I watched the video above and the video on arguments against Agnosticism - in addition to the Wikipedia page on Ignosticism.
I wanted to double check to make sure my understanding is accurate or if it is way of the mark.
Agnostics essentially argue that both God’s existence cannot be proven or proven - based on what humans currently know. And are blindly saying nothing is certain, which in itself is a logical contradiction: being certain about nothing is certain contradicts the statement nothing is certain.
In our universe, something both exists and is a part of reality - for example: mass, energy, and the effect of energy or does not exist and is not a part of reality. Also, if something has an effect on this universe, it can be measured empirically or examined scientifically. If it has no effect on this universe, it is functionally identical to non-existence, as it has no effect on this universe like something that does not exist. Therefore something that cannot be proven to exist is identical to something that does not exist. Thus God does not exist.
The part I am unsure of is: by saying that both God’s existence cannot be proven or proven is synonymous to saying God exists and does not exist simultaneously – which is contradictory because something cannot be exist and not exist simultaneously.
Am I mistaken?