[Tuna-Fish]

Depends on how you define agnosticism. To use a popular example, I am not agnostic about you having an invisible fire-breathing dragon in your garage despite not being able to put a flat 0% probability on it.

Bayesianism redefines the concept of knowledge, which under Bayesianism is represented as a probability. I have very strong knowledge that there is no god. If given sufficiently strong proof against that, I will update my beliefs about the issue -- but this does not mean the same as being unsure about it now.

[bayesianhorse]

You shouldn't have any "knowledge" that there is no god.

The issue isn't that there is a small probability of god existing, but rather there is a vanishingly small probability of your particular brand of god being true versus all the other particular brands of god or gods being true.

The pudding in a Bayesian discussing is as so often in the normalizing factor...

[Tuna-Fish]

No. I have done quite a lot of observations on the world. Each and every one of those observations has produced a result congruent with a world in which no gods exist, and so has very slightly nudged my P(god) towards zero. Under a Bayesian philosophy, this probability is called knowledge.

[bayesianhorse]

Then you have to assume that god fudges with the physics so you can catch him at it. Which means that all faiths on the world must assume a god would interfere in a situation that you utterly and completely observed and understood. Because otherwise there might be a true god from some religion who just doesn't care about you.