(January 16, 2017 at 7:09 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:(January 16, 2017 at 6:56 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: This is bullshit. Not knowing doesn't preclude one from ruling out specific answers. And in the case of naturalists answering the question, it's often implied that what they don't know is a plausible naturalistic explanation. Supernatural explanations are unbounded. Unless you've got something better than magic as an explanation, you've got nothing. The number of potential magical beings that could be responsible is infinite, and you have no way of narrowing that pool to one.
Wrong.
On what basis can you rule anything out if you don't know?
Say you haven't learn the concept of math, on what basis can you say 2+2= 4 is right or wrong if you don't know?
Nice hypothetical. No. Wrong. You're equating not knowing the specific answer with a position of total ignorance. Saying "I don't know" isn't asserting complete ignorance. If there's a jar filled with gumballs, and someone asks me how many gumballs are in the jar, I can rightly say, "I don't know," without implying that I don't know the answer isn't 0 or 1. You're simply wrong. Not knowing doesn't imply total ignorance and a concomitant agnosticism towards all solutions.