I think you're reasoning correctly, but I don't think you have to end at an "agnostic" conclusion (which to me is like "weak atheism"). As an atheist, I never stated that I am unwilling to hear new evidence, nor should I be unwilling. Also remember, more people believing in a delusion does not make the delusion more valid. There is as much evidence supporting gods as there is magical flying unicorns... none... just guesses and "feelings".
These are good questions, but you have to remember... there has been absolutely no evidence presented which can be scientifically tested and whos result can be repeated consistently, that supports the theory of a supernatural world of any kind.
The statement "God exists" is a logical contradiction because it states "that which does not exist, exists". Let me explain...
Existance: An objective material presence (matter/energy) or objectively measurable effects of that material presence (gravity).
A complete absense of an objective material presence or its associated effects is the definition of non-existence. So when people say "God exists", they are actually saying "that which has never been detected, exists." If something has never been detected, it perfectly fits the definition of non-existence. Therefore the statement "God exists" can be restated, "that which does not exist, exists".
Because life has been demonstrated and proven here on earth, it is not irrational to acknowledge the possibility of life on other planets within our universe, given the right conditions. The supernatural has never been proven, thus to even claim the possibility of a supernatural god is an irrational proposition in the same way you do not claim the possibility of supernatural unicorns.
I totally agree with almost everything you've said there. Agosticism is entirely equatable with 'weak atheism', and i'm familiar with all your arguments. The problem with my individual belief/lack thereof is that my gut feeling (for which i can present no evidence, it is nothing more than a personal instinctual response and should not be applied universally) is to doubt that which i perceive to be logically true. Cartesian doubt, if you will.
In my philosophical studies of perception i am captivated by the possibility that all which we see as real and existing, all of science included, is nothing more than an illusion. This disbelief is across the board; i don't accept the definite answer that there is no god partly for the same reason that i don't accept the definite answer that what we experience is absolutely not the deception of a hypothetical evil demon (Descartes 1st meditation). I don't for a second contend that there IS a god, or a demon or whatever else, just that i'm not comfortable ruling it out. I strongly suspect that these e.g.s are neither of them true, but there is a niggling litte element of my basic nature that says 'you don't know that for sure'.
Similarly, in my psychological study of perception i am reminded that while the human senses are remarkable in many may ways, they are not always to be relied upon completely. I think it was Padawanbear who posted an optical illusion earlier, so i won't repeat his points, but suffice to say i'm not suitably convinced of anything. Although for the purposes of living at a basically functioning level i choose to go along with and largely 'believe' that most of reality is in fact reality.
As Haul Me To Heaven has been demonstrating, there are individuals of faith who feel they have a personal relationship with their god. Religion isn't necessarily a part of this although usually it is. Many a time i have questioned my own agnosticism and asked for god, if he/she is really there, to make him/herself known to me, but to no avail.
Among my religious acquaintances (of whom there are a number, spanning several mainstream religions) there is a shared feeling of a bond with god, an undeniable (to them) element which is their 'proof'. I almost envy that, as i don't think i will ever have such utter conviction about any matter of such dubiousness.
"For those who believe, no explanation is necessary; for those who don't, none will suffice"
I agree that my position is irrational, and in many ways illogical, but i, personally, have never been able to shake that doubt. It pops up in my day to day life and in the bigger, more intellectual matters.
Were i a person of faith who felt the presence of their god so strongly as to definitely affirm its existence then i would be a believer and probably no amount of logic could change that. But even then, i imagine that i would be tormented by my own doubts. So it goes.
People with experiences like Haul Me To Heaven make me question my lack of belief, people with logic and rationality, like you and padawan make me question my vague belief.
People like Jef f make me wonder whether they're just winding folk up or if they actually think that repeatedly asserting nonsense makes it true, or makes them the winner in debates.
Sadly, I may never have the answers to these questions.
