>

The entire premise of a primate God from the middle east is very absurd. But please continue to show your superior mind to us. I'm sure you'll get a cookie when you go to heaven along with all the rapists and murderers God forgave at the last second. 🙏
Of course there isn't. That's why it's called faith. >

Well, some religious practitioners dispute that this is the meaning of faith. Many Christians, for example, claim that faith is trust based on the evidence. For example, the Christian philosopher John DePoe (who I respect a lot) wrote:

One final objection to Classical Evidentialism that I wish to address is that religious faith by its nature is opposed to evidence. What I am requiring of religious beliefs, some might say, is like asking oil and water to mix. Knowledge acquired through evidential arguments, they claim, cannot be a matter of faith.  
At the heart of this objection is an assumption about the nature of faith, namely that faith is an act of belief without evidence or even against evidence. I reject this view of faith. Faith is better understood (at least in part) as the dispositional characteristic to trust and persevere in one’s religious beliefs. Faith is a virtue that allows believers to remain steadfast in their religious beliefs because they have good reason to do so. (Debating Christian Religious Epistemology, p.27) >

There are circumstantial evidence, like the evidence of the existence of Jesus, David, the flood (probably on a smaller scale, but still significant), the plagues in Egypt and the genetic Eve (mithocondrial Eve) etc.
Do these things serve as an undisputable evidence of God as described in the Abrahamic religions? No, it only serves to show that the events described in the Torah, Bible and Qur'An have their roots in reality.
This means that there are believers ( there are a lot of believers, who simply have blind faith) who believe/have faith because of circumstantial evidences.
As said these are circumstantial evidences, however those can be powerful and a lot of scientific discoveries or legal judgements are based on circumstantial evidence (two good example would be the existence of black holes for the former or fingerprints and DNA tests in the latter). >

This feels a bit like saying that Spider Man is real because some of the events in the comics happened in New York and New York is real. >

No it's saying that the siege of Troy happened, because they found the ruins of the city. Now did it happen as described in the Illiad? Probably not. >

Right. So someone looks at the Illiad, finds evidence that the siege of Troy happened and concludes that Aphrodite actually exists. >

Well you can certanly think this way. 
I would say that someone finds the ruins of Troy, knows that kidnapping potential brides were a thing and also finds signs of an eartquake, if said person also knows that Poseidon wasn't only the god of the sea, but of earthquakes and that his sacred animal was the horse.
Based on these he/she goes to the conclusion that the Illiad was based on truth at least in the sense that the cause of the siege was likely real, the siege itself was likely real and probably the Troyan horse was real.
I would argue that the conclusion that the horse wasn't a trick, but a tribute to Poseidon for his intervention is logical. Also if said person has an inclination toward the spiritual side of life he/she might believe that the fall of Troy was due to divine intervention.
As I said in the last sentence, it's a belief, however one that has circumstantial evidence behind it. Is it true? Probably not, however it is a logical conclusion. >

Is it, though? Is it really a logical conclusion that Aphrodite exists because she's in the Illiad and we can verify that some of the things in the Illiad happened? >

Okay, first of all I didn't mention Aphrodite at all. Even the greeks didn't have a universal belief, just like modern religions doesn't have universal belief.
However, allow me to ask why the proposition I described would be illogical? >

I mentioned Aphrodite originally, because she does appear in the Illiad. I thought that you were addressing my comment, not some other thing.So it remains, if the fact that some mundane things in the Bible are reasonable evidence that God exists, then surely the fact that some mundane things in the Illiad being true are reasonable evidence that Aphrodite exists. >

