No proof settles the question of God; the honest course is to proportion belief to what can be known, and to suspend judgment.

Thomas Huxley, Kant · Agnosticism · 1889

For centuries proofs have piled up on both sides: cosmological arguments, design, the wager on one side; evil, silence, projection on the other. None has ever compelled an honest, informed mind, or the debate would be closed.
Now intellectual honesty requires asserting no more than the evidence allows: to hold as certain what is not, one way or the other, is to decide where one does not know, and to mistake one's desire, to believe or to deny, for knowledge.
Suspending judgment is therefore no lukewarmness: it is recognizing that the question exceeds what experience and demonstration can reach, and reserving one's assent for what deserves it.

Therefore So "I do not know" is no fallback but the exact position the evidence licenses: agnosticism is reason's honesty on the question of God.

How far does this reasoning convince you?

Not at all

Entirely

Put to the test

Problem