Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
Mr. Pirate, sir, to deny the validity of the laws of logic, you must use logic in your denial, and in so doing you affirm the validity of them. 
While agnosticism violates the Law of Noncontradiction, this violation does not prove theism. It only proves that your agnosticism is self-contradictory (therefore, self-defeating); for A cannot at the same time and in the same sense be non-A. But your agnosticism implies this very contradiction. To say that God is unknown or unknowable implies that you know something about him in order for that statement to be rationale and taken seriously. It implies the very thing your agnosticism explicitly denies is possible, i.e. a true knowledge of something about God. But if you deny that you have a true knowledge of something about God in order to declare your agnosticism, then your agnosticism is nothing less than cognitive foolishness, masquerading as legitimate, sound philosophical thought.
Finally, to deny the validity of the laws of logic, most especially the "Big Three" -- the laws of Identity, Noncontradiction and Excluded Middle, is intellectual suicide in another sense -- it removes all ground for rational discussion and for that matter for all that we do! It reduces human beings to the level of irrational animals.
By the way, unlimited agnosticism is your brand of agnosticism. You are not a limited agnostic, which is biblical and what Christians are (1Cor 13:12).
I hope you will take the time to read the article for which I have provided the link.
http://cicministry.org/scholarly/sch004.htm |
You make me laugh.
If we were discussing the fine points of logic and reasoning, we could go 'round in those pointless circles on all sorts of topics. But you're trying to justify the unprovable, and therefore your motivations are suspect. I've already expressed my disdain for philosophy in this thread, such as it's extremely limited by individual definitions, and commonly subject to twisting of words, of which you're employing here. My views of agnosticism are not intended to be legitimate or sound thought in the arena of philosophy, as I don't go in there to begin with. Unlike yourself, I accept limits to what we humans can understand about the Universe.
And for the record, humans are animals, often irrational, and have one foot firmly planted in the jungle - in spite of what the human-centric faiths teach. It's exactly this level hubris which leads me to believe religion has more ill effects than positive, especially when delivered in ironic fashion from a servant of the humble Christ.