Conclusive is a higher standard than we hold for practically anything. Science rarely, if ever, proclaims conclusive knowledge, almost always allowing for unobserved variable(s), evidence, data, etc. that would debunk current theories. We don't have conclusive evidence that consciousness exists, macro evolution has ever happened or we all didn't just come into existence a day or two ago in motion with a developed memory of life lived before. All opinions and beliefs on these and many other topics are based on a lower standard of belief than your CMV seems to expect of a deity existing.
Because of this, I ask - how is this view profitable to any discussions on these topics? How is conclusive a valid standard? I disagree with the implied validity of the observation you hold in your view.
Even in Christian teaching, Lucifer/Satan obviously didn't think the deity he interacted with was compellingly and conclusively all supreme, hence the attempt to usurp the Creator of the Universe. Even if you don't believe anything else in that worldview I would think we can all agree one individual's "conclusive" is the next individual's "not-even-compelling" and often that has less to do with the evidence than the framework from which the evidence is being evaluated.
All that to say-how can you be sure that your framework of expectations for what "conclusive evidence" a deity should provide would be considered valid and binding by any deity that may exist for such a deity to be just in judging you for rejecting the evidence they have given?
Personally, I find some intelligent design arguments quite compelling, especially around DNA's similarity to programming and the structure and design that implies. I think many scientists have failed to really evaluate some trends (frequency and in content) in near death experiences across cultures that suggest life after death is a more evidence based belief than not. I find some deists destressingly hypocritical and incoherent. But I find that true of some atheists and agnostics as well. I pray and study, and have had a number of experiences that wouldn't provide anyone else conclusive proof, but have affirmed over and over that there is a God who communicates with those who listen with their soul/spirit. I pray you'll come to know truth-whether it is what you want it to be or not. >

PART 1

Conclusive is a higher standard than we hold for practically anything. Science rarely, if ever, proclaims conclusive knowledge, almost always allowing for unobserved variable(s), evidence, data, etc.

I think that's a misunderstanding of what I mean by "conclusive." I don't mean it is undeniable, incorrigible, indubitable, unrevisable or absolute like proving a mathematical theorem. As I said, by conclusive I simply mean the "publicly accessible data makes the proposition significantly more likely than its contrary." In science, the data does usually make the hypothesis in question significantly more likely than its contrary. Similarly, that's the standard reasonable people use in real life when they have to make important decisions based on the data.

We don't have conclusive evidence that consciousness exists, macro evolution has ever happened or we all didn't just come into existence a day or two ago in motion with a developed memory of life lived before.

It is a category error to ask for empirical evidence of the existence of one's own consciousness. Consciousness isn't supposed to exist outside of our minds (like God or the external world). As Descartes pointed out, self-consciousness is the only thing that cannot be rationally denied, as one would have to affirm it in the act of denial -- since one is using it to know anything. It is a self-evident truth or a transcendental category, as Kant would put it.
Now, you chose the worst example possible to support your view, namely, a skeptical scenario regarding the past existence of the world. Even if we concede that there is no conclusive evidence the past happened (as our memory tells us), that is not relevant to anything; it is just an amusing philosophical problem. If one uses these skeptical scenarios as their standard of evidential evaluation, they may just as well believe that after we die, we'll be transported to a magical realm populated by beautiful fairies and dragons. No evidence? No problem! After all, you can't provide evidence the world wasn't created 5 minutes ago; you have blind faith in your memory!
With regards to the theory of Neo-Darwinian evolution, there is overwhelming empirical evidence that it is correct. Today that's virtually indisputable. >

Many deistic belief systems posit a deity outside our reality that has set in motion or ordered our reality, yet remains outside it. So I ask - how is it not a category error to ask for conclusive proof within the system of an entity outside the system of our reality?
Isn't that like a gold fish in a bowl saying the glass blower that made the bowl doesn't exist simply because they don't have proof? One can argue all day that the glass bowl is proof, but if the fish has convinced itself of another possible explanation that needs no glass blower an eternal skeptic they will be. After all it has observed how calcium and lime deposits build up on the glass bowl-so taken to it's logical extension, the bowl may likely have grown up over time in the same way. >

