The existance of god

The agnostic views of the nature of God emanate from the desire to perceive reality. The views on truth were put forward by Immanuel Kant and David Hume, with Hume originally adopting a skeptical stance that would later form the basis for agnosticism. One of their main points are that the experiences we’re going through now are unconnected and totally different (Harvey, 2013). The relationship between the cause and the result seen cannot be completely understood or known with certainty. This reason, influenced by Hume, contends that causal relations are merely dependent on perception, and that causality is only reinforced when events are related. Kant, who believed that one’s knowledge is shaped by the experiences through the five senses, was greatly influenced by Hume’s ideas. A common ground was reached that the actual reality cannot be known if people are dependent on their senses because everyone experiences a similar event differently. Through the arguments in the agnostic theory, theism and atheism belief are found to be limited and flawed.
The ideas of theism and atheism are insufficient, and there lacks enough evidence to back them. As a result of this, agnosticism is the best rational theory that should be subscribed from the explanation of the existence of God. Agnosticism view proposes that the knowledge about God’s existence is unattainable and thus hard to justify whether God exists or not (Sherkat, 2008). Two grounds can be taken to prove the strength of this scholastic view. The first view holds it that the knowledge about the existence of God is unattainable for there is no evidence to justify this stand. The second view is based on the idea that the knowledge about the existence of God is unattainable because, in the first place, the evidence about his existence is unattainable. These two grounds are necessary for the formation of arguments for incomprehensibility and uncertainty.
The incomprehensibility argument is important in the establishment of a stand against theism. Theist claim that it is hard to comprehend God because his being is far beyond our mundane experiences or formulated concepts (Harvey, 2013). An in-depth analysis of this statement proves to be supporting a different theory altogether which is agnosticism. If human beings cannot fully comprehend God, then it is difficult to have confidence regarding the existence. The argument from uncertainty is based on the idea that it is difficult to prove the existence of God. All forms of evidence that can be presented by theists and atheist about the existence of God are fallible, and, therefore, better of discarded. It is true that fallible pieces of evidence are accepted to form the justification for our variety of beliefs.
Agnosticism introduces a moral concept in its believers to strengthen their stand. Apart from the lack of courage in opinions, one has the freedom to choose whether to live within the confines of philosophy or morality (Sherkat, 2008). Choosing to believe or not to according to the provisions of the religious teachings does not fully prove the existence of God. There is also another logical point which in defense of the agnosticism based on the Godhead’s existence beyond the understanding of human beings. The arguments get over the fallacious morality and forms of wishful thinking. Related to these concepts are the ideas of assumptions and pieces of evidence. Believers in the existence of a deity hold it that the belief or disbelief in the existence of God is at par. They also assume that both beliefs and disbeliefs are forms of beliefs. This argument turns out to be confused and at the same time fallacious. People who believe in the existence of an item W of a Z kind makes more assumptions than those who do not believe. The explanation behind this is that the positive beliefs entail a greater degree of assumption than the absence of belief.
Theists should focus on the things they do not know despite their beliefs on the unknown. The existence of Angels, Jinn, Demons, Hell and Heaven are better classified as metaphysical claims that are unknown. There is no believer who can clearly explain what they are thus classified as falling outside the rationality scope. Holding beliefs about the occurrence of the supernatural phenomenon called miracles such as Muhammad splitting the moon or Jesus walking on water is completely irrational. The events are not metaphysical and can be explained using the laws of physics which are known to us such as the surface tension. There is therefore what is rational, irrational and what falls outside the rationality scope. Although the theists hold a number of metaphysical beliefs, most of them should be categorized as unjustified beliefs, unknowns, philosophical conjectures, and theoretical possibilities which are rooted on possibilities.
In his works called ’Agnosticism,’ Thomas Henry Huxley (1948), argued that matters of intellect requires reason without other considerations. This principle is used to reject atheists’ ideas which are formulated to disapprove the existence of God without the ability to demonstrate it. It is not possible to justify the inexistence of God, and because it is only certainty that can justify his presence, atheism is ruled out. The belief can be further faulted based on Leslie Stephen’s agnostic contributions in his book, An Agnostic Apology. Stephen argued that the human intelligence has limitations and that theology is outside the limits (Eastwood, 1893). The claims that God does not exist transcend these limits and therefore, the atheists’ conclusions are unacceptable. Agnostic superiority over atheism can also be based on dogmatic arguments. Atheism is a dogmatic view with authoritative features as well as arrogant assertions of unproved and proved principles. Since dogmatic views ought to be avoided, atheism too should not be left out. Comparatively, agnosticism is flexible, open-minded and tentative and is thus preferred to atheism.
Conclusively, agnosticism appears to be superior to atheism and theism. This stand is backed up with sufficient facts that expose the loopholes in other stands of beliefs. In order for a believer to take a stand on the best faith, it is good to embrace rationality and weigh the ideas postulated in other opposing stands. Disapproving a stand without sufficient facts just like the atheists do in rejecting the existence of God, makes the claims to weak and unsatisfactory. Agnosticism has embraced all the qualities that should be used to establish a religious stand and should be advocated for in finding the truth about the supernatural beings. Claims that the agnostic stand is just a way of playing safe on the argument about the existence of God are therefore inadequate and cannot be used to rule out the philosophical stand.

References
Eastwood, A. (1893). Book Review:An Agnostic’s Apology, and Other Essays. Leslie Stephen.
Ethics, 3(3), 405. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/205196
Harvey, V. (2013). Huxley’s Agnosticism. Philosophy Now, 99, 10-12.
Huxley, T. H. (1948). Selections from the essays of Thomas Henry Huxley. FS Crofts.
Sherkat, D. E. (2008). Beyond belief: Atheism, agnosticism, and theistic certainty in the United States. Sociological Spectrum, 28(5), 438-459.