Quoting
karrie
You know darn well that trying to prove the existence of something we don't understand, can't comprehend, is impossible.
I know you weren't talking to me with that, but that phrase, "we don't understand, can't comprehend," seems to me to be one of the major stumbling blocks in any discussion of this sort. The burden of that remark seems to me to be that god is so different from us that we can't possibly understand anything about him, he's so far beyond the reach of our limited comprehension. Maybe so, but to me that renders the whole idea of god and all the things that follow from belief in him and his presumed characteristics completely incoherent. If we can't really comprehend anything about his nature and purposes, how can we even tell whether he's actually good or not, or know anything for sure about him at all, including the key question of his existence? He might be perfectly evil for all we know, we'd have no way of knowing.
A second stumbling block, or at least it's always been so for me, is the fact that there's so much room for doubt about whether he exists at all. He could easily remove all doubt if he wanted to, being who he is, but evidently he chooses not to, and relies on faith instead. Granting for the sake of argument that he exists, all religious traditions I know anything about say that human intelligence and the capacity for reason and logic are gifts he gave us to help us along in this world. But on the crucial question of his existence, he insists we not use them, we should instead just believe without evidence. Doubting Thomas, for example, is presented in the New Testament as a fool for insisting on evidence that Christ had risen, the other disciples were lauded for taking it on faith. The logic of that escapes me. I think Thomas was the only smart one there, faced with an extraordinary claim like that.
It further seems to me that "don't understand, can't comprehend," can't possibly be true. If we're to have any sort of relationship with god, he must make himself understandable and comprehensible to us on some level, and in that context I think we're entitled to expect certain standards of behaviour from him, which in my view he manifestly fails to meet. The problem of evil, for instance (refer to point #42 in the OP) has engaged many minds throughout human history, without resolution. The suffering of the innocents similarly remains unexplained. Ever been in a children's cancer ward? Not an experience I care to repeat. God, if he exists, doesn't appear to behave even as well as we'd expect an ordinarily moral and compassionate person to behave. If he exists, he does not have the characteristics most religious traditions ascribe to him, but really, to me the world makes much better sense if I just reject the hypothesis that he does. Which I do.