As you hinted in your analogy, the world itself could be the evidence of this designer deity -- so, it is not a category error. If it is indeed conclusive evidence, the fact that the pig-headed/closed-minded person refuses to evaluate the evidence rationally is no reason to think it is a category error.
I have a better example of a deity whose existence couldn't even in principle be evaluated empirically. Suppose a deity exists, but it did not create our world. In fact, it never even interacted with it -- and never will. Well, in this case, it would be a category error to ask for empirical evidence. But my definition of 'god' in OP already rules out this kind of deity. So, it is not really relevant to our discussion. >

In an infinite universe, all things are possible! >

I've read no good arguments against "How does something come from nothing". Every response I've seen involves a supernatural explanation. >

Perhaps the world did not come from nothing because it always existed. What is wrong with this possibility? >

It's a supernatural explanation not based in any scientific reality and doesn't answer the question why if eternal does it exist in the first place? Why would this eternal thing exist? The only answer that makes any sense is something outside of it. >


Whether this is supported by scientific evidence isn't relevant, as we're considering speculative possibilities here (speculative just like god's existence).  In order to conclude that only god could be the reason for the world's existence, the competing hypotheses must be refuted.
You presented no reason to think this is a "supernatural" explanation. In fact, since it doesn't involve any immaterial entities, it is by definition natural.
The naturalist may ask the same question about god ("Why does god exist?"), and the same answer may be given with respect to the material world. "Because god is necessary." -- "Because the universe is necessary." >


speculative possibilities

It's speculative but I think you have to choose the most fulfilling of the speculative answers. Eternal universe still leaves the question of why does something exist of nothing.  

it is by definition natural.

There is nothing in the universe that is eternal. Eternal is not based on science. It's inventing an answer out of nothing and one that isn't even fulfilling.

Why does god exist?

God is eternal and is not based in the material world so he doesn't need a scientific explanation. If you want a naturalist answer you need one based in reality not invented. >

Only God can change your view. >

I drag the famous quote: "Absence of Evidence does not mean Evidence of Absence"
For example, I can say, "I think aliens exist."
We have zero proof as of yet that aliens do exist.
Would we be able to conclusively prove that aliens exist/don't exist? No. We have theories as to why we don't see aliens, but no evidence either way.
The point is that we don't have proof of a god. We also don't have proof of there not being a god because proof is impossible to find as that knowledge would imply omnipotence- thus proving a god (you) exists. 
To be reductive, if I tell you, "taking this medicine helps you see better in darkness- only when its completely dark", you'd be hard-pressed to prove it. You'd also be hard-pressed to disprove it as the absence of light means well... the absence of sight in general.
You can say, "Hey, how do you know it helps you see better?" and I can say, "I believe it does and I'm sure in my belief given my experience."
You could easily counter with, "I don't believe it does at all."
How would we prove it? >

You gotta finish the quote, dawg. Don’t do Carl like that. The full quote is:

“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But exceptional claims require exceptional evidence.”

So no, it not enough to just say that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. >

I was going to, but I recalled that the quote is inappropriately attributed to Carl. Apparently, it was a quote from before the 1900s so I didn't want to only attribute it to Carl. 
The problem with exceptional in this case is relativity. To a deist, it's an exceptional claim to state that a god doesn't exist. To an atheist, it's an exceptional claim to state that a god exists. Who is required to provide evidence? >


To a deist, it's an exceptional claim to state that a god doesn't exist. 

And? To an atheist it’s an exceptional claim to claim he does exist. 

Who is required to provide evidence?

The one making the affirmative claim…
If you tell me dreamcatchers work, and I dispute that, then it’s 100% on you, the one making the affirmative claim, to prove it. >

The proof that a deist brings up wouldn't stand up to the proof requirements an atheist needs.
We all know what a deist would bring up-
"The bible is proof", "Jesus Christ the person was proven to exist", etc.
To say that these are not proofs would once again go back to, what can the atheist do/say to disprove these as proofs to the deist. We'd see it go back and forth as we've all seen time and time again.
"The bible is written by man" - "Men that were divinely inspired"
"There's no records of Jesus being resurrected" - "There was no body in the tomb later"
The circle spirals on and on. That's one of the reasons why there's no point in the religion debate. >


The proof that a deist brings up wouldn't stand up to the proof requirements an atheist needs.

