[quote=So Boerd]
 That would be the more rational Agnosticism. Something is only false when proven false and true when proven true. The only logical position for you would be to not know.
[/quote]

Agnosticism is also a logical conclusion. Essentially: Either one rejects that which cannot be proven (atheism), or comes to the conclusion that it is neither provable or unprovable (agnosticism).

I go full atheist because I take skepticism to its rational end point: If it does not appear to exist in the physical world, then it simply doesn't. However, if at some point physical proof of a deity comes to be, then I will either choose agnosticism or a belief.

Also: While I do not claim to know the origins of the universe, I neither claim the possibility of god doing it. Too many variables for me. Can see how others would see otherwise however for agnosticism.