Agnosticism is the Correct Religious Stance

I would like to ask my opponent why he feels that we are no longer allowed to discuss theism as part of the discussion. Since this is the position that 90% (Estimate) of the world holds, it would seem that this is where the argument would center itself since arguing for a deistic god is pointless if this being takes no part in the world he has “created” and the notion of such a deity does nothing to add to the argument otherwise. However I will agree with this and move on. I would like to disagree with pro on his definition of a deistic god since it is impossible to infer both because this being has chosen to not reveal itself to us, and therefore we cannot know what this being is like let alone know that it is all powerful or all knowing. The only thing we know is he jumpstarted the big bang (If this being existed mind you) and we have no idea if he can even interact with the universe he created after the initial interaction and therefore to assume the definitions pro described would be in error since this being by definition is unknowable. While pro may have been trying to disprove a stronger form of atheism (I.e. the belief that there is no god or what is called Positive Atheism) I am going off the definition of the many prominent atheists of the day which is a lack of belief in a theistic god, since the utter lack of one cannot be wholly disproved (1). However, this does not mean that agnosticism is the correct solution because to say you are an agnostic means that you feel that one day we may be able to prove the existence of god. I say in order to prove anything with the same certainty as say gravity or evolution you must be able to test and measure for such a being and it must be able to be replicated. However we know that this is not possible due to the very nature of god being stationed outside our universe and therefore, as it is asserted, not subject to our physical laws. So the only way you can even come close to “Proving” the existence of god would be through philosophy which I submit is not a reliable method of proving anything since most of philosophy is subjective and does not have the same level of accuracy or neutrality as the scientific method. Now as far as logic goes to prove the existence of god, I have to say that so far it has been on the side of the atheist for some time, since the more we learn about the universe the more we find that it seems an ultimate being did NOT design the universe and as such the massive amount of chaos, disorder, evil and utter madness in the universe today and soon to come proves this. In the words of Christopher Hitchens: “You [Frank Turek] mentioned Edwin Hubble and the way that he saw the red-light shift and saw that the universe was not just expanding, but expanding very fast, away from itself, that the Big Bang had not stopped. Lawrence Krauss, great physicist, probably the next Nobel Prize winner for—has noticed that most peoples’ assumption was wrong, that though this expansion was taking place, it was thought, the rate of speed of expansion must surely be declining. People still think in Newtonian terms in this way. No, says Krauss. He’s pointed out and now it’s agreed by all. No, the Hubble rate of the red-light shift is increasing. The universe is dissipating itself at high speed and the speed is getting greater. What does this mean? Well, it answers the question of why is there something instead of nothing. Because now we have something. We’re all here because there’s something, and nothing is coming right for us. Very soon a physicist wouldn’t be able to tell the Big Bang had ever taken place, so far sprung apart will the whole system be. And meanwhile, look in the sky at night and you can see the Andromeda galaxy headed straight for us on a direct collision course. Who designed that? Who made it certain that every other planet in our solar system is either too hot or too cold to support life, as is most of our own planet, and that in just one tiny, irrelevant solar system already condemned to heat death and implosion” (2) So how can we deduce a designer from this chaos and why would anyone want to credit such a supposedly benevolent creator with this mass destruction that is headed our way? This to me would seem to imply if not prove that there was no design at all in the universe and that it was all happening by chance. With that said I think we can move logic into the category of evidence in favor of the atheistic world view. Now, I have to say that I am a little surprised that my opponent decided to bring up the idea of external world skepticism again, since the whole theory has been more than adequately debunked based on assertion that the statement is a syllogistic inference and therefore requires an extra premise which Descartes of who pro mentioned did not justify. Many have also called the inference self-evident and there is no need for such a claim since the very claim is circular and leads nowhere. While I see where my opponent is going, I warned him that this could lead to a slippery slope and therefore his credibility is damaged by his insistence on using such arguments. (3) Pro is correct in his assertion that any religious person worth their salt could just refer backwards in their arguments to assume that what science finds is “gods doing”, but any sane person on any other subject would see this for what it is, a logical fallacy since a claim such as this is un-falsifiable and therefore an invalid proposal (4). I cannot be asked to attack a position which is non-falsifiable and the person who does ask this is deluding themselves in thinking any sane person would agree to this. I would also like to point out that pros assertion that just because we have gathered much that disproves what ancient and current religious people believed as divinely orchestrated does not mean we should shy away from the belief that there is a god. I say that is the perfect reason to shy away from such an argument, and I would ask pro what would he consider a good reason to move away from such a claim if this is not sufficient. Allow me to demonstrate: suppose you have a person who claims to be an expert on a field of science and says that you should trust them due to this assertion. However the more you interact with them the more you find out that they really don’t know anything and they actually are quite wrong on much of what they are saying. Are you going to continue to believe what this person says, or are you going to give them the wide berth they deserve and treat what they say with skepticism and contempt? I think the answer is obvious and this is the reason the atheist disregards what the theist says in regards to god. While the question of the existence of god may be unchanged with the march of science (Again no one can disprove the existence of god) the scientific advancement has made the existence of god more and more unlikely as it continues to learn and study about the world around us, and as such I still say that atheism is the correct stance to have until such time as the evidence for god is forthcoming. (1) http://www.investigatingatheism.info... (2) Hitchens versus Frank Turek full debate can be found in the first video in the margins http://www.youtube.com... (3) http://en.wikipedia.org... (4) Second video in the marginshttp://www.youtube.com...