Agnosticism is the only sensible conclusion based on what we (don't) know

I don't see how someone could arrive at the conclusion of theism or atheism without making at least some logical jumps or some assumptions. This is purely about strong certainty in the explanation of the universe, not any other reasons anyone might want to believe in religion.

We know tons of stuff inside reality: physics, gravity, stars, electricity, science, logic. We know that these work within our reality, but we don't know what that reality itself is. We don't know where it came from, or why it exists, and we don't know why it acts the way it does.

Every argument we make uses tools that are themselves part of the thing being questioned: logic, perception, memory, consciousness, evidence, language, causality.

We cannot step outside reality and check whether those tools are ultimately valid. We can only use them from within experience.

Your religion might argue that causlity, logic, and mathematics hold up outside reality as a means to allow an explanation that a human could theoretically comphrened. Maybe they do, but that is still an assumption. This fractures the argument against agnosticsm of “you are applying logic to something where logic may not apply,” because that makes us less able to claim certainty if we can't even stand to imagine or conceptualise it. Let alone the fact that that argument also uses logic itself.

Atheistic certainty often assumes that because there is no sufficient evidence for God inside the universe, there cannot be anything behind the universe. That also seems like an assumption.

I suppose you could argue that either a god (or lack of one) would exist within said reality, but that doesn't solve the questions surrounding that reality itself, and still leaves room "above".

All that to say, we don't know anything lmao