The only honest view of the god debate is Agnosticism.

**Upon reviewing the debate, I noticed a demanding hole that must be filled. God has not been defined. Now, the exact meaning of what a God would be is ambiguous, but researching it best yields "A being of supernatural powers or attributes". (1) My opponent may disagree with this if he likes, but in order to create the Universe and its inhabitants, this deity must indeed exist outside the known realms of space and time, places that we do not know exist.**I defined that which would be acceted from my perspective, in Round 1. Here they are, for clarity:1) A being not bound by the limitations of the laws of physics, as we understand them. This being, in order to merit the title of 'god,' would have to possess the ability to not only suspend, but alter/change the laws of physics, as we understand them.2) A being not bound by the limitations of space and time. This being would have to be able to exist in more than one place, simultaneously, and be able to be perceived by those of us who are bound by this limitation, in conjunction.3) A being fully capable of displaying the ability to create life. In addition to being able to suspend the laws of physics as we understand them, the ability to give life (not just reproduce, as in nature). To be able to animate organic material would, indeed, require abilities/properties that could be described by no word or concept other than 'god.' I do not disagree with my opponent, on his definition. Personally, I don't see that such an entity could be possible, in our space-time, either. It seems that we are in agreement, here.**What is an atheist?** Given that entry 'b' of the dictionary appears to be an unequivocal statement, it must be stated that the splitting of hairs will be the ultimate result of our debate. However, it's these splitting of hairs that are the actual point of the proposal. Whether or not a perspective can be changed is not the issue. It's the perspective one holds that is the subject of the debate, upon its inception. Making the statement that there is no god is equally concrete as the statement that there is. It is an assertion. Neither statement can be made, though the con is more accurate with respect to gods that have been asserted. If the only question involved was regarding gods that have been purported, I would, indeed, be an atheist. Thus, this discussion will ultimately boil down to whether my opponent state, unequivocally, that there is no god.**Providing a definition for the term atheism, my opponent might have done well to also look up "disbelief", instead of simply insinuating that it barred any chance of variation or oscillation.**Again, variation or oscillation is not in question, here. This proposal was not made with respect to locking anyone into their first estimation. Else, I would still be locked into being an atheist.**The correct terminology for one who doubts the God hypothesis, and sees no evidence to support, is not agnostic.** I disagree. Frankly, I don't even grant the existence of any god that humanity has ever put forth the grace of an hypothesis. I see all of them as a delusion, so far. All are based on ridiculous manuscripts, make completely ignorant and fallacious assertions, and claim sole and exclusive dominion over the realm of morality as a direct correlation to their obviously invented and inane gods. However, Merriam-Webster defines agnostic as follows: : a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not : a person who does not believe or is unsure of somethingSource: http://www.merriam-webster.com...Dictionary dot com defines it a little differently:1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature ofthings are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. Synonyms:disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever; doubter, skeptic, secularist, empiricist; heathen, heretic, infidel, pagan. 2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study. 3. a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic: Socrates was an agnostic on thesubject of immortality. adjective 4. of or pertaining to agnostics or their doctrines, attitudes, or beliefs. 5. asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge. 6. holding neither of two opposing positions: If you take an agnostic view of technology, then it becomesclear that your decisions to implement one solution or another should be driven by need. Source: http://dictionary.reference.com...; It would seem that the authoritative and accepted definitions of agnostic would tend to disprove my opponent's assertion on agnosticism.**However, what we have been able to discern extends far, far beyond, to the beginning of the Universe, to the creation of the planets, and even to the random coagulation of those first amino acids. Everyday, our scientific knowledge grows, and we are aware of even more that we do not know as a species. So, I must ask the question: why must we postulate a supernatural being where none is needed to fulfill our understanding?**While what we have been able to ascertain upholds the belief that we both accept, I must correct my opponent, one more time. I have not postulated any god. I agree that no god is needed, in order to complete any understanding of our universe. This misconception may come down to a misunderstanding of the word "postulate" (v), on the part of my opponent: 1. to ask, demand, or claim. 2. to claim or assume the existence or truth of, especially as a basis for reasoning or arguing. 3. to assume without proof, or as self-evident; take for granted. 4. Mathematics, Logic. to assume as a postulate.Source: http://dictionary.reference.com...In fact, I have not even inferred any god. I have only inferred a possibility, based on a current lack of information and lack of contact with the vast majority of our own universe, let alone other possible dimensions...**Pro seems to be grasping the same straws as many theists and deists I've debated, making excuses, and cop-outs for how God could still be a reality.**Again, incorrect. I am not grasping, but recognizing my own ignorance. I am stating my own lack of experience and contact with even our own universe, let alone anything outside of it.**...nor will we ever be able to preclude the existence of a God. And atheists certainly don't.** Actually, yes, atheism does preclude the existence of a god, by textbook definition. Perhaps my opponent holds a different definition in mind for what atheism truly is. Additionally, I may have been remiss in not having included the accepted, textbook definitions of both atheism and agnosticism, in the initial proposal... In any debate I undertake, I try not to deviate from accepted definitions of words. In language and communication, words are concepts in and of themselves. Each concept being conveyed requires that both sides of a discussion have the same understanding of a concept in mind, when using the same word. I sincerely hope that my opponent understands that I am, in no way, attempting to put forth any hypothesis for a god. I wish only to demonstrate that to state, unequivocally, that there is no god is a fallible statement which cannot be made honestly, taking into consideration what we do not yet know.**My opponent's response to the story is to ask a series of inane questions that completely miss the moral, I suppose you could call it, of the story.**That the questions posed are inane is a given. They are ridiculous minutiae, and are in no way intended to support the child's assertion of the elephant. However, the fact that the reader assumes answers to these questions, without even posing them, is the same mistake that is made, when asserting the atheist position that there is no god. It is still, after all, an assertion.**it could be argued that God exists in a metaphysical sense**I honestly would not argue anything, in any metaphysical sense. When one gets into any 'abstract' sense, anything goes (so to speak)... Meanings are lost, and nothing of any substance can really be ascertained, since anything can become an 'abstraction' and given a new definition or description. The metaphysical, in this sense, is meaningless to any discussion of any import to the physical world in which humanity exists. I exist. Of that much I am certain, and I won't let another relegate me to existence in the confines of the imagination or 'dream' of another. I am physical, and I live in a physical, natural world of reality.**I will conclude by saying that it seems to me Atheism does not exclude a deity**I have to disagree, here. Atheism, by definition, absolutely does exclude a deity. It is agnosticism, that does not. In this sense, therefore, my opponent arguing that they are not excluding a deity removes him from the ranks of atheists, and places him firmly among the ranks of agnostics. If my opponent is willing to join us, he will be accepted with open arms (especially since we seem to agree on everything but the definition of atheism, anyway).I will conclude with this: Inasmuch as I find the entire idea of a god both unnecessary and unwarranted, my opinion does not dictate reality. I have to admit that those things that I don't know vastly outnumber those things that I do. My not being aware of something does not preclude its existence. For this fact, alone, I must stand firmly within the confines of agnosticism.