof of readers here being fooled and deceived by "Immanuel can", here.

And, all it took were the words, 'Don't feel bad, Gary' to begin the 'deception'.

[Belinda]

Oh, we can figure that out easily enough.

What about the person who pretends not to know what the actual speed limit is, so he can feel okay about speeding, or maybe can have an excuse with the cop who pulls him over? He's being "agnostic" so he feels no responsiblity; but he actually knows what the speed limit is, perhaps.

Is that not a form of deception? Can one not deceive by pretending not to know what he cannot help not knowing? And can he not deceive others by telling them nobody can know, when people can?

Knowing what the speed limit is on a road and knowing things beyond the grave or beyond the universe seem much different to me.

Well, they are.

But on what basis would an agnostic be able to say, "I don't know if God exists, and nobody can"? If all he wants to say is, "I don't know God exists," then maybe he's just being honest about his own confused situation. But the minute he adds the conclusion that such knowledge cannot be available to anybody else, then we have every right to ask him, "How did you decide that?"

It can't be on merely the agnostic's own confusion. If I don't know the capital of Eritrea, I can't say that you don't either, or that such knowledge is simply not available to anybody. (It's Asmara, by the way.)

So an agnostic who adds, "and nobody can" is a deceiver. He has absolutely no way of knowing that. He's purely assuming it. And it must be on the rather sketchy assumption that nobody is allowed to know anything the agnostic doesn't know.

Moreover, and worse for the agnostic's case, what is his evidence that even he, himself, could not come to know something he doesn't know yet? Is he going to claim he never learned a single new thing in his life? On what basis would he assert, then, "I don't know, and I can never know"? You see, he cannot even speak for himself beyond the next five minutes. What if, in those few minutes, something came into his life -- some new information -- that gave him assurance of the existence of God? On what basis can he assert that such a thing cannot happen?

I'm not agnostic about speed limits if I am aware of them. Do you think I'm lying and know more about things beyond the grave or beyond the universe than I claim?

I don't claim to decide what you can or cannot know. That's what the agnostic is trying to do, not me. But I can tell you this much: God says He's told us. And that He's done enough that we really ought to know He's real. Still, he's left us in an equilibrium condition in which we still have the ability to willfully reject the evidence, and conclude we don't know. We can still claim not to know "the speed limit," so to speak.

That's up to us. And whether or not we're prepared to hear and believe God is the basis of our own disposition. Faith is saying to God, "I believe you," and disbelief is saying, "I will not"...or "I cannot." At the end of the day, those are effectively the same utterances. But we need not add the agnostic deceptiveness of telling others, "...and you cannot either."

Rather, faith is saying " I would believe . Help Thou mine unbelief."
Agnostic " I have not received sufficient help with my unbelief."

Read the full story in Mark

[Immanuel Can]

Knowing what the speed limit is on a road and knowing things beyond the grave or beyond the universe seem much different to me.

Well, they are.

But on what basis would an agnostic be able to say, "I don't know if God exists, and nobody can"? If all he wants to say is, "I don't know God exists," then maybe he's just being honest about his own confused situation. But the minute he adds the conclusion that such knowledge cannot be available to anybody else, then we have every right to ask him, "How did you decide that?"

It can't be on merely the agnostic's own confusion. If I don't know the capital of Eritrea, I can't say that you don't either, or that such knowledge is simply not available to anybody. (It's Asmara, by the way.)

So an agnostic who adds, "and nobody can" is a deceiver. He has absolutely no way of knowing that. He's purely assuming it. And it must be on the rather sketchy assumption that nobody is allowed to know anything the agnostic doesn't know.

Moreover, and worse for the agnostic's case, what is his evidence that even he, himself, could not come to know something he doesn't know yet? Is he going to claim he never learned a single new thing in his life? On what basis would he assert, then, "I don't know, and I can never know"? You see, he cannot even speak for himself beyond the next five minutes. What if, in those few minutes, something came into his life -- some new information -- that gave him assurance of the existence of God? On what basis can he assert that such a thing cannot happen?

I'm not agnostic about speed limits if I am aware of them. Do you think I'm lying and know more about things beyond the grave or beyond the universe than I claim?

I don't claim to decide what you can or cannot know. That's what the agnostic is trying to do, not me. But I can tell you this much: God says He's told us. And that He's done enough that we really ought to know He's real. Still, he's left us in an equilibrium condition in which we still have the ability to willfully reject the evidence, and conclude we don't know. We can still claim not to know "the speed limit," so to speak.

That's up to us. And whether or not we're prepared to hear and believe God is the basis of our own disposition. Faith is saying to God, "I believe you," and disbelief is saying, "I will not"...or "I cannot." At the end of the day, those are effectively the same utterances. But we need not add the agnostic deceptiveness of telling others, "...and you cannot either."

Rather, faith is saying " I would believe . Help Thou mine unbelief."
Agnostic " I have not received sufficient help with my unbelief."

Read the full story in Mark

I have, many times. But again, one must remember the context, not treat the utterance as isolated from everything that narratively surrounds it.