Because the diest thinks that feeling like something is true is valid. Which it is not. 

what can the atheist do/say to disprove these as proofs to the deist.

You’re basically asking “how do you get an unreasonable person to see that they’re being unreasonable?” 

That's one of the reasons why there's no point in the religion debate.

Because people commit the logical fallacy of “feels true to me” without realizing what they’re doing. The religious debate is never settled because religious people don’t understand the cognitive dissonance they’ve been doing their entire lives. >

I would agree that atheism is correct if the lack of something can be proven, but it genuinely can't.
The reason why the religion debate is never settled is that neither side has proof. By your words, it sounds like you already have a stance. That stance cannot be moved without proof. Deists also have a stance. That stance also cannot be moved without proof.
Do you see the issue here? Either side needs proof to move to the other side, but proof inherently cannot exist making the religion question a personal one instead of a debatable one. >


The reason why the religion debate is never settled is that neither side has proof.

I don’t have to prove a negative. 

That stance also cannot be moved without proof.

You’re doing it too now. How did they GET that stance without any proof?

Do you see the issue here?

Yes. That you are not recognizing lapses in logic. >

The burden of proof for them isn't the same as the burden of proof for you. We'll go back to the original issue. Saying "the bible says so" isn't proof to you. How did they get to that proof? I presume they read the bible and believed it.
You could argue, "well I could read Harry Potter and believe I'm a wizard." You can... and people have. That goes with most things that are entirely mental that we also accept.
IE. saying something like "I believe we are free to do what we want" vs "I believe we're programmed to do what our brains tell us" conflict with each other. You can't prove either and neither side can agree with the other.
Personal beliefs, regardless of what they are, aren't really things you can readily prove. You can make assumptions and beliefs about them, but you can't make proofs. This applies as much to religion as it does to really any thing.
You and that person are at an impasse because you don't accept their proof (being that they believe that the book is proof). Because you need proof, you want something else besides the sole piece of "proof" they have. Your baselines need to be the same to come to a debate, but deism and atheism baselines are fundamentally different.
Hence, debate is pointless. >


The burden of proof for them isn't the same as the burden of proof for you. 

What does that even mean?

Personal beliefs, regardless of what they are, aren't really things you can readily prove.

The issue (and where your examples conveniently fell short) is that belief has no bearing on the way things actually ARE. You can believe all you want that reality may be one way but your belief has no bearing on the way reality actually IS. 

You and that person are at an impasse because you don't accept their proof 

I don’t accept that they can believe things into existence. And I am objectively correct about that. 

Your baselines need to be the same to come to a debate

Correct. Diests need to understand the flaws in their logic, and they’re totally unjustified importance in the power of beliefs. >

The first mistake anyone could do is to rationalize the existence of God. I am believer myself, but proving the God is impossible and hence it is called faith.
If God exists and wanted everyone to know he exists, he could just make it happen. Until then, I, and every other religious person, can believe in God but can’t with certainty confirm its existence. >

How do you rationalize the 'If God exists and wanted everyone to know he exists, he could just make it happen." With the fact that the bible claims he very often made himself known in definitive ways, yet stopped doing it in modern times. If any of the miracles the Bible described happened in modern day science would be all over it and gladly declare that they had no other explanation, yet they no longer happen.
So I say that either the Bible lies, or God abandoned us. (Or more likely does not and never did exist) >

I meant it more with a thought that since he is omnipotent he could just make us know he exists.
I myself am not a very fan of Bible because even if it was a word of God, it went through many centuries of translating and rewriting for someone’s purposes so I take it with a grain of salt.
It is possible also that Bible lies, that God abandoned us or that God never did exist. I don’t deny that because I can’t for sure now if God exists.
On the other hand, if God does exist, trying to rationalize His decisions would be just stupid since we are talking about a being that is simply something humans can’t comprehend. >

