Knowledge of a God's Existence or Non-Existence is Not Possible

Hello there!Thank your for accepting my challenge, and may we seek respect and a willingness to listen over victory.Let me first start by defining what I mean by the word "God."I will define God in this debate as: The supreme ruler and creator of the universe, who exists outside of time and space.Here are some possible arguments I will contend with in my opening statements:1. The Argument From Design.2. The ontological argument.3. The moral argument.4. Appeals to personal experience.Before I address my first point I would also like to say a few things about Epistemology[1] as it is pressing on this debate. I am contending from an Epistemological standpoint that propositional knowledge[2] ("knowledge that") in regards to the existence or non-existence of a deity is not possible. This assertion is built on the following points.A) Arguments for a God's existence or non-existence lack sufficient justification for being claimed as knowledge.B) Many arguments for the point I am attempting to refute are inherently fallacious.C) A priori arguments are often built on a faulty or misleading premise.This Epistemological argument for agnosticism will be manifested in my specific arguments.1. The Argument from Design "The Argument from Design purports to demonstrate the existence of God by citing as evidence the appearance of design or purpose in the natural world."[3]This argument is built on the inference of the best possible explanation, and asserts that the existence of a loving creative being relational being is the best explanation for what we perceive in nature. An example of this argument would perhaps appeal to the complexity of life as we see it, or perhaps the objects that naturally occur in our environments fit a specific function (i.e. eyes or ears). The Problem The most obvious issue to take note with this argument is that it is not the only contender for explaning the apparent design we see in the world. Darwin's Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection is I believe has 1) more plausibility and 2) greater explanatory power than the argument from design. Below are the reasons behind my two contentions.1. The argument from design is a non-scientific argument about scientific matters, and is ultimately a non-answer. It does not offer a reason behind the design except to allude to some divine purpose, and ultimately then kills the scientific inquiry.If we look at the complexity of our eyes and then marvel and conclude that, "God did it." We learn nothing more about our eyes, nor do we continue to seek how this conclusion might be wrong.2. Biological evolution gives actual scientifically verifiable and predictive arguments and has a greater plausibility based upon what we observe.Two examples:A) Cavefish and other cave creatures that are blind but still have eyes.[4] Various fish of the Amblyopsidae family either have small hardly functioning eyes or do not have eyes at all (but still the anatomical position for them). These fish are better explained as examples of convergent evolution[5] rather than intelligent design because of the presence of non-functioning eyes and pigmentation in dark enivronments for some species of Cavefish.B) The exceeding number in the variety of species. Take for example Beetles, there exists by what we know if in nature about 400,000 different species of Beetles.[6] If we were to argue that all species that exist on Earth today were intelligently designed by a rational being, then we could also deduce that there is a rational explanation for why he would create hundreds of thousands of different species of Beetle. I challenge my opponent to offer a reasonable explanation for why a creator/designer would specifically create 400,000 different species of Beetle. Evolution would contend that these different species of Beetle share a common ancestory and evolved as populations by random mutations being preferenced by a specific geographical environment and circumstance over the process of millions of years.2. The Ontological Argument "Ontological arguments are arguments, for the conclusion that God exists, from premises which are supposed to derive from some source other than observation of the world—e.g., from reason alone. In other words, ontological arguments are arguments from nothing but analytic, a priori and necessary premises to the conclusion that God exists."[7]Anselm was perhaps the first to formulate such an argument, and it goes as follows. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived. The idea of God exists in the mind. A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality. We cannot be imagining something that is greater than God. Therefore, God exists. [8] The common objection to this kind of argumentation was presented by Gaunilo known as the "Lost Island" refutation: The Lost Island is that than which no greater can be conceived. It is greater to exist in reality than merely as an idea. If the Lost Island does not exist, one can conceive of an even greater island, that is one that does exist. Therefore, the Lost Island exists in reality.[9] The defense of Anselm and modern Theist Philosophers is that this particular argument is only applicable to a "Necessary Being."However, with the advancement of modern physics it has become increasingly more complex to understand cosmogenesis and many leading theoretical physicists assert that it is possible the universe really did come from nothing.[10] My contention is that too little is known about the beginning of our universe, and any definitive assertion about the nature of the cosmogenesis would be premature and lacking in justification as information and observations are still being made.Therefore, to claim God is a necessary being ignores other plausible explanations therefore rendering the "necessary" explanation unnecessary and merely a possible outcome.3. The Moral Argument. William Lane Craig's argument on the matter is perhaps the most popular I have seen lately and is as follows. 1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist. 2. Objective moral values and duties do exist. 3. Therefore, God exists.[10]This argument assumes in it's first premise that God would be the only sufficient basis for objective moral values. However, there are others who hold to Moral Absolutism based upon either an a priori basis such as Kant's Categorical Imperative [11] or a broader scope of Moral Rationalsim and it's various forms.[12]4. Appeals to Personal ExperienceThese arguments are not often found in philosophical debates, but rather in the general one on one exchanges with those of a given faith. For example, I was raised a Mormon and now often encounter them and experience their eagerness to share their testimony of a spiritual witness. This testimony might sound like this."I know that the Church is true, I know that Joesph Smith was a true prophet, I know that the Book of Mormon is the word of God, etc.."Let's say that you respond with a simple question, "how do you know these things?" The Mormon will readily respond with a statement like this, "I prayed upon completing the Book of Mormon to know if the things I read were true, and I received a spiritual witness as a burning in my bosom."Some contend that they heard a voice even, confessing it's truthfulness.The problem with this form of justification is that it can be applied to contradicting arguments. Muslims, Protestants, Catholics, Hindus, etc. all boast similar experiences, yet if this justification is applied to their experience it becomes contradictory to the Mormon's. This causes the person to either assert that the person is experiencing a demonic presence, or are mistaken.My contention is that these assertions are all built on one's belief about their experience, therefore cannot be considered knowledge.Kind Regards,TrueScotsman