Agnosticism can not support its claims with facts and evidence

There are good reasons to maintain agnosticism and the evidence is firmly in favor of agnosticism over faith. I would like to begin my opening arguments in defense of agnosticism by first challenging Pro's position that agnosticism is not based on facts, then challenging Pro's position of faith. Agnosticism Further Defined Pro began his opening argument by giving a definition of agnosticism. In spite of the definition he shares, Pro seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what agnosticism is as he indicates that agnostics promote "opposite assertions cannot be true at the same time." It is then necessary to further define agnosticism. The term agnostic was coined by English biologist Thomas Henry Huxley in 1869. However, the primary hallmarks of agnosticism were recognized as early as the 5th century BCE. [1] As a philosophical position, agnosticism maintains that God or gods are unknown, meaning that agnostics do not know whether or not they exist. Agnosticism, theistic or atheistic, simply begins from a position of neutrality and makes conclusions based upon evidence, or often the lack thereof, with respect to any given deity. As denoted above, there are varying types of agnostics. For instance, one could be an agnostic theist, meaning that one could believe in God, but not know it for sure. On the other hand, you could be an agnostic atheist, meaning that you believe that God does not exist, but you don’t know it for sure. [2] It’s really that simple. My opponent is trying to make assertions about agnosticism that simply aren’t true. Finally, although the number of nonbelievers, among them agnostics, is small, the number is growing. [3] The Plausibility of Agnosticism In his opening argument, Pro states that agnosticism violates the Law of Noncontradiction, which is the second of the Three Classic Laws of Thought. I contend that this statement is more evidence that my opponent misunderstands what agnosticism is. Further, the Law of Noncontradiction was co-proposed by Bertrand Russell, a well-known atheist, as a mathematical theory in the last century [4]. Which begs the question, why would one of the most famous atheists of all time employ a mathematical theory that has destroys his own disbelief? Moreover, I believe that Pro's reference to the LONC is a straw man argument because he infers that I simultaneously know and don't know if God exists or anything of his nature. He's absolutely correct when he says that a person can know and not know X simultaneously is an impossibility. So, let me clarify for my opponent: I do not know if God exists. Period. By this statement I am not proposing two opposing arguments as true. Therefore, my position as an agnostic is not in violation of the Law of Noncontradiction, nor any of the Laws of Classical Thought. It is also perfectly reasonable to doubt the miracle claims within the Judeo-Christian religion. For instance, Pro believes that Jesus' resurrection from the dead is a historic event. But since we cannot repeat such an event, it is reasonable to doubt such an event ever happened. But since Pro is certain of Jesus's resurrection as a historical event, is he just as willing to accept the resurrection claims of other deities such as Osiris [5] or Tammuz [6] as historic? Agnosticism: The Perfect Reference Point Logically and philosophically, and contrary to Pro's claims, agnosticism is an ideal, if not the ideal point of reference from which logical thought should begin. As such, it can be viewed as a discipline by which we can acquire knowledge. It begins with no assumptions and ends with logical conclusions. However, many adherents of Christianity, particularly fundamentalist Christianity, begin with the foregone conclusion that the Bible is the absolute and final Word of God. On one hand, such a philosophical position is understandable. After all, if the Bible really is the Word of God and it is impossible for God to lie, then it should stand to reason that the Bible truly is divinely inspired. But on the other hand, if one approaches the Bible from an unbiased perspective, free from outside influence, as agnosticism does, then it becomes clearly evident that not only is agnosticism the better choice over Christianity, but logically superior. It is indeed the default position. The Bible may have good bits of wisdom scattered throughout its pages, but as it cannot be trusted as a science book or moral guide. That said, there are indeed historical accuracies in the Bible, although much of that history is founded on myth. Science Supports Agnosticism, Not Faith My opponent correctly states that science cannot tell us why we're here. I assume that he is referring to the natural sciences when he makes this statement. But if he is trying to project his own thoughts on what the natural sciences should or shouldn't tell us, then he will be sorely disappointment. The natural sciences give us methods of explaining