Agnosticism is self-contradictory in at least one way.

1. Defining Agnosticism One of the main points in our debate has become the "meta-debate" about the nature of the debate or the definition of the term "agnostic". This is fine with me and has proven to be educational as I've looked into this. There are 2 main divisions within the scope of "Agnosticism" which are known as: weak agnosticism and strong agnosticism. Weak agnosticism = they state only that they do not know if any gods exist or not. The possibility of some theoretical god or some specific god existing is not excluded. The possibility of someone else knowing for sure if some god exists or not is also not excluded. Strong agnosticism = goes just a bit further. If someone is a strong agnostic, they don't merely claim that they don't know if any gods exist; instead, they also claim that no one can or does know if any gods exist. Whereas weak agnosticism is a position that only describes the state of knowledge of one person, strong agnosticism makes a statement about knowledge and reality themselves. What PRO was debating against is known as "Strong Agnosticism". The definition used by PRO in Round 1 describes "Strong Agnosticism" as will be shown here: (Definition from Round 1 reposted here with EMPHASIS): Agnostic - noun a person who believes that nothing is known OR CAN BE KNOWN of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God. The capitalized (emphasized) portion of the definition makes the definition clearly fall into the category of "Strong Agnosticism" due to the claim made that "nothing CAN BE KNOWN". Whereas "Weak Agnosticism" would not make that claim, they would simply say that THEY don't know. The definition used therefore conclusively refers to "Strong Agnosticism" only. This key difference also is the basis and foundation of PRO's contention of why it is a self-contradictory position! *KEY POINT --- A close reading of the definition should be enough to convince everyone that the definition stated in Round 1 is referring to "Strong Agnosticism". Nothing has changed in the definition itself or in any of PRO's arguments for the contention. PROs expounding on the definition is to simply clarify the definition and position more. CON has had the luxury of reading the definition from even before accepting the debate. .. the wording has always been there that PRO was indeed referring to a position that claims that "nothing CAN BE KNOWN". If my opponent wants to argue that I am arguing for weak agnosticism, then I will just have to say that simply isn't the case, and I believe the facts bear that out. . http://atheism.about.com... ======== Here are some general debate rules pertaining to definitions: Occasionally a contest hinges on the definition of a word or phrase in the topic. The rule is this: Rule 3b. The affirmative has the right to make any reasonable definition of each of the terms of the proposition. A "reasonable" definition generally means the definition intended when the proposition was phrased, or the technical definition of the term as used by professionals in that field. If the affirmative's definition is not reasonable, the negative should challenge it at the earliest opportunity. Rule 3c. If the negative challenges the reasonableness of a definition by the affirmative, the judge must accept the definition of the team that shows better grounds for its interpretation of the term. The judge is not expected to exercise his own taste in the matter, but to listen to the evidence and logic of the teams and to support the definition shown to be more reasonable. Rule 3d. Once the negative has accepted the affirmative's definitions, it may not later object to them, even though it later develops that they are unreasonable. Failure of the negative to object to the affirmative's definitions in the first constructive speech following the definitions is equivalent to acceptance of them by the negative. If the negative wishes to quarrel with the affirmative's interpretation of the topic, it must do so at once. Otherwise the debate might literally be half over before the teams have decided what they are arguing about. If the negative, through oversight, accepts or fails to object to an unreasonable definition by the affirmative, it should not later be heard objecting that the definition was unreasonable. . http://www.triviumpursuit.com... ====== In analysing where our debate is at with regards to these rules: 3b. PRO gave a reasonable definition - the definition intended was spelled out clearly. The definition is used by professionals in the field, although it's "more technical" terminology would have been known as "Strong Agnosticism". CON has challenged the reasonableness of the definition. Was it challenged at the "earliest opportunity"? that is for the judges to decide. 3c. Since CON has challenged the definition, the judge must accept the definition of the side that shows better interpretation. PRO has used a reliable dictionary definition that represented exactly the position that the contention addresses. PRO further has elaborated on the usage of the term found within the 2 main divisions of Agnosticism and shown conclusively how PRO's definition should be accepted. 3d. If CON now accepts the definition listed as actually being the same as "Strong Agnosticism" (which it is) then for the remainder of the debate it cannot be challenged. So it remains to be seen if CON will further argue this particular point or accept it. ====== 2. Premises CON has not specifically pointed out anything that isn't logical in PRO's premises other than to argue against contention B. and now also argued against A1. PRO will assume the other premises are accepted since they have not been challenged. The other 2 points (B. and A1) will be addressed after this. In this point PRO would like to go on the offensive more and try to get CON to focus on the heart of the matter, which is this: *Agnostics can't KNOW if someone KNOWS God exists or not. .. therefore Agnostics don't KNOW that no one knows. .. they just "believe" that no one knows! I would ask CON directly if he believes that to be a true statement? and if not, then why not? 3. Premise A1 from CON: "I'll continue on to Pro's 3rd contention and A1; firstly, I'm not sure how to make any sense of A1 since if an agnostic, we'll dub them (A), knew someone else, we'll dub them (B), didn't know that God exists,--well, I don't see at all how the agnostic received that knowledge from God. .. " OK to explain how person A found out how person B didn't know how God exists --- First of all they cannot know what B knows (with normal powers of a human) *and that is EXACTLY the key point of the whole debate by the way! (that A CANNOT know if B knows about God or not)(this is definitely NOT an irrelevant point! ) But PRO even went to the NEXT LEVEL of argument for the premise of A1 (to remove any chance of debate) and concluded that the only possible way that A could know about what B knows is that God Himself would have to reveal that to person A. .. in other words a HIGHER SOURCE OF KNOWLEDGE would be required than what A has normally. So if person A DID happen to receive this divine revelation/knowledge (from God) about what person B actually knows--then it would automatically turn person A into someone who knows God. And if a person knows God, then by definition they are not an agnostic. Therefore a person who "fits the definition" of an agnostic CANNOT KNOW what person B knows. also CON's statement "well, I don't see at all how the agnostic received that knowledge from God. .. " leads to another KEY: *EXACTLY! ! the agnostic CANNOT "KNOW" how God reveals knowledge! I have more on B. but will address later