The only honest view of the god debate is Agnosticism.

As this is the opening of the first rebuttal round, I will address statements (some incorrect) by my opponent, and rebut them. The first is a misstatement:**Pro sees his agnosticism as the inability to come to terms on either side, and so retains a neutral posture.**This is inaccurate . I do not see my agnosticism as the inability to come to terms with anything. I'm fully able (and prepared) to come to terms with either side (theism/atheism). However, my stance is born of the fact that there is too much that we (humanity) still do not know, having never ventured outside of our own solar system... While we posit that the same physical laws exist throughout the universe we can see, our direct exposure is limited to what amounts to less than a spec of dust, compared to the reality of an universe too vast for us to do anything more than speculate. This, in itself, speaks out loudly against any god that has ever been proposed. The possibility that I leave open is the one for the existence of an entity that has not been born of any idiotic 'holy' manuscript. There is no doubt in my mind that not one of the 'revelations' ever claimed could have been born of any divinity. The trivial 100K-250K or so years that humanity has been around on this planet is insufficient time to draw an affirmative or negative conclusion.The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines atheism as follows:a : a disbelief in the existence of deityb : the doctrine that there is no deity<http://www.merriam-webster.com...;The fact is that the disbelief in a deity, not any deity specifically, is premature. Humankind simply has not come to know enough to make that statement. Further, there is 'wiggle room,' no matter what position is taken. Even reversing direction is permissible, so long as it is a conclusion drawn from honest thought. Therefore, '...the atheistic tenant...' does indeed mandate that god does not exist, by definition.As for the example of the little brother's claim leaves many unaccounted variables:1) How old is the little brother?2) Is he prone to flights of fancy (superstition), or is he simply limited in his knowledge and grasp of reality/information?3) Is the little brother fully aware of what an elephant is, or has he confused it with some other creature, small enough to fit through a standard door?4) Could he have been speaking of a mechanical toy elephant? Was his statement investigated in that light?Of course, so much is assumed by a fully aware reader that none of these (among other clarifying possibilities) are considered. By the same token, I must ask (in reference to the god debate), have all questions been asked, and has all avaialble information and data been received/examined. Clearly, having 'all available' data with respect to the god debate would make one omniscient... Also, once again, it is important that I reiterate that the absolute rejection and denial is absolutely the correct course of action with respect to any and all claims of revelation ever made to date. I simply recognize that I don't know enough to state, unequivocally, that there is nothing possible that is not yet known.Next, we have an inaccurate/incomplete derivation from the elephant example:**but in kind with the elephant example, not only is their a lack of evidence, but missing evidence where evidence should be:**Again, this only applies to gods that have been proposed. I have already fully rejected all of those, and my opponent has rehashed proof against those claims, when none is necessary. The non-existence of those definitions has already been accepted.**For example, were there a deity, wouldn't we not have a theory about the beginning of the Universe, well backed-up by evidence?*If I understand my opponent's point, correctly, this intimates that the existence of some form of supreme entity would preclude the BBT. This is not necessarily correct. The existence of such a being does not necessarily preclude the BBT (beginning of the universe). The two could absolutely be absolutely correct, and are not mutually exclusive. Again, mutual exclusivity between all previously proposed gods and real science is not in question. I am only questioning the honesty of removing the possibility of the existence of something that has not yet even been posited.**The same goes for abiogenesis, evolution, and the multiverse theory, and all of them mark the God hypothesis as increasingly unlikely.**And all of the same rebuttals apply. All previous gods are hereby rejected. This does not (and cannot) preclude the discovery of something by future humans (assuming our technological adolescence does not destroy us).**Despite all the evidence to the contrary, one will always be able to postulate a God into the Universe. My opponent does so, suggesting that such a being would operate outside the bounds of space, time, and known physics. I must ask him: is this likely?** Here, I must call shenanigans! My opponent has introduced something close to a straw dummy, here. I have not postulated any god. Neither have I accepted any. However, if entities (sentient, self aware) can exist in this dimension, can we honestly assume that this is the only dimension posited that is capable of supporting life? While scientists have posited multiple dimensions, no thought has been introduced as to what a sentient being might be like, while inhabiting another dimension. While human life is the only sentient life we have encountered in our own vast universe, its existence lies within the four dimensions we are currently capable of recognizing, contacting, observing, and identifying. Does that automatically mean that life is impossible in any of the others that have been mathmatically posited? Thus, I must reply to my opponent, twice(?). However, I must complete my opponent's question, prior to answering:A) Is this likely (in our dimension)? No. It is not likely.B) Is this likely (in all possible dimensions)? My response to this one is the only honest answer possible (just as with the speculation of 'god'): I don't know. No one does.**...unless that particular superstition presents, as Carl Sagan said, "extraordinary evidence", it should not be believed, nor pursued.**Again, I am in full agreement. What I am positing is not superstition, but the possibility of an entity that is fully in keeping with the scientific realities our scientists have come to understand and have passed on to us. While I am not an extraordinary scientist, I am fully able to grasp the concepts posited by our current great minds (Tyson, Harris, Krauss, Dawkins, etc.). I trust in their intellectual honesty, when pursuing knowledge. I further agree that no 'god' should be pursued. However, there is (absolutely) nothing wrong with the occasional pondering. After all, isn't it the pondering performed by Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, and all of our truly great thinking predecessors that have helped us to abolish stupidstitious religious nonsense, in the first place?**I enter that if you hold the position that the very real information known about how the Universe works is placed on equal ground with, or only a little more likely than, a deity for which there is no evidence, you may be an agnostic.**This statement made by my opponent appears a bit misleading. While obviously a thinker, and one with which I share (apparently) all but one position, I have to disagree with this. I have never place anything for which there is no evidence 'on equal ground' with that for which we have real evidence. Doing so is the intellectually carcinogenic endeavor of the 'creation science' lunatics seeking to infect our future generations' minds with the filth of religious nonsense. I have only posited the possibility of the existence of something outside of the confines of our currently limited contact, experience, or even our grasp. My opponent's statement would only be accurate if one who is willing to make the assessment that I have, indeed, placed those two vastly different realities in equal esteem. I have not, and never will.**...my opponent not only has to prove that agnosticism is superior to atheism, but is also saddled with his self-appointed necessity to prove that atheism is not an "honest opinion".(I assume he means intellectual honesty)**I must, once again, call shenanigans! Unfortunately, this debate tactic is (I believe) beneath my opponent, and I am quite sadly disappointed that it was employed. I do not need to prove agnosticism superior to atheism, and offering any edict to the audience any set of necessities for 'victory' is the type of move I would have expected from William Lane Craig (WLC vs. C Hitchens); not my esteemed opponent. While the onus is, indeed, on me to prove that agnosticism is the only honest view, I was not speaking of intellectual honesty (assumption incorrect). In my opening address, I stated that I once held the same position as my opponent. Even when I held that position, I considered myself intellectually honest. One may absolutely be intellectually hones, and incorrect. Even an intellectually honest individual is capable or error or oversight. This, specifically, is what made me come to realize that, if I was to be honest, I had to let go of the limitations of consideration I had placed upon myself, inadvertently. The one reason that I view Agnosticism as more honest than atheism, is because it takes into consideration the very fact of the vast amount of information that is assumed. Just as with the elephant analogy, too much must be assumed (for which there is no evidence, in either direction), to be anything other than Agnostic. With respect to a great many things, assuming is always the more dangerous road to take. Even if a god does exist, it cannot be assumed that such an entity would require (or even desire) worship. The possibility simply cannot be honestly ruled out. It is the position of Atheism that it already has been. This is, indeed, less honest than Agnosticism.