There is also no available and conclusive evidence that a God doesn't exist. The existence of God does not qualify as a scientific theory because of this.
If God does exist, he obviously wants everyone to have an individual choice as to whether or not to belive in him and face the consequences that implies.
Science is undeniably useful but a relative newcomer in terms of societal development. There are older ways of determining truth than objective, materialist measurement. >

But for the theists who claim the existence of god, the burden of proof is on them to prove his existence, not me to disprove it. >

No, the burden is on the individual to decide whether they want God to exist and take on both the benefits and responsibilities that his existence implies. >

Nope, if you claim a god exists, it’s not my job to disprove you. >

It's no one's job to prove or disprove it as it would be an impossible job either way.
I guarantee that you believe in many things which cannot be proven to exist by material and objective means. That does not mean that such beliefs are meaningless. >

I’m not the one pushing my unfalsifiable beliefs into the realm of public policy. >

The religious are not the only ones pushing unfalsifiable beliefs into the realm of public policy. You'll find that on both sides of the spectrum if you look for it, especially the extreme ones. >

“Both sides”
Care to enlighten me what other beliefs are being pushed onto society based on imaginary friends? >

How can you objectively measure whether health-care is a right?
How can you objectivley measure a person's identity beyond their subjective beliefs?
How can science determine when a clump of cells deserves the rights and protections of personhood?
How can science determine whether capital punishment is justifiable or not? >

Morals might have a subjective framework, but the decisions made within that framework should be objective. If we agree on a shared foundation of morality, and we disagree on whether healthcare is a right, one of us is wrong.
You're just trying to use labels and descriptions as semantic games to get away from objective reality.
Sure, lots of people believe lots of things without good or sufficient reason to warrant that belief. After all, lots of people believe in God. But those people are mistaken in their beliefs. >

This isn’t really a view so how do you expect people to change it. 
Change my view: the year is 2023 >

What?  Of course it's a view!  As OP pointed out, important philosophers argued against it, far more concretely than you have attempted. >

Actually, you’ve made a bait and switch by asking for evidence but then appealing to examples of logical proofs, since the later is abstract deduction but the former is human agreement.
For abstract proofs of Gods existence, there have been a few coherent ones. Frege proved the existence of mathematical platonism with the language argument, and later on Cantor emphasized God as the Absolute Infinite beyond trans finite numbers. These would count as evidence for Gods existence purely by abstract reason alone.
The other example is Godels Argument which was based on equalizing God with a supreme being and showing that given a few logical postulates his existence was guaranteed. This one is more debated with modern computer analysis finding it coherent although may or may not be that conclusive. Of course this proves God can exist (does exist) in this postulated world, but not necessarily in “our world”. Which is what I take your post is about.
Now you did say you didn’t mean these types of logic/math proofs, but I think this is saving face since logic evidence is superior to all evidence. A math proof is more decisive than any empirical, or available data proof, and makes the later redundant. This is because all data is analyzed in a mathematical way for its conclusions/coherency to make sense. But deductively this just falls back into being a math/logic type proof of evidence >


you’ve made a bait and switch by asking for evidence but then appealing to examples of logical proofs

I said that I don't "necessarily" mean logical proof by "conclusive evidence," although it may also include a logical proof.

Frege proved the existence of mathematical platonism with the language argument

Since Frege, there has been a lot of progress in the field of nominalism/anti-realism, which is the philosophical view that at least some sort of Platonism is false. So, I wonder whether you have interacted with the works of recent sophisticated nominalists (e.g., Field, Burgess & Gideon, Boyce, etc).

and later on Cantor emphasized God as the Absolute Infinite beyond trans finite numbers

Theologians agree that God is not quantitatively infinite (like sets). God is supposed to be qualitatively infinite. The difference is subtle but decisive. Furthermore, even if we assume that God is quantitatively infinite, merely pointing out the similarity is no "coherent proof" of God's existence -- not even conclusive evidence.

