What if nobody can know?

The claim under examination: the questions about God and life after death are permanently beyond human reach, so the only honest position is to stop.

Standard · preponderance of the evidence, not proof

◆ The case for

"I don't know" is not weakness. A jury, a scientist, and a doctor all refuse to claim more than the evidence supports.
Human minds have limits. We may simply not be built to grasp ultimate reality, the way a dog cannot grasp a mortgage.
Underdetermination. The same evidence may fit more than one explanation no matter how hard we look.

◇ The case against

Unknown is not unknowable. Not knowing yet is a very different claim from never being able to know.
Not every path is equally sealed. Some worldviews make checkable historical claims; some make none.
You have to actually look first. Declaring the question closed before examining the evidence is not humility, it is a shortcut.

The verdict

DisprovenUnlikelyPlausibleStrongly supportedEstablished

Modest agnosticism is strongly supported whenever the evidence is thin. The stronger claim that the answer is unknowable in principle is possible, but not established.

If you read nothing else

Have we reached the limit, or just not looked far enough?

There is nothing weak about "I don't know" when the evidence does not support more. But "I don't know," "nobody knows," and "nobody can know" are three different claims, each needing more support than the last. Before declaring the whole subject sealed, we should see how far the checkable paths actually go.