Neutral agnosticism versus ALL beliefs regarding God!

Thanks to Pro for this interesting topic, and to DDO for hosting, and of course to readers, voters, and commenters. What exactly is the resolution that Pro undertook to prove? His thesis sentence: "Neutral agnosticism: The theory that no degree of certainty, especially regarding God, can be achieved without physical evidence." If we set aside the name he gives his theory, and his parenthetical comment, we get this: "No degree of certainty can be achieved without physical evidence." One could argue that there is ambiguity as to what was meant by the word "physical," and by the phrase, "No degree of certainty." But it seems to me that Pro's meaning is clear. His claim comes to this: Resolved: All knowledge is empirically based: there is no such thing as a priori knowledge. I think that's a fair clarification of what Pro wrote. If I misunderstand, I look for his correction; I certainly don't mean to misrepresent. Is it true that all knowledge is empirical? Obviously not. First, the assertion is self-refuting. How would one attempt to support such a claim? To the extent that the claim is true, one would have to support it empirically, examining one item of knowledge after another, going, "Nope, this isn't a priori. Nope, this isn't a priori. This one isn't a priori either. And here's yet another piece of knowledge that isn't a priori," forever. One could never know the resolution to be true in that way. Second, we have examples of a priori knowledge, so the resolution is patently false. Wikipedia says, "Examples of a priori propositions include: "All bachelors are unmarried." "7 + 5 = 12." The justification of these propositions does not depend upon experience: One does not need to consult experience to determine whether all bachelors are unmarried, or whether 7 + 5 = 12." [1] The Pythagorean theorem is another example. Farmers used 3-4-5 triangles to make square corners for their fields. That derived from empiricism. ("Seems pretty close to a right angle to me. Also, it seemed pretty accurate when I did it yesterday. A three-four-five triangle will probably still seem like it has a right angle tomorrow.") But that empirical information inspired Pythagoras to strive for actual proof. He wanted to know. So using a priori methods, he proved for a fact that 3-4-5 triangles have right angles. It's not just a matter of "within measurable tolerances." It's not a matter of empiricism. Or look at Euclid. Your geometry teacher never set you to examining a bushel of parallel lines to see how many of them touch. No, that whole field of knowledge is non-empirical. Clearly, the resolution is false. Vote Con. Now let us apply the resolution to gods. Pro said, "no degree of certainty, especially regarding God, can be achieved without physical evidence." [emphasis added.] So we should visit the question of whether non-empirical knowledge of gods is possible. Obviously it is. Consider this statement: "Either Jehovah exists, or Jehovah doesn't exist." That is a true statement about a god, and it is a statement that does not depend upon empiricism. Clearly, the resolution is false. Vote Con. === Note: I repudiate Pro's historical claims. That is, I do not by my silence endorse, countenence, or condone, for instance, Con's implied belief that the ancient Greeks thought homosexuality was bad (but just not as bad as raping women). === [1] Wikipedia: " Analytic–synthetic distinction" http://en.wikipedia.org...