Your argument is essentially this:

We cannot know with absolute certainty that a god doesn't exist.
Atheists claim with certainty that a god doesn't exist.
Therefore, atheists are mistaken.

Once again, this problem only exists because you're shifting the burden of proof. The word 'doesn't' should be a clue. This argument could be used for any absurd premises.

We cannot know with absolute certainty that Santa Claus isn't real.
People claim Santa Claus isn't real.
Therefore, people are mistaken.

That's true, I didn't give examples in OP. — Henri

Maybe you could remedy that?

Your argument is essentially this... — ProbablyTrue

No, what you wrote is not what my argument essentially is, but... what can I say at page five. Maybe I'll get back to your post later, not right now.

Maybe you could give examples? — ProbablyTrue

I did reply throughout this thread. One can't force an information, just provide it.

That's true, I didn't give examples in OP.

The problem is that all the arguments I have read or heard are flawed. I would have to list them all and then explain them all. Or I would have to list them all for me privately, and then somehow rank them and explain most prominent or most regular ones. I could have done that, but I didn't.

This thread has some decent number of posts, though, and I haven't seen one reasonable argument to deny existence of God.

And again, I am not even arguing for the existence of God here. A position of neutral agnosticism can be reasonably argued, as I see it. — Henri

Why do you keep employing the incorrect definitions of agnosticism and atheism?

95% of all atheists do not assert the non-existence of god. What you presently understand to be agnosticism is actually the heart of atheism (and you're bastardizing agnosticism like every other laymen).

There are a few atheists who are dumb enough to take the hard position against the existence of god, and you're free to continue addressing them, but hard atheists don't last long and are few and far between (and none are present in this thread).

It's critical that you try to comprehend the difference between rejecting belief in god and actually believing that god does not exist.

Here's a really simple analogy to help clarify the difference between soft and hard atheism:

Let the claim "I have a soccer-ball in my closet" represent the claim "There is a god in heaven".

Now imagine that I asked you to take a position on whether or not there is a soccer-ball in my closet and that I am incapable of providing any actual evidence to show that it is there.

Are you going to just accept my claim and believe me without evidence?

Are you going to assume that there is no soccer ball in my closet?

The reasonable thing to do would be to abstain from believing (soft atheism) because it's clear you have no physical or reasonable access to relevant evidence (agnosticism).

If you decided to take the position of believing that there is no soccer ball in my closet, then you would be making the same error as hard atheists, which is the same error that theists make: they assume things without evidence.

Each and every one of your posts can be turned against theists as well as hard atheists, so I'm not sure what your agenda really is in this thread. Earlier you told me that the evidence for god is not natural, but super-natural. You do realize how silly that sounds right? Let me guess what you really mean by supernatural evidence: "evidence that I am unable to explain, share, or demonstrate exists; it's rationally useless".

Are you saying that majority of atheists are equally unsure of both God creating the world and the world coming to existence by some form of chance or unconscious process lead by big bang and evolution? Are you saying they are equally rigorous towards both claims?

As I have written couple of times, I exclude that group. But I don't think that majority of people who consciously regard themselves as atheists are in that group.

One of the definitions of an atheist is that it's "the person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods". Yes, there are broader and less broader definitions. So? I am using one of the public definitions and I am reffering to people who don't believe in the existence of God. Those people, by the way, have at least some thoughts about origin of life, since they have already been thinking whether God exists or not, and no surprise, they mostly believe in or favor materialistic explanation of existence including big bang, evolution and other similar stuff. You know, all the stuff they have been listening during all the years of their education. What are you up about then?

Earlier you told me that the evidence for God is not natural, but super-natural. You do realize how silly that sounds right? Let me guess what you really mean by supernatural evidence: "evidence that I am unable to explain, share, or demonstrate exists; it's rationally useless". — VagabondSpectre

Well, you guessed wrong. Or even completely misread what I've written, since I can't remember I mentioned anything about "supernatural evidence". Supernatural, as I meant it, is outside of what we normally perceive as natural. Super means above, over, added to.

If some Amazonian tribe got to witness wireless communication, that would be supernatural to them. Outside of their perception of what's possible within reality.

I can explain supernatural experiences I've had. But I really won't do it here. It's no evidence to you anyway. I could have a natural experience about something, for example I could feel suspicion towards something, but I can't prove to you that some time ago I felt that suspicion.

