Agnosticism is the Correct Religious Stance

The reason I proposed we move away from the theistic God was for the simply reason that I don't believe either of us are arguing for that particular God, and this God is much harder to argue for than a deistic God. The definition of the deistic God is one I got from a philosophy class. The definition is derived from logical deductions based on indirect observations (assuming this God exists). The deistic God is described as a grand creator, who created the universe, logic, and mathematics (among other things). In order to create the universe it must have been all powerful, and the deistic God must be all-knowing because it would know the characteristics of everything it made. A deistic God may still be an all moral God, but this is (arguably) not a logically derivable concept from the perspective of a grand creator. We can get real nit picky over other features this God may have, but this is the basic starting point most philosophers start from (to my knowledge, anyway). NOTE: I intentionally use "it" to describe God because I do not see why a grand creator would need to reproduce, thus sex is irrelevant. Referencing God as "he" or "she" is simply cosmetic and would not change God's nature. Return Responses in Order My opponent is a proponent of an epistemological theory known as empiricism, one of which I'm sure many atheists hold. Empiricism dictates that all knowledge comes from experimentation and observation. The problem with this that I keep coming back to is that we do not and have never derived all knowledge from experimentation and observation. In order to interpret any sort of experiment and make conclusions about the universe we must resort to logic. I would argue that all knowledge comes from logic, and then logically we can use experimentation and observation to make logical conclusions. However our core, fundamental source for knowledge is the application of logic. For example, the scientific process is actually a logical algorithm developed by philosophers over time. http://science.howstuffworks.com... Now let's address my opponents method of proof. First evolution hasn't been proven with the uncertainty that atheists like to say it has been, but that's a conversation for another time. Next, the process of testing, measuring, and being able to replicate that particular experiment anywhere is a fantastic scientific method, but it's actually no longer accepted as the only means to illustrate scientific truth. The cutting edge of science deals in quantum mechanics, and in quantum mechanics you usually can't rely on this approach, but nonetheless we believe we can learn important scientific facts from the study of quantum mechanics. For example, testing anything in science usually requires a control experiment to compare effects or that you have. In quantum mechanics simply observing a phenomenon actually changes the outcome, nullifying your ability to have a control.We cannot measure everything in nature because nature deals in probabilities, and we cannot even measure the probabilities of events because the probabilities change. This phenomenon is known as "probabilistic waves," and there is literally no physicist alive who can claim to understand this. We cannot replicate experiments because its nearly impossible to create initial starting conditions, and even if we can the events are likely to be different every time. We still say QM can inform us about nature, but we need more radical theories to describe how we prove things scientifically. http://www.youtube.com... Next, we do not need to experiment and replicate phenomenon to known that they occurred. When we dropped bombs atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we observed their explosions and we studied the outcomes afterwards. However even if we didn't observe the explosions of the bombs, given enough information and time we could discover that they did go off, where they went off, and possibly how they went off. So we can still say that certain events happened even if they only occurred once, or that events happened even if we never observed them. We do not need replication or direct observations to make scientific conclusions. In conclusion, all knowledge is based upon logic, through logic we derive science, but science does not require measurements, replicability, or even direct testing to make conclusions. This is why we can make indirect observations that a God may exist, and by which we may be able to one day prove God exists through indirect scientific proof (unless of course it reveals itself to us). Back to Agnosticism The whole point of illustrating the flaws of the scientific processes is because I believe most atheists (my opponent included) are basing their foundations of knowledge on an outdated, 17th century scientific ideologies. Nonetheless I will again attack the atheist's "disbelief" that a God exists. The main reason atheists disbelieve God exists, as proposed by my opponent, is because ideas that because we have found scientific reasons to explain phenomenon other than God we have less reason to believe God exists. Perhaps this justifies believing less in a theistic God, but not a deistic God. Let's revisit the equation I posted in my last argument, but written a bit more clearly. The old method of describing nature: Known Laws+ GOD = Reality. After making some discoveries, we found that Older Known Laws + Newly Discovered Laws + Undiscovered Laws = Reality While we found ways to explain the universe more and more without God, we may still come across some facts about nature later on that may only be explainable through the existence of God. This could be done through indirect observations of nature or witnessing a direct interference (either once or consistently) of a God "tweaking" nature. Also, this discovery of new laws and explanations doesn't affect whoever wrote this equation in the first place. This DOES give us reason to doubt in the theistic God and the so-called "experts" in its existence, but it does not justify disbelieving in a grand creator. I do not argue with the atheists skepticism on the existence of God, agnostics are skeptical to. I argue that they do not have a logical basis to begin disbelieving in God since the existence of a grand creator is independent of scientific discovery, and one day we may need God to describe the universe. I argue that, at the moment, we don't know. One day we may, however, once again need God to describe nature (or it may reveal itself to us). However even if this day never comes it would still not take away the possibility that a God may still exist. Arguments for Destruction The argument that a all-powerful being would create a universe that will ultimately destroy itself presents more of a problem to a theistic God than a deistic God. Theists need to try and explain why an all moral God would wish for the destruction of its subjects, however a deistic God may have just decided that it wanted to make a universe which will destroy itself. If a car designer decides to make a car that will eventually break down, it does not mean there was never a car designer to begin with. This gives us a reason to question the morality of God, but not if there was or was not a grand creator. External World Skepticism: The main reason I kept referring back to EWS was simply to show that scientists and atheists often make a basic assumption that is similar to assuming there is a God. There are many people who argue against EWS, I do not believe it is likely that the world around us is a fabrication, but I recognize it is still an assumption that I can't prove wrong. This assumption is similar to the assumption theists make, because no matter what they will never be proved wrong.