Agnostic athiesm makes no sense

Unfortunely, I am incapable of sharing Con's opinion. I do not believe his argument brought a lot of sense. This may look harsh I know it does. I have nothing but respect to Con, but there is nothing I can do against a fallacy ahoy.The first argument stumpled me... What would Con want to prove? How long did it take him to conjure it? It basically goes like this: God is omnipotent, thus God is a reality wrapper. Consequently, God shall prevent the discovery of fclearly prove that he dnot exist. So, God is going to fully capitalize reality wrapping in order to combat the fact the he does not exist. Thus, reality is changed everytime God is proven to not exist in orer to hide the evidence. If God does not do that, then he is not god. Oh man... There is at least six or seven fallaciesere is no need to get into them. Lets ignore the many logical err assume this formal logic is true. Then the e is settled since it proves Godxists. This is one of the most ridiculous definition of d I ever heard, It could even be the worst. God is not random, the universe is not a random playgroud. God's omnipotent means he is perfect, he is-knowing and wise. The ct that we feel our knowledge is inferior although no animal on earth possesses it proves that there is a source of unlimited knowledge. most annoying fallacy for me is when an argument leads to no conclusion, it usually comes with a multi-fallacy pack. Philosiphically, atheists cannot disprove that this life is nothing but a long lucid dream, thus they will have to depend on blind faith and irrationiality in order to live. Phew... The worst part of your argument is over! The sci-fi spider's existance all depends on the concept of reality really. If it was philosiphaclly proven that the idea of thoughts and imagination physically contribute to reality physically is logical, then it is possible. But that was not proven, and I don't think it will ever be proven. However, you can't just equalize something to an other, the process must be done carefully after comparing all basic aspects, we don't want to spawn fallacies used to manipulate emotions and prejudice rather than relying on logic. As you may have guessed, a "fallacy from ignorance" is complicated, unlike most fallacieusing the lack of evidence to disprove something is not always a fallacy. I believe that the best way to distinguish between arguments from igorance is by determiting wheter the subjet is logically sound or not. Can your "No evidence of deitiebe compared to "No evidence of gravity" or "No evidence black holes"? We witness teffect, we don't witne them directly. Which brings us to my next point. I am guessing atheists have nothing to do with metaphysics,everything to do with materalism. It is quiet silly to believe that everythinge explained like that. Human rights is a purely metaphysical, athes should have nothing to do with it, since from a material point of view are certainly not equal. Without it, we can't explain human's morality, choices, purpose. So I wouldn't count on priests of technocracy to explain how the world works. What is the probability that this world is random? What is the evidence of morality? What makes us alive? These cannot be tested, these get concluded. In the end, God either exists or he don't. You still consider that ignorance is the ultimate answer, although I explained that this is impossible and you seemed to agree. My opponent raise some good points, but I do believe his central premise is flawed, and I'll attempt to illustrate how below.An all-powerful reality warping entity is fundamentally impossible to disprove--any reality warping entity is simply capable of warping reality so that the test never happened, assuming one manages to get a positive result in the first place. Memories can be removed, records destroyed, history itself rewound. If the entity couldn't do it, it's not all powerful.Now, I would like to draw a parallel. Let's talk about spiders, specifically purple-polka-dotted spiders from Alpha Centauri. There's no proof they exist. There's no reason to think they exist. So why should we think they exist?Belief that something does not exist, I posit, falls into two categories: active and passive. Active is actively going about thinking 'this does not exist'. It is similar to active belief in this fashion. Passive disbelief is simply, when one considers issues relating to the thing being believed/disbelieved, working from the assumption that it does not exst. Moreover, if one believes it is prudent to believe that it does not exist, either from probability or there being no reason to believe it at all, one could well, after considering the issue, decide that they did not believe that the entity in question existed.Weak atheism, as my opponent has described it "not believing in the existence of deities but not explicitly asserting that they do not exist" is indeed a very sensible concept. The weak atheist looks at the world and sees no evidence of deities. Therefore he or she has not reason to believe in them. Therefore the weak atheist does not believe in deities.To comapre this with the spiders: A person who does not believe in spiders from Alpha Centauri looks at Alpha Centauri through a telescope. They see no spiders. They look at astronomical data. No evidence of spiders. There is no reason for them to believe in spiders on Alpha Centauri. Therefore they do not believe in spiders on Alpha Centauri.