Are you saying that majority of atheists are equally unsure of both God creating the world and the world coming to existence by some form of chance or unconscious process lead by big bang and evolution? Are you saying they are equally rigorous towards both claims? — Henri

Intelligent design is a bit different than the basic existence of god. Atheism refers mainly to the lack of belief in god, not "do you think X, Y, and Z, are equally likely". Different atheists have different opinions about a lot of things for different reasons. What they share in common is that none of them go around saying god exists.

As I have written couple of times, I exclude that group. But I don't think that majority of people who consciously regard themselves as atheists, and publicly so, are in that group. — Henri

Well you're wrong, so buckup! Unfortunately the majority of the people you have long viewed as unreasonable are in fact reasonable. Judging by the content of this thread, more reasonable than thou.

One of the definitions of an atheist is that it's "the person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods". Yes, there are broader and less broader definitions. So? I am using one of the public definitions and I am reffering to people who don't believe in the existence of God. Those people, by the way, have at least some thoughts about origin of life, since they have already been thinking whether God exists or not, and no surprise, they mostly believe in or favor materialistic explanation of existence including big bang, evolution and other similar stuff. You know, all the stuff they have been listening during all the years of their education. What are you up about then?

And I never even once mentioned the term hard atheist, by the way. — Henri

Most people aren't atheists. You're using the popular misconception. If you go around looking at and polling the people who actually describe themselves as an atheist you find out that about 95% of them fit the label "soft-atheist" rather than "hard-atheist" (yes, i am using these terms to help you distinguish the difference). If you go around asking theists what they think atheists believe, you get the misconception that you have been insisting is what numerous self described atheists have told you is inaccurate.

What's the point of telling people the label they use means they believe something that they do not actually believe? (TIP: remember, there is a difference between "believing that a god exists", "lacking belief in the existence of any gods", and "believing in the non existence of gods").

Theists have all kinds of drastically different ideas about what god is and does and thinks, etc, but you don't expect the term theist to perfectly capture all of those differences do you? Likewise, the term "atheist" is very basic, and it does not need to reflect uniformity or anything at all regarding the origin of life, or the big bang, etc...

I can explain supernatural experiences I've had. But I really won't do it here. It's no evidence to you anyway. I could have a natural experience about something, for example I could feel suspicion towards something, but I can't prove to you that some time ago I felt that suspicion — Henri

So your evidence for god is that you suspected it existed some time ago?

The only thing supernatural about that is your willingness to think of it as evidence.

Honestly, unless you want me to keep suggesting that your evidence is laughable and demonstrably ridiculous (which is why you won't or cannot share it), then just share it.

That's true, I didn't give examples in OP. — Henri

And, by the end of this post, you still haven't provided an example. Only more contentless ad hominem affirmations.

It's people like you who gives us philosophers a bad reputation. Shame! Shaaaaaame!

And, by the end of this post, you still haven't provided an example. — Akanthinos

I did, by replying to various posts on this thread.

So, can you list some atheist arguments?

I did, by replying to various posts on this thread. — Henri

Asserting the same conclusion with no arguments or evidence to support it is not an example.

You want to be able to freely deny God however you like, and publicly so, but when time comes for some accountability, for some examination of your thoughts, then all of a sudden let's talk definitions because atheists in fact are not hard, they are soft, etc. Build some spine, man.

Here's what is a soft atheist - one that believes or thinks that there is no God or god or gods, but is open to being convinced.

Or, maybe to use this definition - one that believes that existence of God is an extraordinary claim with no proof, so he or she rejects it until the claim is proven to said atheist.

Are those definitions of a soft-atheist good enough?

That kind of an atheist is part of my OP. He or she still doesn't believe that God exists, regardless of how open they are to change their minds sometime in the future. Today their minds aren't changed and they don't believe or think that God exists.

I say they came to that conclusion through unreasonable thought process.

So your evidence for God is that you suspected it existed some time ago? — VagabondSpectre

Where did I say that evidence for God is that I suspected it existed some time ago, whatever that sentence actually means?

Anyway, I don't really have to share my experience with you. Whatever I would share here would probably go to waste, so I am not going to do it. But if you are really open to know, you can find many people who can share their experience with you. But, again, this thread is not about proving that God exists.

I say they came to that conclusion through unreasonable thought process. — Henri

...without ever setting out that thought process. You are the one firing blanks.

