I think he's implying that God is the necessary ground of all existence, so since he knows that he himself exists, that is proof of God's existence.

that was my initial takeaway as well (i.e. something like, "I can only exist if God does, and I do exist, therefore God exists"- so something like presuppositionalism/a transcendental argument for God's existence), but his subsequent claim that he's "not adopting those positions" (that theism is true/that God exists) has me sort of stumped.

Enai De A Lukal, I think he's implying that God is the necessary ground of all existence, so since he knows that he himself exists, that is proof of God's existence.

You put it so eloquently I thought I would use it to define my position by changing it a little;

That if God is the necessary ground of all existence, so since he knows that he himself exists, that is Bona fide evidence of God, should God exist.

So I'm not saying I can prove that God exists, but rather I can provide sufficient evidence of a God should God exist.

So if God exists, then I have provided a good evidence of it. However if God doesn't exist there is no way we can determine that my evidence is false. Whatever arguments we bring to the table we are necessarily none the wiser as to the existence of God.

The upshot of this is that the theist can't prove the existence of God, or further their case philosophically. But also that the atheist, or God denier, can't disprove the existence of God, or further their assertion that God doesn't exist. So we are left with a 50:50 outcome.

Can anyone provide evidence that God doesn't exist?

I can't decide if I'm being trolled or not. You said: "My evidence for the existence of God is my existence".

I think you are over interpreting what I said, I have at no point said I can prove the existence of God, only that I can provide evidence of God, should God exist. The problem being that we can't determine in anyway whether God exists, or not, philosophically.

My position is that the fundamentals can self-exist, because we necessarily have no way of knowing whether the mathematical structure that is identical to our physical universe is dependent on any deeper fundamentally inaccessible structure, so as far as we can tell it does self-exist, and if it can self-exist, there's no reason to suppose that all other mathematical structures don't as well. — Pfhorrest

It is an intriguing idea and, granted, we have not looked deeply enough into reality to go beyond its contingent elements. But I'm sceptical...

I didn't ever say (or even imply) that you said that you could "prove" the existence of God. I said what you have now confirmed you said- that you believe God exists and that your own existence is evidence of this. Not a compelling argument, certainly, since one's existence is no less consistent with the non-existence of the selfsame deity.

As for evidence that God doesn't exist, the absence of evidence for pretty much all scriptural claims with any direct bearing on God's existence (creation, divinity of Christ, etc.) is a good place to start. The absence of evidence for any sort of divine causal intervention quite generally. The near-certainty falsity of the traditional dualistic picture of the immortal, immaterial soul. The (evidential) problem of evil has been mentioned. The fact that historically religious (including theistic) explanations all eventually are superseded by naturalistic ones. The world simply doesn't look like what we'd expect, if something like the deity of western monotheistic traditions (especially the Christian Bible) existed- so creation ex nihilo, a moral world order, immortal souls, and all the rest- and looks an awful lot like we'd expect if it was not created by a moral personal agent.

Can you give me your reasoning that God can't be both the creator and some other player in the world? It isn't an assumption I have made. — Punshhh

Well, you said that this was an attribute God has, so God is a creator. He might be other things, but if he is all things, we're back to square one.

I said what you have now confirmed you said- that you believe God exists and that your own existence is evidence of this

Actually, I said should God exist, my existence and the existence of the world I live in is evidence of this.

I'm not commenting on my beliefs. I have adopted a philosophical position for the purposes of discussion. So as to point out that there is no way we as limited minds can prove, disprove, or determine in any way whether God exists. Or in other words whether our origins are magical/supernatural/of spirit, or some other, dreamt up, so called materialist explanation.

The world simply doesn't look like what we'd expect, if something like the deity of western monotheistic traditions (especially the Christian Bible) existed- so creation ex nihilo, a moral world order, immortal souls, and all the rest- and looks an awful lot like we'd expect if it was not created by a moral personal agent.

The reasons, or arguments you give are actually irrelevant because we don't have a "control" (a known example of a universe not created by a God) to compare it with. I am happy to explain this further, if you can't see the working.

Well, you said that this was an attribute God has, so God is a creator. He might be other things, but if he is all things, we're back to square one.

Ah, so saying God would be equivalent to saying nature, I see what you mean. I can only see the relevance of this line of reasoning were I to claim to know, or define God, I'm not doing that. I'm trying to discuss any real God which may be involved in our origins. As opposed to any God understood, or defined through the history of human thought. I know that this might be a difficult prospect, but it is what I am concerned with.

In this endeavour, the first conclusion I have arrived at is what I have just pointed out to Enai De A Lukal, that there is no way we as limited minds can answer the question philosophically. So we have to look elsewhere.