The other example is Godels Argument which was based on equalizing God with a supreme being and showing that given a few logical postulates his existence was guaranteed

Analytic philosopher Howard Sobel devoted an entire chapter in his magnum opus to examine (and ultimately refute) Godel's ontological argument for God. I'll be happy to discuss his objections here if you ask.

This one is more debated with modern computer analysis finding it coherent

Sobel demonstrated that if the axioms of the proof were accepted, they lead to a modal collapse. In 2014 computer-verified analysis of the proof confirmed Sobel's argument. >

None with nominalism since it itself has tried to bypass Frege without confrontation. Point is that Frege work shows math arguments infer the existence of the universals without hyperbole. And no one has been able to show why the existence part isn’t taken at face value without doing the same to the rest of the mathematical proof. At least not decisively as of yet.
Then there’s the abstract that most of these are fact that these guys are trying to operate purely on philosophical (aka linguistic) approaches whereas the former is mathematics. There is crossover in terms of being rigorously deductive, but mathematical platonism is very strict in its domain of abstract ideas whereas philosophy still wonders the characteristics of universals themselves (nominalism doesn’t agree I sometimes whether it’s attacking universals or the abstract). And I thought Burgess was a realist and not a nominalist, unless he’s changed (not that I keep up often)? 
Cantor’s view wasn’t another hierarchy of infinite numbers with cardinality, but one particular beyond both conceivable and yet inconceivable numbers. Theologians are no mathematicians, they and philosophers were still thinking of infinity as a sequence without termination…which is not the encompassing nature of the Absolute Infinite. So it’s not quantifying sets, but about a final encompassing (all lesser numbers share some quality with it) mathematical entity that exists with Mathematical Platonism as it’s foundation.
As for the Godel proof, wasn’t it just remodified slightly to reconfirm it stands (Robert Marks or Benzmullers themselves kept playing around with it). Not that it matters in terms of theology since it was just an experiment to look for internal consistency. But it just shows that slight tweaks in postulates proves or disproves the outcome. Whichever you prefer. >

There is evidence but what most people want is physical empirical evidence, truthfully the arguments mostly dealt with by Reddit is the tired old tropes of western protestantism , when one truly examines the history of ideas ,philosophical discourse throughout the years , one realizes that atheism when followed through in thought is not a logical way of viewing the world . How does one empirically prove logic , or identity over time , or that there is even a “self “ thats taking in information? How does one even prove the external world is real ? To say I see a chair in front of me is not a controversial metaphysical claim but to assert that therefore there is a chair in front of me is a bold un-empirical metaphysical claim that isn’t justified. There is no way to get the image of the chair in my head next to the physical chair and empirically verify it’s reality . I forgot what person said this quote I vaguely Remember but it was along the lines of saying “if things like logic and other transcendental categories are subjective creations of the human mind then they are no more real than God there myths ,fairytales , etc “. Ultimately if one truly wants evidence for God they’d immerse themselves in academic/philosophical literature and engage with that rather than be on Reddit attacking strawmans and positing emotional appeals . >


There is evidence but what most people want is physical empirical evidence... How does one empirically prove logic , or identity over time , or that there is even a “self “ thats [sic] taking in information? 

I'm open to valid logical/a priori arguments as well. It doesn't have to necessarily be empirical evidence. I stressed empirical evidence in OP to avoid complaints that I'm exclusively demanding "absolute proof." With regards to logic and the self, these truths are known incorrigibly by means of direct acquaintance (per classical foundationalism); they are self-evident. However, God is not self-evident, otherwise only people in lunatic asylums would be questioning his existence.

How does one even prove the external world is real ?

