From atheism to tentative agnosticism

[fr0d0]

So your presuppositions lead to a conclusion. But they're still presuppositions right?

All arguments have premises. If you know of an argument without any, I'm all ears.

But any attempt to show anything exists, relies on an argument. And all arguments have assumptions or premises. If the argument is valid then the strength of the argument is determined by the plausibility of the premises. Those premises can be defended in turn, of course. If your argument has premises that are more plausible than their negations, then your argument wins. This doesn't mean that the conclusion is true, it just means it is more reasonable to believe that conclusion than any other.

That's how arguments work. That's how evidence works. That's how a rational person tries to figure out what the hell is going on.

By all means reject reason, but if that's the only way to avoid drawing my conclusions that's not really very impressive. That's like avoiding drawing my conclusions by shooting yourself in the head. It'll work, but it was kind of pointless.

You didn't address the point that you're working on a conclusion that's based upon a presupposition.

I'm not against you (yet), I'm merely trying to clarify something. I'd have to agree with your discourse above against whomever would object, brother