Agnosticism is the only valid position in the Existence of God/s debate.

Thank you Con for your argument 1.) Definition of Gnosticism I concede that I took Con's argument out of context, but to rebut, I took a look at the definition of Gnosticism on Dictionary.com, the very site Con cited. Notice how in his round 2 argument, Con used the example of gnosticism, and then used gnostic to describe that belief. From Dictionary.com, this is the only definition of Gnosticism: Noun: A group of ancient heresies, stressing escape from this world through the acquisition of esoteric knowledge. http://dictionary.reference.com... Now, when Con uses the adjective Gnostic, on Dictionary.com, this is the definition that appears (note that since Gnosticism is defined above, the correct adjective must be used due to the context of Gnosticism): Adjective: Possessing knowledge, especially esoteric knowledge of spiritual matters. http://dictionary.reference.com... Using the very site Con used, I showed that he took the term Gnosticism for something else than its actual definition, and attempted to make an argument with said erroneous definition. 2.) Gnostic atheism/ Theism Con makes the claim in round 2 that Gnosticism is a claim from knowledge, and attempts to "get me" on the basis of properly defining terms. But, I will nonetheless rebut his argument. Yes, Gnostic atheism/ theism makes the claim to know 100% whether a God exists or whether a God does not exist. My whole argument has been that one cannot make a definite, 100% claim. This is due to, as I have stated, a lack of objective evidence. Thus, since there is not objective evidence to either confirm of deny 100% knowledge of the existence of God, the Gnostic view cannot be taken as valid in an argument based on objectivity, but is still a fine opinion to hold. 3.) The Burden of Proof I would like to debate the point Con made of atheism requiring no evidence and that it makes no claim. A definition of Atheism, from dictionary.com (the website Con used to get his definitions) states Atheism as follows: (Noun)1.The doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2.Disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. http://dictionary.reference.com... From dictionary.com, Theism is defined as follows: (noun)1.The belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism ). 2.Belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism ). http://dictionary.reference.com... A keyword I would like to draw attention to in the definition of both words, is the word belief. Dictionary.com defines belief as follows: noun 1. Something believed; an opinion or conviction: "A belief that the earth is flat." 2. Confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: "A statement unworthy of belief." 3. Confidence; faith; trust: "A child's belief in his parents." http://dictionary.reference.com... Belief is defined as having an opinion, confidence in the truth, but that truth not being susceptible to rigorous proof. Both atheism and theism are beliefs (according to the dictionary Con uses), theism a belief in the positive (the existence of God), and atheism being the belief in the negative (God does not exist). There is no evidence supporting either claims. For the atheist that says they don't believe in God because there is no evidence for it, I have this question; All because something isn't discovered yet, does that mean it does not exist? When the geocentric theory was popular, many people believed in that. They rejected the heliocentric theory (because to them and their worldview) there was not evidence for it. But we now know that that theory was wrong, and now (it isn't even a theory), the sun is in the center of the solar system. Using this example, to claim that there is no god due to a lack of evidence, is merely a belief that there is no god. I will repeat this throughout my argument; there is no proof for either side. Yet for agnosticism, there is ample of proof. Has there been any scientific breakthrough confirming or denying God? No, there has not. Science has made no comment on the existence of god. As for Con's argument of theism arising from different places (parents, personal revelation, etc.), all of these are subjective. None are objective. In a debate, one can't claim subjective evidence, for not all can experience the evidence. The evidence that can only be claimed is objective. Again, this is where theism fails. It can provide no objective evidence for the existence of god. Like Con said, there is a lot more personal bias when it comes to theism. Thus, the burden of proof lies on both atheists and theists to justify their beliefs, as I have shown neither of them can be taken on objective fact. But agnosticism's claims are all justified, as I have shown above.