It is reasonable to be Agnostic about a creator to the universe!

Okay, let's wrap this up; =+= Agnostic does not mean ambivalent =+= =+= Agnostic does not mean (just) "I don't know" =+= =+= Agnosticism includes an element of "you can't know" =+= To evidence this, I quote (again) Pro's very original set-up post for round 1, in which Pro neatly defined this for us: Agnostic: 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. I think that Pro is arguing for a little bit of an off interpretation of the debate that they set up, given that they included this definition, but I'll tackle the narrow interpretation here (which would require a different definition of the word Agnostic than the one originally posted). Pro is essentially trying to argue for the very narrow "you can't prove or disprove that a god (including Deism) created the universe", which is a very different argument indeed. However, by nature of how Pro has worded it, it's far more than that, even if I allow an unfairly tight definition of the debate: Pro is at the very least claiming not just that "you can't prove or disprove god the creator" Pro is at the very least also claiming that "you could never do so" First, let me note that for Pro's claim to be true, one has to make the assumption that God, if such a being exists at all, never has nor ever will interfere with the World in a testable fashion. That seems like a strong claim for which we've seen no justification from Pro. For, if there were a creator God and they were to start talking to us, we may well be able to know. Agnosticism in this regard is not just "I don't know", it's "nobody could ever know"... and you can't get there by reason alone... Another way to see this is that It is reasonable to say: "I don't know whether or not a god created the universe" But Pro adds: "It can never be known whether or not a god created the universe" And that's a leap of faith that Pro simply hasn't provided justification for. Here are three holes that I can see in Pro's assumption: 1. As I already pointed out, it assumes that if there is this creator-god, he will not ever communicate with us; in other words, it assumes Deism (and that Theism is wrong). 2. But, on the other side, it also assumes that if there is no creator-god that we will never have the knowledge or the wit to prove it - and this assumption may also be false. For instance, if all of existence were a paradox where the big bang was created by mankind's far descendants, we could know what created the universe. I know that's a bit science-fictiony but how can Pro rule it out? 3. How are we defining "universe"? For if you mean by that "all that stems from the big bang" then we might one day find that we live in a multiverse (and therefore know how our universe came about). (p.s. don't try to extend the word Universe to include "everything" just in case you swallow God into that definition, too, eh? What's His cause? It's significantly less reasonable to propose an eternal external sentience as it is to propose an eternal external random soup). *** okay, that's the end of that bit - the next bit is on agnosticism in general *** Here's the real reason that I personally object to the term "agnostic" and refuse to be labelled by it... Remember the part of the definition that says "or of anything beyond material phenomena"? That essentially boils down to the word "supernatural". The Agnostic claims that we can never know anything about the supernatural. That sounds oh-so-reasonable as you sit on your fence... but, when we look more closely then either: 1. The Agnostic's position is right and therefore the term "supernatural" has no practical meaning and therefore "agnostic" itself has no practical meaning. 2. The Agnostic's position is wrong and one day we will know something about the supernatural So I imagine the Agnostic sitting on an imaginary fence saying: "Aren't I reasonable for not making a judgement about something that doesn't exist?". Okay, you think that I'm putting unfair words into the Agnostic mouth? Sorry, I kind of just did, to illustrate a point. Let me correct that last statement to be more fair to the Agnostic position: So I imagine the Agnostic sitting on an imaginary fence saying: "Aren't I reasonable for not making a judgement about the existence of something that hasn't affected, isn't affecting and can't affect anything that exists in nature?". And I stand shouting up at them "get off that ridiculous imaginary fence, please; you're not even on the fence right now!". Or let me put that same idea another way: I suggest that by the Agnostic's own definition it is literally not possible to tell the difference between a World with supernatural causation and one without supernatural causation. Well, that's like saying "to all intents and purposes, I know that there is no supernatural". It's simply couching naturalism by climbing and perching on an imaginary fence. And that is, ladies and gentlemen, exactly what Agnosticism is... a self-satisfied "ah, but nobody can ever know; aren't I the wise one?". It logically implies atheism (I know that there are agnostic theists, but they have to admit that they're not being logical and justified in their belief). And it makes a claim far more bold and arrogant than Atheism does, too... The atheist simply says "I do not accept the claims of theism" The agnostic says "The claims of theism are absolutely wrong! Not only that, anybody making any claims is wrong! Oopsy-daisy, did I just make a claim?" Honestly, agnosticism is self-defeating. It boils down to this (compare this to Pro's original definition and make up your own mind whether the following is a fair definition in line with Pro's): The agnostic asserts that nothing can ever be known about the supernatural. But there is one thing we know about it... that it can never be known about! You've just claimed it might as well not exist So, who's more reasonable? The atheist, of course, who doesn't say "theism is wrong" but merely "I do not accept the claims of theism". So if you like sitting on fences, you really ought to call yourself an atheist. And if you're not convinced by that, why define yourself with a double negative? That's peculiar, to say the least... has any agnostic ever heard of naturalism? In philosophy, naturalism is the "idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world." That to me looks like the same damned thing... so an agnostic is a naturalist who loves sounding smart by using double negatives! I accept that it's reasonable to be a naturalist. It seems to me utter lunacy to be an agnostic. And if you want to drop the idea of "can ever be known" from the definition of agnostic - sorry, the sense that there can never be knowledge of the supernatural is really baked into that word... in rebellion to the Gnostics who went around bleating about what they did know. If you currently consider yourself agnostic, I beg you reconsider defining yourself as a naturalist. At least you'll have removed a double negative from your life... the only reason you could possibly have to hold onto "agnostic" as a label is because you think that it will appease theists who think that agnosticism is closer to theism than is atheism... seems odd, but as it turns out, that's not true! I repeat my second ever line in this debate one last time: Isn't that atheist-agnostic-theist spectrum nonsense just such a bore? If people would only see that it's more like: THEISM - I believe there is a personal god ATHEISM - I don't actively believe that AGNOSTICISM - Nobody can know anything I urge you all to fight against the madness that is agnosticism and self-identify appropriately! Not to do so would not be reasonable :)