Epistemically, agnostic atheism is a logical conclusion to arrive at, upon understanding theism.

Epistemically, agnostic atheism is a logical conclusion to arrive at, upon understanding theism.

Agnostic Atheism: Lack of belief in god, does not claim anything.

Epistemically: from the standpoint of what is rational or justified to believe

Full title: from the standpoint of what is rational or justified to believe, lack of belief in god which doesnt claim anything is a logical conclusion to arrive at.

Contradiction: Claims to have lack of belief in God, while claiming not to claim anything.

And claiming not to claim anything is likewise a claim, thus double self contradiction.

And likewise, conclusion by its definition is a claim, so saying that "lack of belief" is a conclusion (claim) which doesnt claim anything is just nonsense rambling.

Further, something which doesnt claim anything cannot even justify itself, so

saying that you should hold position you cannot logically justify is silly.

Deductive reasoning is made in

Premise 1

Premise 2

Conclusion

If conclusion isnt a claim, then it cannot be true.

My opponent claims that "lack of claim" is a logical conclusion.

this is logically impossible, because you cannot deduce "lack of claim" from anything.

Further, my opponent claims

"One should be atheist agnostic"

Now, thats a claim, not a lack of claim.

So an atheist agnostic cannot even say that, because he would be making a claim.

Further, opponent likewise falls in a trap of "justified belief".

Because agnostic atheism isnt a belief, it cannot be a justified belief likewise.

So claiming that lack of belief is a justified belief, is just some parody of logic.

And believing that someone should be agnostic atheist because it is justified to be, fails

to establish what justified is.

Justified would logically have to be deduced by deductive logic.

However, problem of munchausen trillemma shows that no belief is justified.

Merely providing reason for belief is not enough to justify belief.

For example, I could say that I believe in God 1 because of God 2. And in God 3 because of God 4,

and because I can never run out of Gods in this way, my belief is justified by infinite number of reasons.

And because my belief isnt self-contradictive, no logical deduction can be made to argue

for opposite belief as justified.

My opponent simply says: It is rational to believe in something supported by evidence,

and having lack of belief once there is no evidence.

the problem, obviously, is that each evidence needs another evidence, making it impossible

to believe in anything, even to believe that one should be agnostic atheist.

Likewise, there is no deduction which can be made here.

Saying that justified belief requires evidence means that agnostic atheism requires evidence.

Merely saying that belief in God isnt justified, isnt enough to prove that

belief in agnostic atheism is justified.

Let us look at opponent's logic:

P1. Belief in God is not justified

P2. If belief in God is not justified, being an agnostic atheist is justified

C. Being an agnostic atheist is justified

Now, we face 2 issues.

First, premise 1 where my opponent claims that belief in God is not justified.

How is my opponent supposed to prove this premise?

How is my opponent supposed to prove that there is no evidence for God?

He makes a claim that there is no evidence for God, after claiming he makes no claims,

and now he needs to prove his claim.

then premise 2, likewise is unproved.

Even if belief in God wasnt justified, it wouldnt mean

lack of belief is justified.

In fact, because lack of belief isnt a claim, it cannot be justified and it cannot be true.

Only claims can be true. Lack of claim, which is basically nothing, cannot be true.

So saying that something which cannot be true is at the same time a logical conclusion is just what you get when you try to make claims without evidence.

In a rational inquiry, the person asserting something(usually of existence), has to provide evidence.

Yes, my opponent should provide evidence for following:

Rational belief requires sufficient evidence.

2. Theism claims the existence of atleast one god.

3. There is insufficient publicly verifiable evidence for god.

(4)Thus, withholding belief is completely rational.

Notice that conclusion does not follow from premises, because this isnt deductive reasoning, thus flawed reasoning. And likewise, premise 3 is entirely unproved and irrelevant because publicly verifiable evidence is irrelevant. Individual can have his own personal experience and thus evidence for God.

So because my opponent didnt use deductive reasoning, it is only logical to reject his argument.

Further, by modal logic, God is possible, thus believing that God is possible is entirely rational, more rational than claimless atheism.

Because believing that God existing has no known contradictions, is a belief supported by reason.

Further, science cannot explain existence nor what sustains it or creates it (existence created by existence is circular logic). Likewise, evidence supported by evidence is circular logic. thus, my opponent must provide a non-circular explanation of existence, which for him sadly doesnt exist.

Because all natural logic, all definitions, and all reasoning is circular, the only explanation which remains as non-circular is supernatural explanation.

I will move further into arguments for God later, this is enough for now.

