This is actually similar to a common theist argument that the reason atheists don't believe in their particular god isn't because it's rational, but rather that they simply refuse to show proofs. They say that if God healed someone on the spot, atheists wouldn't believe, or that if God spoke to a crowd of people, they wouldn't believe. In other words, atheists are just stubborn and closed minded.
Now of course I reject that theistic argument, but it is quite interesting to consider what would be good "proof." I agree that the classical Christian God is logically impossible and cannot exist. However, proof for other gods would be fairly easy. Zeus, for example, could simply fly down from Mt. Olympus. I think that if he never aged, was invincible and able to throw lightning blots around, and everyone could see this, that would be proof enough for me that he existed. But that is a different kind of god entirely from the one that plagues our politics today.
I suppose my answer to this is that if a god existed and needed me to know it existed it could figure out a way to be known. The idea that I refuse to believe no matter what is a fine debating tool - as long as the debate is for an audience. But it reduces the god to a helpless buffoon who keeps accidentally creating works that are explained sufficiently without reference to it. I have thought, in my more agnosticy moments, that if there were a god that being should be very upset that it's earthly representatives make it look so impossibly shitty.
And that is the crux of the issue. The people arguing for a god are so pathetically bad at it. That is not the god's fault per se, but if it does exist and has this little control over it's street team, well, Christ; does it even deserve worship? Does it even want it? Again, in supposition for stories I am never going to write I have imagined a scientific god who, having touched off and cultivated a universe wherein life was a real possibility, finds that on Earth not only does it spark, but flourish. And even attain sentience in a meaningful way. This presents a moral dilemma for the god, as now it feels a responsibility for the life it fostered, and it tries to impart ideals to the sentient beings in the hopes that they will not wipe themselves out. But they keep figuring out a way to fuck it up with their own versions of these ideals and make each other miserable. The scientist god, realizing his role infected his experiment, resolves to leave it alone and let the chips fall where they may but, sadly, has already infected the results and can now only watch in sadness as the precious sentience withers under it's own god given folly.
Point being, if there is evidence for a god, the believers I am aware of have managed to taint it so heavily with their own egos and lusts how would I even recognize it? And if the universe IS the evidence, that god is so subtle as to render any notion of a human figuring it out as absurd on it's face. In all instances it seems more likely that humans created gods and have to spend the rest of time reverse engineering their own stories.
Good written response. I feel like I need to break out my red pen and circle all the un cap's... Where are your capitol letters? Is your shift and caps lock key broken? Don't make me break out the red pen.
right i suppose we would have to accept that as good evidence for god. it's the formless part i have trouble with, i just can't imagine what a god would look like.
hey, look, i'm not bothering with caps too, it's actually not a bad idea as it seems to save time : )