During the lecture, a few things were said about the agnostic position. The first being that someone who is a 'soft' agnostic cannot reply to someones firm belief in God with the phrase "That's just your opinion", because to actually be able to logically say that firm belief in a specific concept of God is ONLY an opinion requires one to actualy know for a fact that it is ONLY an opinion, and since 'soft' agnostics claim that they don't know anything about whether God exists, or what His qualities are, they are not in a position to be able to claim that anothers convictions are just a matter of opinion.
After hearing this, I thought further, and realised that there are also aspects of the 'hard' agnostic view that are also self contradictary. A 'hard' agnostic is one that claims that they don't know whether God exists or not and also claims that it is impossible for others to know for sure of the existance of God. However, this stance starts in a position of already claiming to know what the qualities of God would be should he exist. One of the biggest theological issues is the question of the nature of the relationship between God and the world. Is it that God is entirely transcendant from all that we can experience, or is He entirely imminent in the world, or is He both transcendant AND imminent at the same time? This question is relevant because if God is entirely transcendant, then He is beyond all ability to comprehend, in fact his existance has little to no relevance in our lives. But if God exists in any way that isn't entirely transcendant, than it is possible to say that one can become aware of His existance and qualities (and the question of how is the matter of religious practice).
In order to actually hold the 'hard' agnostic view that 'I don't know if God exists, and you can't either', you must be certain that the qualities of God, were He to exist, are entirely transcendant. Yet, to claim that you don't know if God exists, but that you know what His nature would have to be for Him to exist is abit of a contradiction, which in the end renders the 'hard' agnostics argument completely invalid as a philosophical stance.
Furthermore, by adding the ontological argument for the existance of God into the equation this 'hard' agnostic stance further seems to fall apart. he idea that 'God is that being of whom there is no greater' means that if your idea of Gods nature does not describe a being of whom there is no greater, than you are not actually describing Gods nature fully. And techincally speaking, a being who is able to be both transcendant AND imminent AT THE SAME TIME is certianly a greater being than one who can only exist in trancsendance. Therefore, by the very definition of God you HAVE to be referring to a being who is able to be percieved in reality by one in this world. And in order to say that you absolutely have to abandon the 'hard' agnostic world view. And if you still claim to follow the 'soft' agnostic world view, you would be a fool not to search out that method by which knowledge of God can be obtained.