Agnosticism Presupposes That God Does Not Exist

In my last argument, I said "Pro" a couple of times when I meant "Con". I just felt like pointing that out...Rebutting My Opponent's Objections"Pro holds, that because God exists, God can be known to exist by default. This is essentially arguing that there are no inherently unknowable truths. Such claims have been disproven by Fitch's Paradox of Knowability[1][2], which shows that existence of a particular truth is not sufficient for it's knowability." - ProUnfortunately, my opponent misunderstands Fitch's Paradox of Knowability. Fitch's Paradox of Knowability does not disprove the notion that there are no inherently unknowable truths. What the paradox does is show that if all truths are knowable in principle, then all truths are in fact known[1][2]:"If in fact there is an unknown truth, then there is a truth that couldn't possibly be known."[1]This means that that there would have to be an omniscient being in order for it to be true that all facts are knowable in principle. This actually may even support my argument very nicely, but not Con's argument. Therefore, it is extremely bizarre that Con would bring up this argument. This argument is an argument against anti-realism, and states:"The proof has been used to argue against versions of anti-realism committed to the thesis that all truths are knowable. For clearly there are unknown truths; individually and collectively we are non-omniscient. So, by the main result, it is false that all truths are knowable. The result has also been used to draw more general lessons about the limits of human knowledge. Still others have taken the proof to be fallacious, since it collapses an apparently moderate brand of anti-realism into an obviously implausible and naive idealism."[1](i) Some view the argument as fallacious. Therefore, this raises reasonable doubt. Con has not shown that this argument proves anything just by citing the argument. Con actually has to debate in favor of the notion that the paradox argument is true in order to support the claim, not just commit the bare assertion[3] fallacy and claim it is true without reasoning. This required feat was not accomplished.(ii) Here is the punchline if anybody missed it the first time: The Fitch's Paradox of Knowability argument only can only get off of the ground if there is no omniscient God. The argument is operating under the assumption that human knowledge is all there is. Basically, the argument only works if there are unknown truths. This presupposes God does not exist, as God is defined as an omniscient being who knows all truths."Individually and collectively we are non-omniscient. So, by the main result, it is false that all truths are knowable. "[1]However, if God exists, then there are no unknown truths (God is defined as omniscient). Since the paradox argument only works if the there are unknown truths, then it only works if God does not exist. Fitch's Paradox of Knowability simply presupposes God does not exist. However, this is a red herring[4] from Con anyway, as whether all truths are knowable or not has no bearing on the resolution. Even if all truths are actually unknowable, that would not mean that they would be actually unknowable if it were true that God exists. Also, even if all truths are unknowable (which the Fitch's Paradox of Knowability does not prove), that would not mean that the truth of God's existence specifically was unknowable, as it is logically and metaphysically possible for God make his existence known if he exists. Con's argument is a non-sequitur[5], as his conclusion does not follow pertaining to negation of the resolution in context. Since Con's objection using this paradox argument is fallacious, it can be dismissed.Additional Argument In Favor Of The Resolution I will be presenting an additional airtight case in favor of the resolution, making it impossible to reject without denying logic itself. I will be presenting an argument in the form of Multiple Modus Ponens[6]. This is one version of an expanded form of the standard Moden Ponens subset involving propositional logic. The structure of this particular version of Multiple Modus Ponens is as follows: P1. If P, then Q P2. If Q, then R C. If P, then R The variables will be filled in as follows: P1. If God exists, then God knows he exists P2. If God knows he exists, then God's existence is knowable C. If God exists, then God's existence is knowable P1 is true because if God exists, then God is omniscient; as my opponent accepted the debate under my definition of God, which is specifically an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God. Omniscient means "all knowing" according to every single definition of the word. If God exists, and is all knowing, then this means he knows of his own existence (Fitch's Paradox of Knowability undermines this in absolutely no way, despite my opponent's erroneous assumption to the contrary). Thus, if God exists, he clearly knows he exists.Even if God was not defined as omniscient, I should still be granted this premise by any rational agent based on common sense alone (what kind of God does not even know he exists?!). However, he is defined as omniscient. Therefore, the premise is true by definition and logical necessity, regardless of common sense derived inductively. P2 is true because it is self-evident: If God's existence is unknowable if God exists, then God could not know he exists if God exists. However, this would be impossible. God necessarily knows he exists by definition (omniscience) if he exists, plus it is common sense. Thus, If God knows he exists, then God's existence is necessarily knowable. The conclusion logically follows as a result of Multiple Modus Ponens. Since God's existence would be knowable if God exists, then this is incompatible with Agnosticism, as Agnosticism entails that God's existence is unknowable. Therefore, the Agnostic position, as defined, can only be true if God, as defined, does not exist. This means, Agnosticism presupposes that God does not exist. Con has not shaken the resolution one iota with his attempts at refutation. Thus, the resolution is still affirmed without a shadow of a doubt. ConclusionI gave two arguments in favor of the resolution: One that appeals to omnipotence, and another that appeals to omniscience. Either argument works to affirm the resolution with relative ease. By accepting this debate, Con accepted the definitions I provided. Therefore, my definition of God is granted by default. If God is omnipotent, then he has the ability to let us know that he exists. Therefore, God's existence entails that his existence is knowable. This is incompatible with Agnosticism. Thus, Agnosticism presupposes that God does not exist. If God is omniscient, then he knows he exists. Therefore, if God exists, it is necessarily true that God's existence is knowable. Ergo, once again, Agnosticism presupposes that God does not exist. Any one of my two arguments are completely sufficient to affirm the resolution without any problems. Con actually has to literally deny logic and self-evident truths to undermine the resolution, or any of my arguments. This is not just an uphill battle for Con, but intellectual suicide. The truth of the resolution remains unscathed, and stands firmly by necessity. Therefore, despite any arguments Con may contrive for the last round, it would be impossible for the truth of the resolution to be effected. I thank Con for this debate. However, I think it is self-evident why all of my opponent's arguments fail, as they were destined to fail by the very nature of the resolution and arguments used to support it. Sources[1] http://plato.stanford.edu...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://fallacies.findthedata.org...;[4] http://www.nizkor.org...;[5] http://www.merriam-webster.com...;[6] http://spot.colorado.edu...