When you try to affirm the existence of a god, there are probably just two ways to go about it.
One is an insta-defeat: trying to use mock-logic.
Example: "this thing that happens in the real world looks impossible (to me, at least), so it couldn't have come about simply by itself... hence god must have done it"
If it was for logic, we should first focus on the properties of any "god", being all-knowing and all-powerful. The two are impossible to occur at the same time though.
If god was all-knowing, he would know exactly what will happen at any time in the future. But this in turn would mean that he wouldn't be able to change it (making him not all powerful).
On the contrary, if he could change any event of the future thanks to his omnipotence, he couldn't be all-knowing, missing the ability to fixate in time something that could be changed at any time before its occurence.
The concept of god is one of self-contradiction.
Moreover, if god has ever made his presence palpable (and going by the bible, or any other sacred scripture, any god has achieved his godly acts in history) it means he can interact with reality in a way that one can witness, hence there should be a way to document his presence with indisputable proof of supernatural events.
No such thing has happened in the age of color pictures, HD videos, and high-sensitivity equipment of every sort.
Logically, god is an impossibility.
Ok then, let's assume instead that god exists outside of the dominion of the logic of us puny humans, that he cannot be either experienced with our senses and our technology, or postulated with our reason.
The above means that nobody, nowhere, at no time whatsoever, could detect, prove, or explain god, being left with the only option of blindly believing in it nonetheless.
The existence of god would rely on faith alone, which means believing that something is true in the absence of any proof.
This consequently means that anyone wanting to convince me that "their" god is the real one, would be utterly unable to actually do that, because I could have the same "authority" to maintain that "god" is not what they say it is, but is instead what I say it is, and nobody would be the wiser missing any capability of debating the topic.
Well I say that god is a flying spaghetti monster.
You can't do shit about it, because I have faith that I'm right.
Sue though, believes that god is a huge translucent otter.
Bob on the other hand, has faith in a non-existing god.
I see checkmates wherever you try to bring this, but I would love to hear more arguments that are not a variation of the two above.
