Rationally, it would seem that agnosticism is the only answer to the question of god that is without assumption, and therefore is the best position to hold when based on objectivity. However, this assertion is only true in a scenario where the likelihood of god existing or not existing is more or less equivalent. If we truly know nothing of the caveats and prerequisites entailed, or of the restrictions garnered as a result of either option, then pure agnosticism is the best bet. We grant nothing because we know nothing. Seems reasonable, right?

Unfortunately for agnosticism, this is not the case. Because of the existence of information and our ability to interpret it, pure agnosticism becomes obsolete rather quickly. As we gather more information about the universe that a creator did or didn't create, we piece together the narrative of the universe and its concepts. The more information we gather, the closer we come to a definite conclusion.

Let's apply this to something much more mundane. Before medical science, epilepsy was thought of as something akin to possession by demons. A divine illness. With no information, any and all answers are possible to accept rationally. But as people began to search for information, fewer and fewer of those conclusions seemed probable, or even possible. Now pure agnosticism is not so rational.

Returning to god, let's apply some of that knowledge. We know that no holy book has ever gotten its creation myth even close to scientifically accurate, or even possible in most cases. This means that god is likely not among any recognized pantheon, if it exists. We know that events in nature follow a strict set of rules that determine the behavior of every single particle in existence. This means that events are orchestrated by physics, and can have no inherent intent beyond the intent of their perpetrators. From this we can gather that all events are either perpetrated or are triggered by previous events and are themselves accidents. Since there is no evidence to suggest that events occur for the benefit or hindrance of anyone, we can infer that either nothing exists to have intent behind the events, or it does exist it's just clumsy. We also know that the existence of the universe is not predicated on the existence of a creator, because a creator could not exist outside the constraints of natural laws, of which there were none before the universe existed. Creation takes time, and time cannot pass before it exists.

That seems like enough to reasonably conclude that the existence of God is improbable compared to the leading alternative. Of course, infinitely many alternatives exist, but most are illogical so I just went with the big two. Not to create a false dichotomy fallacy or anything.

Thoughts?