There are good a priori arguments (i.e., that don't depend on observations of the external world; a posteriori) that the hypothesis that the external world exists is intrinsically more likely than the alternatives (e.g., a complicated simulation or a Cartesian demon). As philosopher Stephen Law pointed out:

Suppose a Theist finds herself on the losing side of a debate with atheists about the existence of God. Her own arguments for the existence of God have been shown to be weak, and she is struggling to deal with the evidential problem of evil... raised by her opponents.  
As a last-ditch strategy she may try this: she may admit that her own belief involves a leap of faith, but then add that her atheist opponents make a similar leap of faith when it comes to trusting their senses. ... How can they know their senses are a reliable guide to the truth? ... So, it seems atheists cannot justify their belief in such an external world. But if atheists cannot justify their belief in such an external world, then they don't know that such a world exists. Their belief that there is such a world must involve a huge leap of faith.  
[However], this is certainly controversial – some philosophers would say we are justified in supposing there is a physical world of mountains, oceans, trees, houses, and so on because that hypothesis provides the best available explanation of what we experience, a better explanation than the Matrix-type hypothesis that it's all an elaborate computer-generated illusion. (Believing Bullshit, pp. 86-88) (For further reading on this solution, see McCain, 2011).

....

if one truly wants evidence for God they’d immerse themselves in academic/philosophical literature 

I did. I've read lots of books written by sophisticated philosophers of religion and even debated these arguments privately with philosophers. >

It is just standard presuppositional apologetics. I have a collection of books scrutinizing this view from all possible angles (theological, logical, philosophical), and in fact I've written an article about it some time ago. >

depends on what you call god,  bacteria are invisible to the naked eye,  they help recycle nature so that man can exist, they punish the wicked for violating hygiene rules.  they are all around us, they are inside us, they predate our existence and have helped shape the world into what it is today >

Amazing perspective. If we would tell a human being from hundreds years ago, that there is a microbiological ecosystem, that evolution started with them and continued through it, might they be open to let it fit their perception of god? It's an interesting thought experiment, as it could fundamentally challenge the faith and value system of people uneducated about it. 
Endosymbiotic theory would be an amazing thing to tell to ancient believers. >

That's not so much a view as it is a fact. >

This fact makes me uncomfortable! Maybe it’s just us chosen few who can sense God. Yeah that must be it. I’m special so I know there’s a God an he will reward me and punish those I dislike. And if you criticize my thought process you are persecuting me and that just proves you’re working for satan. >

1.
What do you think of the  argument for God’s existence from “psychophysical harmony (PH)”? 
PH is the phenomenon of mental states appropriately matching physical states, such as the fact that pain corresponds to avoidance behavior, when in fact our mental states could have corresponded to pursuit behaviors or anything else. 
Evolution explains why, presupposing that PH exists (and pain corresponds to avoidance), pain states are selected for in response to injury. However, it can’t explain why pain states correspond to avoidance in the first place rather than to pursuit, or why we don’t feel pleasure and avoid things that cause it.
Okay, so suppose interactionist dualism is true and there's a causal connection between your mental states and your actions. Here are three conceivable ways evolution might set that up:
1: Damage to your body causes pain, and pain causes avoidance behavior
2: Damage to your body causes pleasure, and pleasure causes avoidance behavior
3: Damage to your body causes the sensation of warm bathwater, and the sensation of warm bathwater causes avoidance behavior
Which one do you think evolution would select and why?
What I think you'll find is that there's no reason why evolution would prefer 1-3, since all evolution cares about is causing damage inputs to output avoidance behaviors, regardless of the mental stuff that happens in between.
2.
On theism, however, there is a reason the ultimate cause of this psychophysical arrangement would be 1 as opposed to 2 or 3. Why? Because God is (at least somewhat) benevolent, and it would be really bad for you if every time you did something that was good for you you experienced suffering, and every time you did something that was bad for you, you experienced pleasure. Eg.s, if every time you made a friend you felt internally tortured, but couldn't stop yourself from making friends, your life would be a constant tragedy.
Ofc, you might be a physicalist, but even physicalists generally agree that it is at least conceivable that c-fibers could have caused states other than pain. So we can just pose the same question in physicalist terms:
Here are three conceivable ways our bodies might work:
1: Bodily damage causes c-fibers firing i.e. pain, and c-fibers firing causes avoidance behaviour
2: Bodily damage causes c-fibers firing i.e. pleasure, and c-fibers firing causes avoidance behaviour
3: Bodily damage causes c-fibers firing i.e. the sensation of warm bathwater, and c-fibers firing causes avoidance behaviour
Now imagine you've never met a human before so you don't know which one of these is the case. Which one would you expect to be the case and why? 
Once again, evolution doesn't prefer 1-3 because they all have the right input-output relationship with respect to our reproductive fitness, leaving unexplained why we have the "right" relationship between pleasure and things that are good for us and pain and things that are bad for us. What a benevolent coincidence! >

