Why Agnostic?

[Ryft]

The Tenison that is described in the assertion does not exist. ...

So then Thomas Tenison never existed at all. This would have to be the case, since all we have are collections of versions that describe him. Those versions of Tenison exist, but as for the man himself? No one can assert he ever existed (because such arguments would be based upon those versions). And the case seems to be even more desperate: there are multiple Thomas Tenisons, some that did not exist and many that did exist, depending on the truth or falsehood of the versions in question. It is an interesting although, I imagine, highly contestable position to hold. I wonder how it would fare under historical scholarship and leading ontological theories. Barring any modification from you, I'm going to have to see if this idea has ever raised its head before and, if it did, what criticisms it sustained.

The key difference is between the description of the actions of a being, and the actual actions of a being.

But I detect a seemingly insurmountable problem here, Adrian. There can be no such thing as "actual actions" of Tenison, for the only thing available to us is "descriptions of the actions" of Tenison. Was tending to James Scott before his execution an "actual action" of Tenison? How would you determine that without begging the question or special pleading?

1. If one of the described actions is false,
2. then that description is false,
3. *that* specific being (the one being described) does not exist.

I am not following how 2 leads to 3.