This is impressions and partial attention. The logic was already checksummed.

Thank you

I had a read of this to see what a lot of the comments were referring to and found most of it to be word salad.

I suspect because we may have a different understanding of agnosticism. And I do not understand what is meant by "...the premise of agnosticism".

My understanding is that agnosticism refers to a lack of knowledge of what is unknowable, and as most gods are alleged to be unfalsifiable, agnosticosm is the only reasonable conclusion.
Thus the premise of agnosticism is substantiated. It really is that simple. An abscence of evidence is not neccesarily evidence of absence.

The references to religion and belief are not relevant as they relate to belief, not knowledge - Theism/atheism relate to belief and gnosticism/agnosticism relate to knowledge (which is a sub-set of belief).

The article felt a bit like the more bizzarre apologist 'proofs' of god's existence - lets start with a conclusion and make up some premises to fit.

Many of the premises make presuppositions which are contentious and not necessarily true - the assumption that we have free will for example and constant referrals to the christian god, there are many others and not all religions believe in god/s. 4 & 9 directly contradict each other using appeals to authority as for and against.

The article appears to be a confusion of theism, atheism, anti-theist and agnosticism - it completely lost me on the A and B and union of and swap of B and A - seems to be trying to address different prongs of the same argument but treating them as the same - which they are not.

An overcomplicated word salad to address a simple proposition.

I am not following what you mean.

Naturally formulated arguments are exempt from an evaluation of "sound" versus "unsound", and largely because in cases like the present one, it is already true. You are only giving an evaluation because you think that the logic is still being worked on, but every single part of that text is honest.

@DZhukovin most of those premises are so flawed as to be incoherent.

@WileEQuixote

So basically, in the stead of making sense of it, you reject the thought. Good moves. Maybe if you go to a chess competition and kick the board, they will give you a medal?

@DZhukovin chess has rules.

Arguments have rules.

Learn them or don’t try to play the game.

@WileEQuixote

How could you possibly have a justified ruling on something you don't know about?

@DZhukovin do you really not understand how to formulate an argument?

Take a philosophy class and get back to us.

@WileQuixote

My field is Mathematics, dude. You're not the correct one.

@DZhukovin ?

Logic. Learn it.

Mathematics cannot prove anything outside of its own scope, certainly not claims about Agnosticism.

Read the other criticism in the replies.

@WileEQuixote

Yes it can.

Thank you!

"There is no compelling evidence" is not going to disprove anything or unseat a premise, though.

@DZhukovin That’s just it though. Atheism/agnosticism isn’t trying to prove or disprove anything. Leave that to the theist and antitheists.

@indirect76

No, that's whack.

@DZhukovin Perhaps it’s a problem with language?

@indirect76

Absolutely. Do we come to definitely know the truth through language, or come to know language through the truth?

Nailed it!

Okay

Hear, hear. This.

Nice pun