First, Agnostic atheism is state of belief, not a claim about reality

this is just incoherent rambling. If it is a claim, it needs evidence. If it isnt a claim, it cannot be true. If it is not a claim about reality, then its a claim about something which isnt reality.

First two are claims about the reality, the last is only a state of belief.

Claiming that one lacks belief is still a claim which needs proving.

Premise 1: belief requires evidence.

Premise 2: there is insufficient evidence for a god.

it is rational to withhold belief in god.

this is again not a proper deductive argument, because premise 1 is obviously false, premise 2 is unproved, and the argument is irrelevant to topic because topic talks of justified belief, not belief.

Opponent's definitions in description:

Epistemically: from the standpoint of what is rational or justified to believe

Agnostic Atheism: Lack of belief in god, does not claim anything.

Because agnostic atheism, by opponent's own words, does not claim anything, it cannot produce any claim and thus cannot have any justified belief in that claim.

Because my opponent isnt saying "belief in God is not justified".

He says: "It is justified to lack belief in God and not claiming anything".

Deductive argument which my opponent wants to produce but keeps failing:

P1. Justified belief requires evidence

P2. there is no evidence for belief in God

C. Belief in God is not justified belief

Premise 2 is unproved, but whats worse is that this argument doesnt support opponent's case.

Notice the difference between "belief" and "justified belief". His definition of atheism doesnt merely lack justified belief, but lacks belief as a whole.

My opponent did not show that having belief is incorrect, he merely attempted to show that having justified belief in God is incorrect, which doesnt match definitions he uses.

One can have belief in God without having justified belief, and atheism still cannot be justified belief because as my opponent said in definitions, it does not claim anything, and no claims means no true claims.

Deductive argument is:

A = B

B = C

C = A

Because my opponent didnt use this form of argument to prove topic, his arguments can be rejected.

Currently, the debate structure looks like this:

topic:

C. Lack of belief in God which doesnt claim anything is a logical conclusion

P2. "lack of belief in God which doesnt claim anything" is X

P1. X is a logical conclusion

this is the actual deductive argument structure of a debate, which my opponent failed to use.

P1. Lack of belief in God which doesnt claim anything is a justified state

P2. Justified state is a logical conclusion

C. Lack of belief in God which doesnt claim anything is a logical conclusion

P1 is unproved.

My opponent wants to change topic to:

"Being atheist agnostic is a logical conclusion"

However, he produces no deductive argument for this conclusion.

Conclusion in deductive reasoning can be

Conclusion is still a claim which needs proving.

To clarify, let me update the definition I gave for "Agnostic atheism"

My opponent here is just trolling. He is trying to change definition which he set in description and agreed to follow.

But if he can change definitions arbitrarily, then so can I.

I change definition of agnostic atheism to "Belief that God doesnt exist".

So now my opponent must argue that God doesnt exist.

I only said it is epistemically justified

Produce deductive argument for why being agnostic atheist is a justified belief.

Sixth, Agnostic Atheism is not a belief, it is a belief state, I.e., lack of beliefs.

Produce deductive argument why state of "lack of belief" is justified, which you claimed it was.

Reminder: Deductive argument is: A = B, B = C, A = C.

When you follow an actual form of deductive reasoning, let me know.

A rational belief requires sufficient evidence” is a widely accepted epistemic standard

Yes, but topic is about belief, not justified belief.

Eighth, the trilemma is about ultimate foundation for knowledge.

the trilemma shows all justifications are circular or unjustified.

Everyday reasoning relies on coherent, evidentially supported belief systems

Because my opponent showed no solution to munchausen trilemma, he concedes the argument.

Agnostic atheism is justified

Justified what? Justified belief? Justified claim? Justified state? No deductive argument yet.

In everyday epistemology (Evidentialism), you do not need infinite chains of evidence. You assess available evidence relative to the claim.

Each evidence requires evidence. Even saying that something lacks evidence requires evidence.

stating that the epistemic position of the belief state, agnostic atheism, is justified.

Justified would mean supported by deductive reasoning as its conclusion, which you are yet to produce.

And, Given the current accessible evidence, belief in god isn't justified.

Saying that belief in God isnt justified isnt same as saying "lack of belief" is justified.

I am not asserting an absolute "no evidence exists anywhere", rather I am talking about the lack of sufficient, publicly verifiable evidence

So opponent concedes that he cannot prove that there is no evidence, and now he talks of "sufficient, publicly verifiable evidence".

My opponent now must prove that there is no sufficient publicly verifiable evidence.

