Agnosticism makes no sense

while I do agree with you on some points, I will show you how you present an inconsistent methodYou start with saying "At its very core, agnosticism recognizes the dangers in saying something like, "I absolutely know that what I believe is correct, and nothing will convince me otherwise." The danger in saying this is that you will close yourself off to new and better evidence that may reveal yourself to be more likely wrong or ignorant" As a Christian, i have only seen that Jesus is the son of God. Your welcome to bring in other evidences, but as far as i know, i haven't seen it yet. I found that the Bible itself has helped me while other religions never did. You assume the negative, you only look at the possibility of being wrong rather than the possibility of being right. "It should be important to recognize that agnosticism does not restrict people from having beliefs based upon evidence. An agnostic should never say that he knows certainly that a claim is true, but they can still say that one claim is more likely true than the other. Because of the limited capacity, scope, and logical functions of our minds, we cannot say certainly that one claim is true or false without entertaining the idea that there may be some evidence we don't know about or that we have misinterpreted. Because of this possibility for error, we as humans must recognize that we could always be easily wrong about something at any given moment. Agnostics are limited to saying that they believe a certain claim is more likely than the other only based upon the available evidence and their interpretation of that evidence. Agnostics usually express their beliefs using probability and estimations of whether one claim is more likely than the other. Expressing your beliefs through probability always leaves the possibility that you could be wrong, which is a healthy belief to maintain and check yourself against." First of all, you defined an agnostic as someone who believes that God's existence is ressolvable. An agnostic doesn't necessarily have to use science and logic to be agnostic. A Christian can be just as logical and scientific as an agnostic. You claim there is no such thing as absolute truth, but your uttering an absolute. You place everything under the test, how can we test your claim that nothing is certain? Either you don't accept everything by evidence or you would then have to design an experiment to prove that claim correct. On top of that, you haven't addressed my starting point. You claim that it's uncertain that God exists, however if you apply evidence to everything, you would also have to use the same logic on everything (new stars, new planets, etc.) not discovered yet and claim that your uncertain of their existence as well. "The human mind cannot even comprehend a spaceless, timeless, eternal, omnipotent, and omniscient consciousness, so many attempts by humans to either prove or disprove the existence of God have been futile." I agree and that's why only God can reveal himself to us. "If God were even supposedly to reveal itself to a human, the human could not even be certain that it is God. The voice or figure could easily be a product of psychosis or schizophrenia, mental illnesses that have been reported to cause devestating effects. This brings up a startling fact; we can't even be certain that our experiences are real. Our reality could easily be a computer simulation, programmed into our minds, or even a false story that our minds have made up because of a mental illness. On top of this, our memories have repeatedly been shown to be inaccurate in various studies [1], causing us to question whether or not some of the things we remember are real." You claim you could be wrong, but you only practically consider the possibility that he doesn't exist. By explaining the experience through natural means, you just contradicted yourself when you said "there seems to be no compelling evidence for the existence of a deity, and there also seems to be no evidence that could possibly falsify it, we are forced to remain agnostic on the issue of God." You seem to lean towards the possibility that God doesn't exist when you just said there's no evidence that could possibiliy falsify his existence. It's my conclusion that agnosticism makes no sense as it's own beliefs are inconsistent in attempting to examine the world but put an unceratinty on God. My advice is: gain experience through testing and observation. You want to know if God exists? pray to him and find out because doing so is what is "testing" and through that, you gain results.