you cannot defeat me, I can simply accept that your arguments *might* be real.

They may also not.

Agnosticism is closer to hard atheism than soft atheism because agnostics assert that it's impossible to know the existence of God, while soft atheists still leave the possibility of being convinced otherwise given credible evidence

>>17848691 (OP)

Christ died for your sins. I'll pray for you. That's the argument.

You *may* enjoy hell.. just kidding

>>17848691 (OP)
Ignosticism is inherently more logically consistent than agnosticism.
>Ignosticism or igtheism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless because the word "God" has no coherent and unambiguous definition.
If I define "God" as being everything that exists, or something like that, which necessarily must exist, then agnosticism is the inferior position because by that definition "God's" existence is undeniable. Similarly, if I define "God" as something logically impossible, then agnosticism falls down again by being apparently unsure about whether the impossible is possible.

>>17848691 (OP)
Yours is not a position of epistemic humility, but rather the synthetic product of Anglo-Dutch imperial sophistry, a cultivated paralysis of reason disguised as philosophical nuance. The agnostic, content to balance on a conceptual fencepost while history burns around him, is the final triumph of the postmodern outlook, that is, the man who confesses no knowledge, seeks no knowledge, and congratulates himself for his own noncommittal ignorance. Congratulations! Look how smart you are! Like a courtier of the Delphic cults or a victim of the British Opium Wars, you are sedated by relativism. You are a cocaine sniffer. You presume no responsibility to resolve anything. To claim neutrality before the question of the Good, of the Divine, of Purpose, is to abdicate your birthright as a creature of reason. You are a conscious and thinking individual who devotes only to wasting yourself. without resolution to any question, especially as important a question as to existence and its implications, as Plato, Cusa, and Kepler well knew, the human species stagnates. The Classical tradition, from Socrates to Leibniz, proceeds from the premise that man can know, must know, and through rigorous method and dialogue, will know. If you have any allegiance to truth, drop your ironic mask and rejoin the project of human discovery.

>>17849072
Thanks for this post, man CAN know for sure. To state otherwise is to deny our very raison d'être which is the unparalleled capability of man to interpret reality. Without the human mind we are weak and frail, a position many who seek conquest of their fellow man would like us to believe.

>>17848691 (OP)
Unfortunately, God knows that you are a pseud, and He cannot be outwitted.

>>17849174
>guy who claims he can tell whether god exists can't even tell when a text is written by an llm
Pottery.

>>17849230
>A post was more than 2 sentences therefore must be AI

>>17849230
That LLM tells more truth than you, even IF you're right

>>17848861
You're a literal golem, praying to nothing

>>17849327
>he can't recognize llm diction and syntax and thinks people judge whether a text is written by an llm by looking at post length
Not gonna lie, the advent of llms has really opened my eyes to how dim the average person is.

Fencesitter.

>>17848889
God is the sky nigga who decided to create everything out of boredom i guess.
>Captcha GR8TA

>>17848691 (OP)
Would say that God's existence is highly improbable, highly probable, or closer to 50/50? If it's the first option, would you also describe yourself as agnostic about things like fairies or Russell's teapot?

>>17848861
you don't pray for shit, tranny antichrist

Funny how Jesus Christ could defeat all agnostics in one quick sweep by getting off his cloud for half a day and showing himself to a decent amount of human beings, but somehow he refuses to do so.
Laziest god ever, King Couch Potato

>>17852122
>Funny how Jesus Christ could defeat all agnostics in one quick sweep by getting off his cloud for half a day and showing himself to a decent amount of human beings, but somehow he refuses to do so.
there would still be disbelievers and conspiracy theorists. All arguments are ultimately reductible to faith-based arguments and if witnesses just deny their sight, then that's that. It's why God only demand faith.

>>17852131
Why didn't god grant humans an objective noumenal information extracting organ that lets them directly cognize things in themselves?

>>17852131
Why don't you ask your boss to give it a try anyway?
Can't hurt to get off the cloud for half a day, right? Human beings get out of the bed every morning, surely God can interrupt his cloudrotting for a day?

>>17852131
>All arguments are ultimately reductible to faith-based arguments and if witnesses just deny their sight, then that's that.
Do you really think having faith in what you can see with your own eyes is equivalent to having faith in ancient legends?

>>17848691 (OP)
That's more akin to solipsism.

>>17854023
Sounds like you are using that word inappropriately

>>17850030
I will die on this fence

>>17848691 (OP)
Are you agnostic to leprechauns?

>>17848706
anon agnosticism is not atheism.
if you’re having trouble getting hard you should see a doctor

>>17848861
Repent.

>>17850030
Built