Certainly the on-going debates, if one were so affable to call them such, between theists and atheists make for interesting reads. Neither side proves much of anything but a devotion to faith in the gnostic - that is, their ability to discern what can and cannot exist through some esoteric function of their logic. When Euler met Diderot and exclaimed the fateful words ('Monsieur, (a + b^n)/n = X, donc Dieu existe: rêpondez!'), perhaps Diderot's response should not have been one of silence, but simply a restatement of fact. 'Nous sommes les mêmes.' We are the same. We make claims, we refute clever philosophical arguments for existence, but we prove nothing. Often enough, I hear the misconception that agnostics are really atheists without gall. Not so. The Greek 'a,' meaning 'without' and 'gnosis,' meaning 'knowledge,' is reason enough to debunk this statement. Claiming to be 'without knowledge' is the belief that existence or nonexistance of God is not knowable. Claiming to be with the knowledge that God exists is gnostic theism. Claiming to be with the knowledge that God does not exist is gnostic atheism. I am aware that gnosticism and atheism are not often attributed one another, but any claim of knowing to a certainty the non-existence of God requires some belief system like gnosticism. Thus, it follows that in order for agnostics to be proven wrong (i.e. that we do possess the knowledge to prove or disprove the existence of God), either group of gnostics, theist or atheist, must make an irrefutable claim about the existence or nonexistence of God. So, my question is, what proof can be provided to an agnostic to help him/her aquire the knowledge necessary to finally come to terms with this God or nonGod? Or is it more likely that both are figments of our sixth sense: imagination?