the world around us. [7] Through repeatable, observable, testable, and falsifiable evidence, we are able to make reasonable conclusions about our world and the universe. However, God is outside of space, time, and nature itself. Since God is outside of nature, we cannot observe, falsify, or test God, nor can we repeat the miracle claims in the Bible, such as the resurrection. Therefore, I can reasonably conclude that I do not know if God exists since I am not a spiritual being. So, the natural sciences draw no conclusions about why we're here, but how we got here. The question of why we're here is philosophical and theological in nature. But if my opponent believes that the Bible is a science book, then let’s take a look at the story of Noah’s Ark. If we scrutinize the biblical claims of Noah’s Ark, questions immediately begin to rise. For instance, an adult African elephant drinks about 40 gallons of fresh water per day [8]. Genesis 8:4-5 says that the animals were onboard the Ark for 10 months [9]. If the animals were onboard the Ark for 300 days, and Noah needed to support at least two adult African elephants with at least 12,000 gallons of fresh water in those 300 days, where did Noah get the water in such a saline environment? Also, the Bible states plainly that insects have four legs [10]. We simply know that this isn’t true. These are just two examples of the laughable attempts by apologists to equate the Bible as a science book. Moreover, the story of Noah's Ark is likely lifted from other ancient tales like The Epic of Gilgamesh and the Akkadian epic of Atra-Hasis. Science is clearly favors agnosticism, not the Judeo-Christian faith. Meaning and Life My opponent infers that, as an agnostic, my life has no meaning. This argument has long been used by theists in their critique of nonbelievers, and is simply false. My life has significance because I give it significance. Believers and nonbelievers alike can all stand on the same beach in Bora Bora and enjoy the beauty of the crystal-clear blue water and sky. It is not for the believer to decide whether or not my life has meaning or if I am capable of enjoying physical beauty. If this life is all we have, then we should make the most of it and leave a better world for our children. In contrast, my opponent seems to indicate that his life has value due to his faith. Yet, the Bible that he holds so dear tells him that he is a horrible person and that his goodness comes from his god alone. Agnostics would say that is goodin spite his faith, not because of it. Morality Favors Agnosticism It is disheartening to realize that my opponent places so much stock in William Lane Craig's teachings. This tired argument is yet another one of Craig's inane and baseless inferences that morality comes from his god alone. It has been so completely eviscerated that only the most willfully ignorant of Craig's followers pay it any heed. His biblical view of morality is so logically fallacious that I wonder if Craig even spent more than an hour reading the Bible at all. But if Pro wants to insist his god is the author of moratlity, then I have questions for him. Does he believe that it is morally acceptable to beat another human being to death without punishment so long as the person doesn't die within a few days? Is it morally acceptable to kill a rape victim? Would he, as the Bible commands, kill witches, homosexuals and infidels? Would he sell his daughter as a sex slave? Does he think girls have less monetary value than boys as his god does? But this is a debate about agnosticism, not morality. If my opponent would like to debate about morality, I’d be more than happy to engage him. As for the rest of the supposed facts that Pro presents about Jesus, I simply couldn't care less. I am willing to cede that Jesus may have been a real person, although I have my doubts. But divine? Not a chance. SOURCES [1] Wikipedia, Agnosticism. Retrieved January 4, 2014, http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] George H. Smith, (2010). Atheism: The Case Against God. 1st ed. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, p. 10,[3] Pew Research Center, “Nones” on the Rise. Retrieved January 4, 2014, http://www.pewforum.org...[4] Alfred North Whitehead, Bertrand Russell, (1910). Principia Mathematica. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, pp. 116–117[5] Jan Assmann, (2001), The Search for God in Ancient Egypt, 1st ed. Cornell University Press, p. 503[6] David A. Leeming, Kathryn Madden, Stanton Marlan, (2010). Encyclopedia of Psychology and Religion: L-Z. 1st ed. New York, NY: Springer Science+Business Media, p. 267[7] Ledoux, Stephen F. (2002). Defining Natural Sciences. Behaviorology Today 5 (1): 34.[8] Keith Bain, Pippa de Bruyn, Lizzie Williams, Philip Brigg, (2010). Frommer’s Kenya and Tanzania. 1st ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Publishing, p. 503.[9] Genesis 8:4-5, http://www.biblegateway.com...[10] Levitius 11:20-23, http://www.biblegateway.com...