The only proof for the existence of God is that without God you couldn't prove anything.
Agnosticism is epistemologically self-contradictory on its own assumptions because its claim to make no assertion about ultimate reality rests upon a most comprehensive assertion about ultimate reality.
Interpretation
What this quote means
Agnosticism contradicts itself by asserting that nothing can be known about ultimate reality while making a claim about it.
In this quote, Cornelius Van Til argues that agnosticism, which is the position of being uncertain about the existence of ultimate realities such as God or the divine, is fundamentally contradictory. This contradiction lies in the fact that agnostics claim they cannot know anything about ultimate reality, yet this assertion itself is a definitive statement about the nature of reality, which includes knowledge claims that they simultaneously deny. Thus, he highlights the philosophical inconsistency inherent in agnosticism.
Themes
In practice
Example use cases
In a debate about belief systems, one might quote this to highlight the philosophical flaws in agnosticism.
More from Cornelius Van Til
All quotes βTo admit one's own presuppositions and to point out the presuppositions of others is therefore to maintain that all reasoning is, in the nature of the case, circular reasoning. The starting-point, the method, and the conclusion are always involved in one another.
Similar quotes
Man is a centaur, a tangle of flesh and mind, divine inspiration and dust.
When everything that matters can be bought and sold, when commitments can be broken because they are no longer to our advantage, when shopping becomes salvation and advertising slogans become our litany, when our worth is measured by how much we earn and spend, then the market is destroying the very virtues on which in the long run it depends.
Just as the wave cannot exist for itself, but is ever a part of the heaving surface of the ocean, so must I never live my life for itself, but always in the experience which is going on around me.
Talk with M. Hermite. He never evokes a concrete image, yet you soon perceive that the more abstract entities are to him like living creatures.
How could so many intelligent people be so grievously wrong for such an extended period of time? How could they ignore so much overwhelming evidence that contradicted their most basic theories? These questions, too, deserve their own discipline: the sociology of error.
The revealed and mystic literature of mankind bears ample testimony to the fact that religious experience has been too enduring and dominant in the history of mankind to be rejected as mere illusion. There seems to be no reason, then, to accept the normal level of human experience as fact and reject its other levels as mystical and emotional.