- Those who believe the truth about God is unknowable
- Those who simply haven't and/or don't really think too much about God
- Those who are currently active in the process of questioning God's existance/non-existance and have not yet personally come up with a definitive answer
To those who believe that the truth about God is unknowable, or that the truth about God can never be proven or known, you must also logically deny that scientific truth itself of any sort cannot be known. Logically, there is a truth. Either God exists, or he doesn't. He cannot exist and not exist at the same time. Truth itself is absolute, so logically there is an absolute truth about God. Someone has to be right. Therefore the debate concerning God's existance/non-existance crosses into the realm of science. If God happens to exist, he is no longer a religious figure, but a scientific fact. Therefore if one were to scientifically pursue the question of "Does God exist?", why is it suddenly impossible to know this specific scientific question as opposed to any other one?
To say that the existance/non-existance of God can never be scientifically proven is to presuppose that science cannot answer a simple yes or no question such as this, and that science has not answered it already.
Now I am not saying that I am a harsh believer in scientism. However I am saying that certain black and white scientific truth questions such as "Does God exist?" should not be automatically ruled out as impossible to know simply because someone happens to find it to be a difficult question.
Fact is, it is logically impossible to say that the truth about God cannot be known. Because that statement in and of itself presupposes you know that statement to be absolute truth, which is impossible to prove. Therefore if it is logically possible that God exists, and logically possible to scientifically prove whether he does or doesn't exists, then it is only logical to pursue this question scientifically as opposed to dogmatically ruling it out.
Agnosticism stance #1 is an illogical stance. Agnosticism stance #2 is obviously illogical and to some extent irresponsible. Therefore the only logical Agnosticism stance is stance #3. As I mentioned, this is purely a procedural stance, and is basically meant only to chose one's side. It is only logical for every person to pursue the issue of God's existance, whether it be on their own individually, or as a collective group. Even the belief that God's existance isn't already proven is a presupposition in and of itself. Science is only data. Science says nothing, Scientists do. It is the interpretation of that same data that causes scientists to draw their conclusions, and people have proven themselves time and time again to be capable of reading the exact same data and draw completely different conclusions.
In the end, Agnosticism has no leg to stand on. All that is left is for the Agnostic to begin (or continue) active and vigorous pursuit of the answers, whether it be by themselves or with others.
And God Bless