Agnosticism makes no sense

"I'm not a gnostic, so it doesn't apply to me." If you're not a Gnostic Christian, then that makes you an Agnostic Christian. So you either have to admit that you actually are a Gnostic Christian or concede the debate on the grounds that you are actually an Agnostic Christian. "You claim that anyone who believes in God (absolute truth) is close-minded but on the contrary, your closing your own mind in rejecting absolute truth." It's important to recognize that I didn't only claim that anyone who believes that Christianity is absolutely true is ignorant, but I also claimed that anyone who holds a belief of anything they think is absolutely true is also ignorant. This includes Atheists, Christians, Muslims, Cultists etc. And if I am closing my own mind to absolute truth, then that is a lot better than closing my mind to an infinite number of unfalsifiable claims and opportunities. If you claim that something is absolutely true, then you are in effect saying that those infinite number of unverifiable possibilities that could render your claim false are all invalid. The odds are not in your favor. Better to close your mind to the idea that your beliefs are absolutely true than to close it to every single other option that could possibly exist. "No matter what I show you on God, you won'tacc eptit bec ause it's absolute. It is better to have truth value and claim its absolute than to question everything." If you were to show me valid evidence on God, then I would accept it as valid evidence towards God. I wouldn't just disregard compelling evidence. If your holy book, The Bible, were to make a highly specific prophecy that made it highly unlikely that it were inspired by anything other than God, then I would accept that as compelling evidence. If the Bible were to make the prophecy that nine meteors on December 25th, 2015 at 5:00 pm will strike a specific deserted island and turn it into the shape of a smiley-face, then that would be extremely compelling evidence for the validity of Christianity. It could still be possible that our reality is a computer program or the prophecy was caused by an alien, but that would still significantly sway the evidence in Christianity's favor to where I would become a believer. Although, I would become an Agnostic Christian still claiming that I could always be wrong. Unfortunately, you have shown no such evidence throughout this debate. In fact, it seems like you have refused to show me any evidence for your God under the assumption that I would just disregard it. I would have enjoyed considering any evidence you would offer up, but you haven't done so. So the proposition still stands that there is no compelling evidence for the existence of God(s). "Science isn't concerned with proving the existence of natural things, but how the world works. Thus, you assume that stars exist without scientific evidence. By that, you somehow "know " that they exist. Your welcome to show me one scientific study on the existence of stars." If you had taken the time to read the source that I put in my previous argument about how scientists determine the existence and distance of stars, then you would know that I did give scientific evidence for the existence of stars. Here is some more scientific evidence for the distance and existence of stars: [1] http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov... But based on your previous actions, I doubt you will read this either. Also, I never claimed to "know" that stars exist. I even admitted that there was some amount of uncertainty that I have of our reality and our star's existence, but the theory that it exists is the best and most well supported one. So, naturally I believe that. "Again I don't claim to have evidence for God..." This is exactly my point. You concede that you claim no evidence for God, so you cannot rationally expect anyone to believe what you believe. Since there is no compelling evidence for God, and there isn't anything that can falsify its existence, we must conclude that the existence of God is irresolvable. "... but since you imply that you canexpl ain it through natural means, I challenge you to go back in time and explain using science how the experience in my mind is not God." Well I can't literally go back in time, but I accept your challenge. I am completely unfamiliar with what kind of experience you think you had with "God", but nonetheless I will attempt to explain it. You are no doubt familiar with the Placebo Effect, correct? When someone takes a placebo that that they are told will cause a specific effect in the individual, the individual will still feel either negative or positive symptoms and attribute it to the non-active pill. [2] The point is that when someone sincerely believes that something fake is actually real, they can experience symptoms that they've been told they will experience. Extrapolate this to religion, and we can see that the mind can easily illude itself, causing feelings of other-worldliness or a feeling of an entity's presence. These can explain rather minor feelings resulting from religion. Another explanation for various theists' claims of contact with the divine is the development of the God Helmet and advances in neuroscience. [3] Jeff Schimmel was a mid-life atheist man who had grown up in a conservative Jewish home. After he had a surgery to remove a tumor on his left temporal lobe, he began to suffer mini-seizures. He would hear conversations that didn't exist and would also report that the people around him looked animated rather than real. Then he started reporting visions of swirling colors on the ceiling that eventually settled into a shape; the Virgin Mary. He has continued to have some visions that he interprets most of the time as non-religious and other times as religious. He became fascinated by spirituality and has since become a Buddhist. Brain imaging revealed that his left temporal lobe had been gradually shrinking, had been covered in scar tissue, and had become misshapen. This apparent change in his neurological make up has led him to develop a disease called epilepsy and had undoubtedly led to the visions. The interesting part is that Schimmel never reported having a religious experience or vision before the surgery and apparent misshapening of his left temporal lobe. This lends credit to the theory that spiritual experiences may be nothing more than neurological mistakes. In addition to this, Michael Persinger, a neurologist at the Laurentian University, has developed a magnetic helmet that when turned on is reported to cause spiritual and other-worldly experiences. [3] By using small magnetic waves to affect the temporal lobes, he has been basically successful in turning spiritual experience in test subjects brains on and off. Persinger notes that many religious prophets may have had epilepsy in order to have their claimed spiritual experiences (or had been outright lying for that matter). Those who have had strong spiritual experiences in their lives may be neurologically more prone to have them because of their temporal lobes, while those who don't report any experience in their lives may be actually unable or unlikely to experience such things. So if you have strong visions and voices from an entity that you perceive to be God, I would suggest seeing a mental health professional or a neurologist. You may have psychosis, epilepsy, or another neurological disease that affects your view on reality. If you have somewhat weak spiritual experiences, then you are somewhat normal considering the vast amount of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and various other religions that have reported to have such experiences. Claiming that your experience is valid while all of those other people's are not would seem to be hypocritical. But again, none of this really falsifies the existence of a God. All of this evidence just seems to invalidate experiential evidence given by people of various different religions for the validity of their specific faith. So again, there seems to be no compelling evidence for God and no possible way to falsify its existence. In Conclusion: Pro has done nothing to disprove my claim that there is no compelling evidence for God. In fact, he even admits that he claims no evidence for God and implies that he has refused to give evidence under the assumption that I would just disregard it. He claims not to be a Gnostic Christian but doesn't realize that the only other thing he could be besides Gnostic is Agnostic. On top of all of this, he further contradicts himself by calling me close-minded for rejecting absolute truth. If you are supposedly not a Gnostic, then how can you criticize me for rejecting absolute truth? Your whole stance was supposed to be that of a Gnostic: someone who claims that their belief is absolutely true. The proposition still stands that there is no compelling evidence for God and that there is no way to possibly falsify God's existence. In effect, Agnosticism is the only view point that makes sense. You can still have a belief or opinion about God based on probability and evidence, but you cannot rationally claim that your belief is absolutely correct while all the infinite other possibilities are incorrect. Sources: [1] Evidence of distance of stars: http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov... [2] The Placebo Effect: http://www.cancer.org... [3] The God Helmet and temporal lobes: http://www.npr.org...