agnosticism

I accept. Given that Pro has not stated whether first round is for acceptance or not, and given that this debate is only 2 rounds, I'm going to start immediately. Resolution Pro hasn't outlined a specific resolution, but given what he's said thus far I gather that the resolution is as follows;Agnosticism is the superior position. As con, I will be arguing against this resolution.Burden of ProofBOP will be shared.Definitions1. Agnostic - someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively. [1]Counter ArgumentsMy opponent has given what appears to be one argument for his position. This argument is that, "all things being equal-the simplest explanation that fits the facts is always the correct answer...". Given that my opponent is 'Pro agnosticism', it follows that he contends agnosticism is the simplest explanation that fits all the facts. This is more of a contention than an argument as Pro has not stated what these "facts" are. My contention is that , based on modern quantum physics, atheism is the position that is the most simple and most in-line with the facts.1. SuperString-TheorySuper-string theories are the leading theories in quantum physics to date. They postulate that there are higher spatial dimensions above the perceivable three-dimensional universe we are all so familiar with. That is to say, the fourth dimension is comprised of an infinite amount of three-dimensional universes and an infinite amount of timeliness therein. The fifth dimension is comprised of an infinite amount of four-dimensional branes, so on and so forth until you reach the tenth dimension (some theories go above 10, but for the purposes of this debate we'll just go with 10). [2] Given this, I put forth the following argument;C1 - Reality contains both an infinite amount of energy and an infinite amount of time (in accordance with modern superstring-theories)C2 - An infinite amount of time and energy is enough to guarantee that literally every single conceivable (and inconceivable) occurrence will occur an infinite amount of times.T - Our universe, as is, was guaranteed to have come about.As you can see, there is no room for God in this picture. No matter how slight the probability of something is, if that probability is thrown over an infinite amount of time with an infinite amount of energy, such a thing becomes guaranteed to happen -- not just once, but an infinite amount of times. This argument is obviously the simplest as there needn't be any assumptions on the existence or will of a deity and it fits the facts as this argument is rooted in the fundamentals of modern physics. ConclusionLong story short, given my opponent's criteria for the superior position laid out in round 1, atheism is the superior position to agnosticism.This argument tips the scale in favour of atheism as it removes the need for God and establishes that not only can this universe emerge naturally, but that the emergence of this universe is infinite guaranteed given the laws of probability. I have established that the neutral assumption is, therefore, atheism, which makes atheism the superior position until such time that either real evidence for God arises or whether all of quantum physics collapses on itself. Feel free to start a pool over which one will happen first ;)1. http://en.wikipedia.org...2. http://en.wikipedia.org...