>>146
I think I understand you better. You seem to be using a slightly different definition of agnosticism from what I had been expecting; I was making the mistake of equating uncertainty with indeterminability (former a logical consquence of the latter, but not the other way around).
>since there is no proof, no-one can really know
So your claim then, is that no human really knows (now), and the definitions of (a)theist/agnostic completely regard one's belief?