In this case, you're quoting a man who has come to Jesus for the healing of his son. He doesn't say, "I would believe," actually: that is a misquotation you've accidentally introduced. He says "Πιστεύω," present indicative tense (not "would" which would be a conditional tense) meaning, "I DO believe." Then he adds, "rescue me from my faithlessness." (That's a more telling translation of βοήθει μου τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ, I would say.) And this in repentance of his earlier despairing phrase, "if you can do anything"...that's his faltering expression of unbelief, mixed up in the middle of enough sincere belief to bring him to Christ. He's done the first right thing, but now wavering in despair.

In other words, he's believing, but asking for help with the remaining doubts...or plausibly, with the frailties of his naturally doubtful character. He's made a decision to apply to the Lord for the healing of his child -- he's already taken the basic step of faith -- and now needs the further faith to see it through, he thinks.

What the agnostic who has decided to declare that there is no evidence for faith has done, however, is more like the words of Pilate, as summarized by Francis Bacon, the father of the scientific method. Bacon wrote, ""What is truth?" said jesting Pilate, and would not stay for an answer." (Of Truth, line 1). The cynical version of agnosticism -- the agnostic who's determined to remain an agnostic -- does not fare well with Jesus. And his confusion in no way obviates his crimes or excuses his negligence of the truth (see Matt. 25:44, for example). I suspect that the sincerely-uncertain agnostic would fare better, but would still not be in the enviable position of the man whose story occupies Mark.

So now, indeed, we do have the full story. And yes, we can be glad we read it.

[Belinda]

Well, they are.

But on what basis would an agnostic be able to say, "I don't know if God exists, and nobody can"? If all he wants to say is, "I don't know God exists," then maybe he's just being honest about his own confused situation. But the minute he adds the conclusion that such knowledge cannot be available to anybody else, then we have every right to ask him, "How did you decide that?"

It can't be on merely the agnostic's own confusion. If I don't know the capital of Eritrea, I can't say that you don't either, or that such knowledge is simply not available to anybody. (It's Asmara, by the way.)

So an agnostic who adds, "and nobody can" is a deceiver. He has absolutely no way of knowing that. He's purely assuming it. And it must be on the rather sketchy assumption that nobody is allowed to know anything the agnostic doesn't know.

Moreover, and worse for the agnostic's case, what is his evidence that even he, himself, could not come to know something he doesn't know yet? Is he going to claim he never learned a single new thing in his life? On what basis would he assert, then, "I don't know, and I can never know"? You see, he cannot even speak for himself beyond the next five minutes. What if, in those few minutes, something came into his life -- some new information -- that gave him assurance of the existence of God? On what basis can he assert that such a thing cannot happen?


I don't claim to decide what you can or cannot know. That's what the agnostic is trying to do, not me. But I can tell you this much: God says He's told us. And that He's done enough that we really ought to know He's real. Still, he's left us in an equilibrium condition in which we still have the ability to willfully reject the evidence, and conclude we don't know. We can still claim not to know "the speed limit," so to speak.

That's up to us. And whether or not we're prepared to hear and believe God is the basis of our own disposition. Faith is saying to God, "I believe you," and disbelief is saying, "I will not"...or "I cannot." At the end of the day, those are effectively the same utterances. But we need not add the agnostic deceptiveness of telling others, "...and you cannot either."

Rather, faith is saying " I would believe . Help Thou mine unbelief."
Agnostic " I have not received sufficient help with my unbelief."

Read the full story in Mark

I have, many times. But again, one must remember the context, not treat the utterance as isolated from everything that narratively surrounds it.

In this case, you're quoting a man who has come to Jesus for the healing of his son. He doesn't say, "I would believe," actually: that is a misquotation you've accidentally introduced. He says "Πιστεύω," present indicative tense (not "would" which would be a conditional tense) meaning, "I DO believe." Then he adds, "rescue me from my faithlessness." (That's a more telling translation of βοήθει μου τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ, I would say.) And this in repentance of his earlier despairing phrase, "if you can do anything"...that's his faltering expression of unbelief, mixed up in the middle of enough sincere belief to bring him to Christ. He's done the first right thing, but now wavering in despair.

In other words, he's believing, but asking for help with the remaining doubts...or plausibly, with the frailties of his naturally doubtful character. He's made a decision to apply to the Lord for the healing of his child -- he's already taken the basic step of faith -- and now needs the further faith to see it through, he thinks.

What the agnostic who has decided to declare that there is no evidence for faith has done, however, is more like the words of Pilate, as summarized by Francis Bacon, the father of the scientific method. Bacon wrote, ""What is truth?" said jesting Pilate, and would not stay for an answer." (Of Truth, line 1). The cynical version of agnosticism -- the agnostic who's determined to remain an agnostic -- does not fare well with Jesus. And his confusion in no way obviates his crimes or excuses his negligence of the truth (see Matt. 25:44, for example). I suspect that the sincerely-uncertain agnostic would fare better, but would still not be in the enviable position of the man whose story occupies Mark.

So now, indeed, we do have the full story. And yes, we can be glad we read it.

I know no Greek. But the version that I favour includes the mercy of Jesus in healing the child , and not doing so on condition on the man had enough faith .
Please see also the Good Samaritan whose mercy was not quid pro quo the recipient was a non-Jew.