Agnosticism Presupposes That God Does Not Exist

Claim 1"Agnostics do not claim to know characteristics of a hypothetical God such as omnipotence. However, I will accept this assertion." Con has to accept this assertion. This is because I already defined God as omnipotent as part of the debate outline. Claim 2This section from Pro literally has no warrant. My opponent is saying that I have not properly defined what is possible, but it is not up to me to be a philosophical dictionary for Con. Regardless, "possible" clearly means that which is logically or metaphysically conceivable. If God exists, then he can make himself known for example, but he cannot make a perfectly spherical cube (as that is not logically conceivable). My opponent's ignorance towards the meaning of "possibility" pertaining to God has no bearing on the resolution. It would be a contradiction to say an omnipotent God cannot do something logically or metaphysically possible. "Knowing God (defined as the ultimate cause of things in Pro's definition of agnostic), may contradict the essential nature of knowing" Knowing God, clearly, does not contradict the essential nature of knowing. It is simply a subset of such a notion. Pro is clearly just running around like a chicken with his head cut off at this point. God making himself known does not violate any laws of logic or metaphysics. Therefore, it should be obvious that an omnipotent God could achieve such a feat. What my opponent is doing is engaging in radical epistemological skepticism. This is not a reasonable position, as it leads to absurd conclusions. It is self-evident that God, if he exists, could easily prove himself. Claim 3 "It follows logically from omnipotence that God can make his existence knowable, but it does not imply that God has, as God is equally capable of making his existence unknowable. This fact refutes the next claim."Here, Pro engages in a straw-man argument. He is arguing that my position is that it follows logically from omnipotence that God can make his existence knowable. He adds that God could also make himself unknowable. The problem is that I never argued that God can make himself knowable if he exists. I said that God's existence is knowable if he exists by default. Even if God chose to never make himself known, he would still be knowable because he would have the ability, and be able to make himself known due to omnipotence. To say that God can make himself unknowable, is synonymous with saying that God can make himself not-omnipotent. However, that is a logical impossibility, as omnipotence is inherit to God's nature and definition. Claim 4 My response to claim 3 takes care of this. If God exists, his existence is knowable even if he decides to never provide any of us with a single shred of evidence or proof. What God "does", is not the same as what he is "able" to do. As long as God even has the ability to make himself known (which follows necessarily from omnipotence), then his existence is knowable. If his existence is knowable, then this is incompatible with Agnosticism. ConclusionMy original argument stands. Pro's stance on claim 2 is based on radical epistemological skepticism, and denying self-evident truth. If God exists, he can at least make his existence known; this is not a claim which can be reasonably contested. With regards to claim 2, I did not assert that God would make himself knowable. If he is omnipotent, then he is knowable by default regardless of any actions he takes. He could never prove his existence, but his existence is still knowable if he at least has the ability to let us know about it. Since God being "knowable" follows necessarily from God's existence, regardless of what actions God takes, then theism, as defined, is incompatible with Agnosticism (which is the position that entails God's existence is unknowable). Thus, Agnosticism presupposes that God does not exist. This is because if God exists he would have the power to make himself known, even if he never does. This means, that it would not matter which actions God takes, as long as he is omnipotent, he is knowable. The truth of the resolution remains unscathed, and stands firmly.