If you want examples, go through this thread and you'll see unreasonable arguments for the non-existence of God given, including your own, and my response to those arguments.

Let's use something from last page.

Banno said: "If God exists, His brilliance, His presence, ought be so all-encompasing as to be utterly undeniable."

That's simply bad logic.

There is no known natural law that says that if God exists His presence ought be so all-encompasing as to be utterly undeniable.

It's just a man's opinion. And there is surely no law that says that a human's opinion has to be true.

So what can one conclude about what Banno said? Nothing about whether God exists or not.

You want to be able to freely deny God however you like, and publicly so, but when time comes for some accountability, for some examination of your thoughts, then all of a sudden let's talk definitions because atheists in fact are not hard, they are soft, etc. Build some spine, man. — Henri

This is not an argument. This is an insult.

Are those definitions of a soft-atheist good enough? — Henri

No, because they do not constitute an argument.

That kind of an atheist is part of my OP. He or she still doesn't believe that God exists, regardless of how open they are to change their minds sometime in the future. Today their minds aren't changed and they don't believe or think that God exists.

I say they came to that conclusion through unreasonable thought process. — Henri

That is not an argument, that is an opinion,

Anyway, I don't really have to share my experience with you. Whatever I would share here would probably go to waste, so I am not going to do it. — Henri

Then what are you doing here?

But, again, this thread is not about proving that God exists. — Henri

It's not about having a philosophical debate either, apparently.

Banno said: "If God exists, His brilliance, His presence, ought be so all-encompasing as to be utterly undeniable." — Henri

Well, that's a reversal of your own argument about atheist. By the same principle that would warrant the acceptation of your statement, you should accept his.

What exactly about Banno's quote is reversal of which of my arguments about atheists? Can you be precise?

And my unaddressed reply - that your God is a sneak, a Loki, a Satan.

you are quite right that if your premise is that God exists, then the existence of atheists is quite an extraordinary thing. Given the perfection of the world is such that god is, for you , undeniable, denying god must call for an extraordinary irrationality. — Banno

This is a reductio ad absurdum from your argument.

The move to necessitate the miraculous from the mundane leads us naturally to assume the errors of your premises.

As far as I have seen what you've written here, you seem more like a person who believes that God exists but doesn't like Him, than that you don't believe that God exists.

Maybe I'm wrong, I don't know.

If you don't believe that God exists, why would you even bother discussing His presumed characteristics at such length. At the same time, what glorious outcome can it be for you to speak the way you speak, and it turns out God exists and has recorded all the things you said. It looks like a loose-loose situation, or masochistic-masochistic situation.

I asked you about one quote, you come back explaining the other.

There is no reductio ad absurdum from my argument in what you quoted, in part because Banno is falsely presenting what I've said, though probably not on purpose. Maybe I wasn't clear enough.

But anyway, there is really very simple way to show that OP is false, at least in it's absolute claim.

Just provide one single reasonable argument in favor of the non-existence of God. Not a single one has been provided here yet, and not only that, I don't think I have ever heard or read such a thing.

If you want to go by what you quoted, that since God exists it is extraordinary that atheists exist, hence God doesn't exist, that's not it. Because there is no known natural law that says that if God exists every human would understand that He exists.

As far as I have seen what you've written here, you seem more like a person who believes that God exists but doesn't like Him, than that you don't believe that God exists. — Henri

If his position is like mine, one can dislike particular theistic conceptions while simultaneously not believing in any generally.

Ah, good. Make the thread about me. What fun!

What I have done is draw out the logical of your OP, to see what sort of a god it implies.

But it seems that you cannot see this; the reductio that shows the god you create to be small and sneaky. That's the implication of his using atheists in such a self-serving and immoral fashion, treating them as an end to his own purpose.

That's not my god. That's your god.

That's not my God. That's your God. — Banno

You just don't have good understanding of God's word, that's all. Your conclusions about God's character are flawed. But, again and again, this thread is not about God of the Bible.

You just don't have good understanding of God's word, that's all. Your conclusions about God's character are flawed. — Henri

Define the god you're talking about.

They are not my understandings. I am reflecting back to you the God you describe.

You have eyes, but fail to see.

Just provide one single reasonable argument in favor of the non-existence of God. Not a single one has been provided here yet, and not only that, I don't think I have ever heard or read such a thing. — Henri

Again : can you provide a few examples of such arguments, and on what universal basis rationality can be said to be missing in these.

