Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Of course there’s a midpoint (or at least another option): There is an all powerful, all knowing just deity who, for reasons knowable only to itself, has opted not to reveal itself.  Intellectually, this would make agnosticism a perfectly respectable position to take, and not in the least dishonest.

Boru

The deity you're talking about is also just ( an unjust deity is a useless concept ). And as such, it cannot have left poeple before us completely lost and without any way of reaching an impartial truth about its existence. It's not fair that a deity will reveal itself in the future, because all poeple who lived before this moment missed the revelation. And there is no way to solve this problem even with very loose theological arguments.

But humans existed for tens of thousands of years before the Abrahamic god was so much as a gleam in a conman's eye.  As a Muslim, don't you consider it unfair that Allah didn't reveal himself to Mohammed until the 7th century? This clearly makes Allah unjust (according to your claims, at least).  Now, if you want to continue to claim that Allah is just, you've made the case that a god can reveal itself at any point and still exhibit justice.  If (according to your claims, at least) Allah not revealing himself makes him unjust, because all of the millions of humans who lived before Mohammed got the revelation had no access to it,  your entire argument vanishes in a puff of special pleading.

Boru