Sorry I have a little trouble understanding this. Pain feels bad, and we don't want to feel bad hence we avoid that behaviour, pleasure feels nice hence we continue doing that behaviour. Like if having sex didn't involve pleasure and involved a lot of pain people would avoid that behaviour so they wouldn't have sex and hence no more babies which is bad for evolution hence the behaviour evolution wants from us is rewarded through pleasure. 
Secondly I believe in God, not religions but I definitely believe in God but I did not get your point. If possible can you explain it to me. >

Do you think a conscious person would have any evolutionary advantage over a p-zombie? 
If I (and most physicalist philosophers) are right about p-zombies being conceivable, then I think it would follow that coherent consciousness is just a lucky accident of evolution. >

My favorite podcast puts it a little nicer. We hall have the same amount of evidence for what happens after death >

Yes, we all have the same evidence, but some people make claims that go far beyond the available evidence. >

And where they can, they write these claims into the laws that govern people in the real world. >

That's the entire point of faith.
Also there is no available or conclusive evidence of the lack of God >

That entirely depends on your definition of "faith." While some people define faith as belief without evidence, others define it as trust that is based on good reasons/evidence. >

The mathematician Kurt Gödel came up with a proof of God. >

Which has been scrutinized by able analytic philosophers ever since its invention. For example, Howard Sobel showed it leads to modal collapse in his excellent book "Logic and Theism" -- and this was verified by computers. To be fair, other people modified Godel's proof to avoid this inconsistency, but they also have potential problems. As the prominent philosopher Alexander Pruss pointed out:

A number of Gödelian arguments can be given, and the better ones avoid modal collapse. A defence of a Gödelian argument requires a story about positivity that makes axioms F1 and F2 plausible. Moreover, the story needs to make plausible substantive axioms such as that necessary existence is positive and that there is a uniqualizing property having which essentially is positive. A Gödelian argument is superior when it is based on a notion of positivity that captures genuine philosophical intuitions rather than being agerrymandered stipulation. ... Unfortunately, it is difﬁcult to settle in a principled way the question of how gerrymandered a given account is or how much it reﬂects an intuitive concept, so this is simply left to each reader’s judgment. (Source: Ontological Arguments, Edited by Graham Oppy). >

God refuses to prove he exists, for proof denies faith, and without faith, God is nothing.
If I had undeniable proof that God existed (say, for instance, an uncannily useful type of fish that could not have possibly evolved by pure chance), then He would, by definition, not exist, and He would disappear in a puff of logic.
However, in the absence of such a fish -or any other dead giveaways proving His existence- we must conclude that God does not exist, which makes it entirely possible that He does, in fact, exist.
I anxiously await my Delta. Thank you and have a wonderful week. >

Funny how this argument is completely destroyed by the very book your god is derived from. God was apparently very happy to show himself to primitive middle eastern people thousands of years ago.
He loved showing everyone who the big swinging dick was in the universe, it was kind of his thing. But now all of a sudden he can't show himself? Give me a break.
God is a crock of shit. >

lol Reddit atheists are truly undefeated. 
I was referencing Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, because the entire premise of this post is absurd.