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

I'm going to take this down in the order of most important (to the debate) first. I quote Pro: "For example he says it can be known that the theist God can't be true. And let's just say that is the case, but what about the Deist God?" Answer: I've made (and justified) a universal comment about the nature of (if there is one) a god: God cannot be simultaneously existent, omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. Pro does not seem to argue with this point. If this point is true, then it represents something knowable about the nature of God and thus totally refutes the position that nothing can be known about the nature of God. This next Pro quote might explain why Pro didn't even try to refute my proof: "Last time I checked 'I don't know' isn't really that technical." I fear that Pro has missed the point of agnosticism! Let's go back to Pro's original definition of agnosticism: Agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God In the meantime, Pro seems to have reduced the definition to "somebody who doesn't claim to know anything". The definition that we should be working with is "somebody who claims that any knowledge about God is impossible". This is, as I say, quite a technical position. It is, to a greater or lesser degree what the term "agnostic" means. Over time people have lessened the meaning to a very loose "unsure" position, but Pro did provide the original and more proper definition of agnostic - and it sounds like Pro isn't even in that camp! Neil deGrasse Tyson deliberately removes himself from the title "atheist" simply because he doesn't want to get involved in religious debates. He does self-identify as an agnostic but says only that it seemed the closest term to describe him; he goes on to define agnostic as "someone who doesn't know". He is not claiming that there can be no knowledge, which is what Pro is claiming (by Pro's own definition of Agnosticism). Here, I've done the research to find the video that Pro didn't bother to link to - you can judge for yourself whether Neil has the slightest intention of justifying the idea that nothing can be knowable about God: [1] (it is true that the term Agnostic has become weakened over the years, but please remember that Pro provided the definition which included the stricter meaning) Further proof that Pro hasn't quite got a handle on what the word "agnostic" means: "Personally even being an Atheist myself, I still find it reasonable for people to be Agnostic because there is no proof or evidence proving or disproving the existence of God." Pro, do you realise that it is possible to be: a) An agnostic theist [2] An agnostic theist believes in the existence of at least one deity, but regards the basis of this proposition as unknown or inherently unknowable. b) An agnostic atheist [3] Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact. gnostic/agnostic are all to do with positions on knowledge theism/atheism are to do with acceptance or rejection of the basic theistic claim I quote myself in my opening comment (second line): "Isn't that atheist-agnostic-theist spectrum nonsense just such a bore?" And here we have yet another person who is under the false impression that there is some sort of spectrum that goes from Theist to Atheist through Agnostic. Never has been, never will be. [1] YouTube Neil deGrasse Tyson on the Big Think talking about his agnosticism [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...