Because most people believe in some God or supernatural, my opponent now must show that no sufficient publicly verifiable evidence exists.

the leap to "flawed argument" when you sense it is not deductive is simply wrong.

Why? Because it is inductive reasoning(the one which most rational reasoning humans use), not deductive.

My opponent concedes he is not using deductive reasoning, therefore concedes that he cannot prove topic with certainty.

modal logic distinguishes between possibility and justified belief. Possibility alone does not justify belief.

Actually, belief that God is possible is a justified belief, because my opponent conceded God is possible.

lack of explanation does not prove a supernatural explanation

My opponent conceded he cannot use definitions, logic, evidence and reasoning in a non-circular way without supernatural, and because of this, he concedes the only possible explanation which remains is supernatural.

There is no evidence for deity that is independently testable, observable, repeatable and predictive.

this claim is unproved.

A good point is that when evidence is strong, humans eventually converge on it

My opponent concedes that evidence for agnostic atheism is not strong, because most humans didnt converge to it but believe in God still. So my opponent now must prove humans didnt converge on belief in God.

My arguments:

P1. All definitions, reasoning, evidence, logic, existence on its own are circular.

P2. If circular is justified, then God is justified by circular reasoning

P3. If circular is unjustified, then something outside these needs to justify them, something supernatural.

C. God (Supernatural) is justified in all cases.

P1 is logically true.

All definitions require words, those words require more definitions, which requires more words, forcing either circularity or undefined words.

Deductive reasoning likewise, requires a starting premise, which requires its own deductive reasoning, which has another starting premise, which requires its own deductive reasoning, forcing circularity or unproved premise.

Evidence, likewise. Each evidence is information, and each information requires own evidence, forcing all evidence to be unjustified.

Existence likewise, being sustained by existence is circular logic.

Logic being proved using logic is likewise circular.

We see that natural world on its own collapses in a circle of circular reasoning, until we add supernatural.

My opponent didnt challenge that existence being sustained by existence is essentially circular reasoning.

My opponent didnt challenge that each evidence needs its own evidence to justify itself, forcing Munchausen trilemma problem of all evidence being unjustified.

My opponent didnt challenge that he cannot prove that there is no verifiable evidence for God.

P1. Existence can only be conditional or unconditional

P2. If existence is unconditional, then everything exists, including God.

P3. If existence is conditional, conditions for existence are essentially same as God in power, thus God

C. God exists in both possible cases.

Conditional existence talks of "existing only if some condition happens"

Unconditional existence talks of "existing independently of any if conditions"

Because 3rd option doesnt exist, any individual thing can only have its "existence" dependent on some condition, or independent of any condition. there is no 3rd option here.

But when applied to existence generally, we end up with result that only two options are possible:

One, there are conditions which control all what will exist and what wont,

two, there are no such conditions, and thus, each possible thing has independent existence.

One is basically God.

two, likewise means God exists because each possible thing exists.

to better understand two, basic definition deduction is necessary.

P1. If no thing is required for existence, then everything exists

P2. No thing is required for existence

C. Everything exists.

to put it simply, this argument talks of what is needed for existence.

P1. Existence of a possible thing requires something or it doesnt require anything in order to happen

P2. If existence of a possible thing requires something, that "something" is essentially God

P3. If existence of a possible thing doesnt require anything in order to happen, then all possible things exist, including God

this argument explores what is required for a specific thing to exist in the first place. If nothing is required, then all things exist, including God. If something is required, that something is essentially God.

"Statements about mental states don’t require external proof in the same way empirical claims do.

Saying "I am hungry", or "I doubt this claim" does not need any proofs. They are first person reports."

Saying that something doesnt need proof is not proof that something doesnt need proof. However, if mental states dont need proof, then belief in God, being a mental state, doesnt need proof either, making opponent's case self-defeating.

That is inductive, not certainty

My opponent concedes his case has no certainty.

Circular reasoning proves nothing.

My opponent concedes circular reasoning proves nothing, so if his case is built upon circular reasoning, it proves nothing. Because Munchausen trilemma proved all reasoning is circular, and my opponent never refuted that, it follows his reasoning is circular, and thus unproved.

Further, my opponent didnt respond to any arguments I gave for God, other than saying "there could be another explanation".

But such argument defeats his case as well. there could be another explanation which proves atheism to be unjustified. Because my opponent presented no explanation for natural world, and I did present explanation for God, voters should default to my explanation while keeping in mind that my opponent, when saying there could be another explanation, defeats his own case as well.

If he concedes to come from a position of ignorance and being unaware of other possible explanations, he concedes his case is that of pure uncertainty, and thus unproved.