Well, it's just that you are willing to give this god concept some wiggle room with no evidence, so I don't see why you are not agnostic regarding, say, voodoo. You said this : "Because based on everything we can observe I see no evidence of ghosts, dragons, Harry Potter or voodoo." Surely, the evidence for ghosts and for god are pretty near identical - so why the difference? It seems you're using the possibility of god as a way of explaining "what we don't know - yet". That god-of-the-gaps gets smaller all the time. Perhaps the only real difference in our positions is that I don't feel a need to assign a creator to the beginnings of things, just because I don't know. To do that is (in my eyes) avoiding the question by saying "a wizard did it". Not a satisfying answer, even if it were true.