This article addresses Theistic or Deistic religious Agnosticism - positions which acknowledge that God exists, yet do not adhere to any religion, or may not believe that God is active in creation. The article Why I'm Not an Atheist covers Agnosticism proper, which takes no position as to whether God exists at all.

The definition of God defended in the aforementioned article (particularly the accompanying essay) included the attribute of intelligence - that is, God has a mind, and is a conscious agent, able to think and make decisions. Without the attribute of intelligence, it is doubtful that one can have a meaningful concept of God, as without intelligence, something is not really a person or an agent, but instead just a "thing", which causes other things to happen, as if programmed to do so. Therefore, making inferences based on the fact that God has an intellect is consistent with the definition of God defended so far.

The following is a summary of why Agnosticism is an uncompelling worldview:

• Either there is an afterlife, or there is not
  • If there is not, then there will never be any ultimate justice to rectify the many injustices which have been committed by human beings, who appear to be unique in God's creation in that they are conscious agents capable of complex abstract moral reasoning. Neither will there be any consolation for the suffering and death experienced by conscious beings in God's creation. This seems unlikely, however, given that God is a supremely intelligent agent who desires good for Himself. Intelligence is what demonstrates the superiority of love, mercy, empathy, and other virtues over their opposites. God, as the supreme intelligence, would be expected to be the pinnacle or embodiment of all of these things, not to inexplicably lack them entirely for all of the agents which He created, and knew would come into existence. Rather, as He desires His own good, it is reasonable to assume that He desires the good of the agents whom He creates, rather than capriciously desiring their hurt, or being indifferent to it
  • If there is an afterlife, then it is likely that there will be some judgment in which exploiters are brought to account for the evil that they have done. This would be an expression of empathy for those who are abused, an expression of His intelligence which recognizes the evil of abuse, and consistent with His displeasure for things contrary to His own nature of justice, empathy, and desiring the wellbeing of others
  • If one thought that the odds were only somewhat likely that there would be an afterlife, it would still be overwhelmingly more sensible to live with the assumption that there will be one, as that offers a chance at eternal and ultimate purpose, ultimate justice, and pragmatically guards against being caught by surprise by a moral judgment
• If there is an afterlife, and a judgment in that afterlife, it makes sense that God would communicate with the agents who are to be judged, so that they are aware of the criteria and consequences of the judgment
  • If the agents being judged cannot know the criteria or consequences of the judgment - or even that the judgment exists - then they are in an impossible scenario, as they do not know what they need to do in order to please God, and will be given a surprise judgment based on that unknown standard, with unknown consequences. It seems unlikely, however, that God would not communicate with human beings, because God created knowing that human beings would come into existence, and would desire to communicate with Him. And, He also knew that communicating with them would both facilitate them doing His will, and also prepare them for the judgment which they will be subject to
  • Even apart from communicating the details of a judgment, consider that a complete lack of direct communication from God at any level also seems unlikely, given that He intelligently created the universe. There does not seem to a valid reason to think that God would make a creation, and then remain silent, refusing to communicate with the conscious agents which He has brought into being, although they consciously desire it, and ask for it, which He must be aware of. Additionally, under the hypothesis that there is no afterlife, then God would have functionally remained totally disinterested and uninvolved with the agents which He brought into being, which also seems unlikely. Instead, it is reasonable to assume that God has created with a purpose in mind for the intelligent agents in His creation, because the universe is a product of His own purposeful, intelligent design and creation - in which He very easily could have made intelligent life of any kind impossible, but instead, by all evidence, tuned many parameters extremely intricately to allow for its existence

Therefore, given that an afterlife is consistent with God's goodness, as revealed by His intelligence in creation, and that a moral judgment or something equivalent would be an expression of God's goodness, it is likely that God would communicate with human beings, who are to be subject to that judgment, and who uniquely desire to communicate with Him.

Conclusion

Agnosticism is unconvincing, because God's intelligence implies purpose in creation, moral perfection, and empathy. These things imply an afterlife, and post-mortem moral judgment, which strongly calls for communication between the judge and those who are to be judged, so that those who are to be judged know about the judgment, its criteria, and its consequences.