Because, again, if you don't, then this is a troll thread.

@Henri, this far you've ... made a number of bare assertions, declarations and postulates, shifted the burden of proof, admitted that you can't actually demonstrate, rather you "just know", but also postulated that you have vast amounts of clues, declared that it doesn't matter that you have nothing to show us, been a sharpshooter too somewhere, employed a misrepresentation/strawman (maybe two), and declared it unreasonable to disagree with you. :D Might have moved your goalposts too (like other posts it's not quite clear). Oh, and begging the question?

So ...

1. you just know
2. therefore anyone that differ are just wrong
3. done

Did I miss anything? Could you put some philosophy in here?

@Henri
Only after I came to an understanding that God does not exists, I started to look into theistic arguments more closely.

And my conclusion is that theists, both in general and those most prominent ones, are:

1) quite unreasonable in interpreting what nature provides as clues for or against God
2) quite unreasonable in their reasoning about God

The amount of blank ammunition theists generally use for God makes me think that theism itself is indefensible. Meaning, it's something natural, forced from something inside of our observable world.

And as such, it's basically one more clue against the existence of God.

All arguments in favor of the non-existence of God that have been provided on this thread are unreasonable and have been shown why. I am not going to go through all of them and copy and paste them. Again, all it takes is a single one reasonable argument in favor of the non-existence of God and this OP is not absolutely true.

As for your question on what universal basis rationality can be said to be missing, that's a good question in fact.

Shortly, it is a sin that blocks you from rationality.

But if you want some secular reasoning, there are more than one parts to it, and I'm not going to go through all of them, since I don't have them in compact written form, but among the main ones is that nothing that humans can observe and measure can show that God doesn't exist.

Humans are within creation and can observe and measure:

1) only creation, by default,
2) until God presents Himself and reveals them some other possible place or reality

In case of observing and measuring creation, nothing can be observed nor measured to disprove existence of God, because God could make creation however He wants. We have no way of knowing what is probable or not and by how much. As a result, there is no known natural law that says that if God exists, humans would have to be able to understand that God exists. Not to mention that there is no known natural law that says that humans have to understand everything about reality.

In relation to God, what's observed and measured can at best provide insights in possible character of God.

But while nothing can show the non-existence of God, something can possibly show small probability that the world was not created with plan and purpose, but by some chance or unconscious process. That's for example calculated mathematical impossibility that life originated by some chance process. It's still possible in real life, but that possibility is impossible in mathematical sense, and reasonable conclusion is that this mathematical impossibility points to God.

Again, nothing can be calculated to point the other way, so reasonable thinking already leans towards God, although one can also reasonable argue neutral agnostic position.

In second case God presents Himself.

So, being reasonable, one is either neutral agnostic or thinks or believes that there's God.

And my conclusion is that theists, both in general and those most prominent ones, are:

1) quite unreasonable in interpreting what nature provides as clues for or against God
2) quite unreasonable in their reasoning about God — Banno

If you would have paid attention, you would have noticed that in your case order goes 2 then 1. So I'll start with 2.

2 is basically meaningless, since Christians learn about God through God's conviction and God's word. They are lead supernaturally, not by their own reason. Not that anybody's perfect here, by design. People from other religions also don't reason on their own about God, if they are convicted in their beliefs. It is just that their conviction comes from devil, so it's not really that they are unreasonable but deceived.

1 comes as a result of 2, so it can't be unreasonable as presented because it's Spirit lead. But as an example, when one calculates probability for the existence of life by chance or unconscious process, result is mathematical impossibility. Siding with basic mathematical result is quite a reasonable way to interpret nature. Fighting with such result would be unreasonable, as OP states.

By the way, this reminded me about a point that it can be argued that Christians are disproportionately more *convicted in their understanding that God exists than people from other religions. So this reasonable/unreasonable thing about theists is probably flawed as a general view since not all groups of "theists" have equal distribution of those who are convicted that God exists.

*Convicted - as a result of supernatural conviction, having a full understanding that God exists, not just thinking or believing that God exists

This argument can be expanded upon, based on what's available to a human in regards to understanding Nature.

But my post is not about looking at nature, but about looking at theism. Real theism, one that we witness on Earth, not some abstract idea of theism, is quite unreasonable regardless if this universe is created by nature or not. I happen to understand that nature exists, so I can see it as forced from something inside of our observable world.