Agnosticism makes no sense

"You claim there is no such thing as absolute truth, but your uttering an absolute. You place everything under the test, how can we test your claim that nothing is certain? Either you don't accept everything by evidence or you would then have to design an experiment to prove that claim correct." I never said that there is no such thing as an absolute truth. I said that we cannot be certain of absolute truths because of the infinite unfalsifiable claims that could render our beliefs false and illusory. But I think I see what you were trying to say. You were trying to say that if I claim that we cannot be certain of any absolute statement, then we can't test the certainty of this claim itself, correct? Sure, I admit that Agnosticism is even uncertain about itself. We can't be sure that Agnosticism is correct, but we believe it because it is the most well supported theory. The alternative to Agnosticism is Gnosticism. The Gnosticism I am talking about is a belief that you know absolutely that a certain statement or belief is correct, and no other alternatives can possibly exist. There are Gnostic Theists and also Gnostic Atheists alike who believe that their beliefs are correct with no other alternative. Gnosticism is ultimately unsound because of the infinite number of unverifiable and unfalsifiable alternatives that could exist opposing a belief. In order to be a Gnostic, someone has to not only prove their belief or claim, but also disprove every possible belief or claim that could render the Gnostic's claim false. For example: In order for a Gnostic Christian to be rational in their beliefs, they have to prove that Christianity is correct and also disprove every single other religion, concept of God, or concept of reality that would render Christianity false. If your reality is the product of psychosis, then Gnostic Christianity is invalid. If it turns out that Islam is actually the correct religion, then obviously Gnostic Christianity is invalid. If this all turns out to be an extremely intricate and detailed dream that we may barely remember when we wake up, then Gnostic Christianity is invalid. These possible alternatives stretch on to infinity, so there is no feasible way to prove that your beliefs are absolutely correct. I'd like to ask you directly, do you believe that Christianity is absolutely correct, and there are no other possible alternatives that could render Christianity invalid? Because if you believe so, then you are a Gnostic Christian. If you believe that you could be wrong, then you are an Agnostic Christian. Ultimately, Agnosticism is the best choice because there are a near infinite amount of unfalsifiable possibilities that could render our beliefs invalid. If you are Gnostic about anything, you are most likely ignorant to the numerous alternate possibilities that could exist despite your beliefs. "On top of that, you haven't addressed my starting point. You claim that it's uncertain that God exists, however if you apply evidence to everything, you would also have to use the same logic on everything (new stars, new planets, etc.) not discovered yet and claim that your uncertain of their existence as well." I stated in my previous argument that we can't even be sure that our reality is real. So yes, I did apply agnosticism to everything, even our own reality and the existence of stars and planets. Our reality could easily be a product of a dream, psychosis, or even the result of a computer program which was made by an alien or even a God. The point is that we don't know and we can't possibly know because these claims are unsubstantiated and unfalsifiable. Although, stars and planets are visible objects that we can use a combination of mathematics and brightness measurements to determine. [1] Sure, we're uncertain of their existence to a certain point, but the evidence supports the conclusion that these objects exist extremely far away. Science is always open to new evidence and ideas as long as it is supported by evidence. The idea that these objects exist is the most well supported idea, so we generally tend to believe the most well supported one. Again, agnosticism does not restrict people from having beliefs based on evidence. It only restricts them from claiming that those beliefs are absolutely correct. "My advice is: gain experience through testing and observation. You want to know if God exists? pray to him and find out because doing so is what is "testing" and through that, you gain results." Actually, researchers have tested whether or not prayer makes a difference. In a landmark study conducted with various medical patients, Christian researchers tested whether or not prayer actually helped one group's mortality rate and recovery rate compared to a control group. The study was conducted with 1,802 patients spanning from six different hospitals. Every single patient was undergoing the same surgery: coronary bypass surgery, in which doctors reroute circulation around a clogged vein or artery. "The patients were broken into three groups. Two were prayed for; the third was not. Half the patients who received the prayers were told that they were being prayed for; half were told that they might or might not receive prayers." - New York Times [2] In the first 30 days after the surgeries, the researchers found no difference between the two groups who were prayed for and the group that wasn't prayed for. After those 30 days, they found that a significantly higher percentage of people who knew they were being prayed for had complications (59%) compared to 51% for the group that was uncertain whether they would receive prayer but did receive it. The researcher's hypothesis was that being aware that one is being prayed for may cause a sort of performance anxiety. The study also found that 18% of patients in the uninformed prayer group suffered major complications like heart attack or stroke while just 13% of patients who weren't prayed for did. These results should lead people to conclude that prayer in fact does not help medical patients but instead may cause anxiety to patients when being told they are being prayed for. In conclusion, prayer has been shown to be ineffective, thus invalidating Pro's attempts to site prayer as evidence. I challenge you to show me a study that observed prayer having a beneficial effect to people. You can read all about the study here: http://www.nytimes.com... And I remind you that the study was conducted by Christian researchers who were trying to prove that prayer does work, but instead the results told them otherwise. But even though prayer has been shown to be ineffective, this doesn't falsify the idea of a God "You claim you could be wrong, but you only practically consider the possibility that he doesn't exist. By explaining the experience through natural means, you just contradicted yourself when you said "there seems to be no compelling evidence for the existence of a deity, and there also seems to be no evidence that could possibly falsify it, we are forced to remain agnostic on the issue of God." You seem to lean towards the possibility that God doesn't exist when you just said there's no evidence that could possibiliy falsify his existence." You are mistaking my refutation of Christian's eyewitness stories for attempts to falsify God's existence. By explaining eye witness accounts of God through natural means such as psychosis and schizophrenia, I only refuted the evidence offered for the existence of God. I did not falsify his existence, but only showed that the evidence is unreliable and not compelling. Again, there is no compelling evidence for God and there is nothing that could falsify the possibility of its incomprehensible existence. God could still technically exist even if people mistake hallucinations for it. In fact if no one had any supposed visions or contact with God, that still wouldn't falsify his existence. There could still easily be a morally neutral God who doesn't mettle or care for the affairs of mortals. In Conclusion: Agnosticism is the only rational choice because of the infinite number of unverifiable claims that could exist to oppose a claim. Because Gnosticism has been shown to be irrational and ignorant to this infinite amount of claims, we can assume that Agnosticism is the most well supported theory of reality and God. There is still no compelling evidence for God, and there is also still nothing that can falsify God. I hope I have shown that Agnosticism is consistent with itself, and that Gnosticism is irrational and completely unsubstantiated. Sources: [1] How to determine the distance of a star: http://earthguide.ucsd.edu... [2] Study on prayer's effect on medical patients: http://www.nytimes.com...