Agnostic atheism is the most reasonable perspective to adopt regarding religion.

Hello, I"m Nid. I will be arguing that Agnostic Atheism is NOT a rational religious stance. In this round, I will rebut my opponent"s opening logical statements. P1: Interpretive strength is independent of interpretive scope. R1: The ability to read does not give the reader a knowledge of everything that can be read. S1: Science does not claim to know everything about the universe. I agree on this point. P1: The existence of material not interpreted does not reflect on the validity of the interpretive process. R2: The existence of a book that an individual has not read does not prove the person is unable to read. S2: The existence of a question science has not answered does not prove science is wrong. I do not see how this fits my opponent"s argument. He argues for Agnostic ATHEISM, not Agnosticism. I will let it slide in terms of supporting only one part of his assertion, but voters should note this. P3: The interpretive process cannot accurately extrapolate the existence of something without evidence. R3: The ability to read does not give you the ability to read a blank page. S3: Science cannot be expected to understand things that have no evidence. R3 is faulty. The ability to read is not needed to "read" a blank page. Even an illiterate person can perceive a page a being blank. S3 is also faulty. Assuming he refers to theism, there is an abundance of theoretical evidence of a Deity. Take the Kalam Cosmological argument for an example: P: Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence; R: The universe has a beginning of its existence; S: The universe has a cause of its existence P4: In the absence of evidence of an object or idea, the burden of proof must default to predict the absence of the object or idea. R4: When a page is blank, it is reasonable to conclude there are no words on the page, even if (and because) the reader admits to being unable to read the words on the page. S4: When there is no evidence of a spirit world, it is reasonable to conclude a spirit world does not exist, even if (and precisely because) scientists admit to having no explanation. See my previous argument as to why S4 is not sound. Also I say this: S1: In the absence of evidence of an object or idea, it is equally logical to suggest its existence or nonexistence S2: When you do not know if a red marble is inside a bag, the chance of it being there is 50-50. S3: If there is no evidence of a spirit world, its existence cannot be confirmed or denied by science. P5: In the absence of evidence of an object or idea, the burden of proof must NOT default to 'assume' the absence of the object or idea. R5: When a page is blank, there could be invisible ink, so it is unreasonable to conclude 'absolutely' that there is nothing to read, but perfectly reasonable to conclude 'probably' that there is nothing to read. S5: When there is no evidence of a spirit world, it is unreasonable to conclude 'absolutely' that there is no spirit world, but perfectly reasonable to conclude there is 'probably' no spirit world. As I said before, there is theoretical proof of a "spirit world" or deity. Also, why is it probable a page is blank if there is no proof against the presence of invisible ink? See my argument above. If you cannot attest to a reason why there would not be invisible ink, it is equally probable. A version of S5 could say: S5: When there is no evidence of there being nothing after death, it is unreasonable to conclude absolutely that it does not exist, but reasonable to conclude there is probably something after death.