Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions

[mhss1992]

I know that there have been many threads about this, but I'll still create this one because:
1- It's a subject that's been bothering me a lot lately.
2- I believe my arguments have evolved quite a bit since last time.

(I think I've said this exact same thing before. Oh, well...)

The purpose of this thread is to demonstrate that if one is to follow strictly logical and scientific rules to determine all of their beliefs, the only answer concerning religious matters will always be agnosticism (pure agnosticism, mind you. The one in which people affirm they just don't know).

I'll start by listing and refuting the main atheist arguments, and the religious ones will most likely be refuted in the process as well.

I - There are several logical inconsistencies regarding the existence of God (the existence of evil, impossibility of free will, omnipotence paradoxes, etc.), therefore, it can be proven by reductio ad absurdum that God does not exist.

II - Gods were just invented by humans. There's no reason to believe in a specific God, as there are several religions with unique dogmas and Gods. It's just extremely implausible that one of these specific Gods is the real creator of our universe, so why should I favor a single one over the myriad of other possibilities?

III - Occam's razor. Our universe can be described in a satisfactory way by our current theories. It's completely unnecessary to create external entities beyond that, so what's the point?

IV - mhss1992 is a hypocrite. He is asking atheists and religious people to become agnostics, even though he is a DEIST. What the hell???

I'm not trying to do a strawman attack. I actually think these are the best arguments atheists have created, and I've seen many people using them (except the last one). If you have another one, feel free to say it. Well, let's begin:

I - No, it cannot. Perhaps you can prove that the biblical God has several inconsistencies (it has, but I'm not going to cite them as several people have done that already), but that doesn't prove that "God" doesn't exist.
What do I call "God", then? Well, an intelligent cause. That's it. No more specifications.
An intelligent cause is a perfectly valid theory in and of itself. It can be good, evil, neutral, not omnipotent nor omniscient, or even a being from ANOTHER universe, as long as it's smart enough to intentionally create the world in all of it's complexity. There's no absurd whatsoever, since it's absolutely impossible to tell whether there is or isn't a different type of matter than the one we can perceive (as our sensors are made from the same kind of matter we can perceive). So nothing disproves the existence of beings from other universes creating other universes, or immaterial forces, or whatever.

II - Hmm... It looks like I already wrote half of the answer to this argument in the previous paragraph. Well, anyway, this was probably one of my biggest quarrels with Rubix.
Here's the thing:

1-Assuming that existence is limited (a limited number of universes, dimensions, etc.) a specific event can be "implausible". For example, saying that our universe was created by an omnipotent lavender-colored mosquito inside a platinum dodecahedron weighing 16395472390.3961 pounds is ridiculously implausible. That's aproximately 0% probability.
Other specific "Gods" are actually in the same level, naturally: a bunch of characteristics given to some form of intelligence.
However... How many different possibilities are out there?
The answer is infinite.
Now, let's do simple math: infinity*zero=?
Anyone that has studied a bit of math knows that the answer can be any number!
So, the conclusion is: we can't say ANYTHING about the plausibility of the existence of a God, considering that "God" refers to the group that contains all of the infinite possibilities that satisfy the definition.
See? Very simple. This is actually valid for many other things, as well, not only God.

2- Assuming that existence can be unlimited (up to infinite universes as well), that only makes matters worse, as we can no longer say that the lavender mosquito is implausible, at all.

III - So, you're saying that if there's a simple enough theory that satisfies all the conditions, we should favor it, right?
Well, that's pretty reasonable. I agree.
Except that...

1- There's not a simple unified theory that describes the whole universe, just a bunch of theories that explain well specific areas. Also, the existence of a God is not mutually exclusive with any of them. Is it unnecessary? Well, it's actually more subjective than it seems.

2- There's not a single theory that explains why the physical laws are the way they are. We can only measure things that are subjected to the laws that work nowadays, but we cannot say anything about the actual cause of these laws. Were they pretetermined? Why?
Fluctuations in the void?
Pure randomness?
God?

It's all speculation. Always.

IV - *gasp* How dare you call me a hypocrite?!?
I am not saying that you, as an atheist or religious person, must become an agnostic because that's the more logical answer. People have reasons to believe in what they believe.

My point is: don't be a douche. Stop saying that your belief is what "science" and "logic" claims. Science and logic have LIMITS. They do not give you enough authority to affirm whether God exists or not.

What pisses me off about many atheists I talk to is their arrogance. And I am also pissed with people who believe in things just because they're written in some book.

If you're an atheist, theist, deist, whatever, it's due to personal reasons. Maybe these reasons are actually pretty good. Maybe you're just lying to yourself.

Maybe it's actually something extremely powerful, and yet you are unable to make other people see things the way you see. You just cannot express your thoughts, no matter how hard you try.

Whatever it is, don't try to force other people to accept it.