Well, the burden of proof is on the proponents of the existence of god. Now, as an atheist, I am not obligated to proof a negative (the non existence of god), and in fact, that would be impossible. However, we can use reason to reach the conclusion that the existence of a god as described in, say, the Bible, is not possible.

One way to approach the question “What is God?” is to first recognize that, in spite of mass ignorance of factual information, there has never been a time when a majority of our species has been what modern science would call psychotic. The popular (among atheists) habit of referring to religion as a mental illness has no basis in science.

A useful question to ask then, is, what were all these ignorant-but-mentally-competent people really responding to in their experience, that they were calling God? It had to be something, if they were not psychotic.

It would not be crazy to assume they were simply responding to the collective effects of the entire seen and unseen forces of the natural world, and personifying that abstraction as God. Much like ignorant people envisioned infectious diseases as evil spirits, when in fact, they were microscopic pathogens. They were very real, but just mischaracterized due to ignorance.

The collective forces of the natural world are real if anything is. They are indeed, taken as a whole, “all powerful” and they did create humankind. We are all subject to the laws and whims of this “higher power” which did, and does, provide for our sustenance, and corrects us when we stray too far. And, in its totality, it is very much ineffable.

So Spinoza was right; God does exist. It’s just that our philosophical understanding of him hasn’t kept pace with our understanding of infectious disease organisms. We are still ignorant of how our own minds work.

No god/universal intelligence is necessary for the universe to behave as it does. Therefore, I see no reason to believe that one (or more) exist(s).

Those who claim that this god is ineffable and incomprehensible are in fact making claims about such a being--as well as stating there is only ONE god/intelligence that is ineffable. How do they know this? Well, they don't.

I don't have an issue with anyone who thinks there might be one, or more, until they start giving this intelligence human attributes, claim that they know what it wants, and try to force others to live according to their understanding of such a being.

Define first in order to discuss itself is fallacious. Do we need to define soul first before we discuss. We don‘t. Kwowleldge can come from encounters of humans of something unfamiliar to us. We don't need to define something, such as big foot to discuss its existence, as long as there are credible claims of encounters.

The Bibile stands for valid accounts of encounters portraying a God of the same characteristics. You may queation its credibility to consider it a novel. You can also start with treating it as a valid account of testimonies.

Every religion, every sect within every religion, and every individual within every sect has a unique idea about what god is and what it means. If we went around debating over which ideas were correct we would be wasting our breath, because without any evidence its all wild speculation.

That's all religion is, wild speculation that some have used to obtain power over the anxious, ignorant, and uncritical masses. It will forever be uses that way so long as humans maintain biological constraints.

Maybe the solution is to drop the word “God” from the lexicon. We could still refer to gods and goddesses of antiquity, but for modern usage we could just say “the great unknown”, “ultimate reality”, “universal intelligence” or something like that. I seldom refer to God anyway because of erroneous associations and because many people have negative reactions.

There really is something ineffable and incomprehensible about existence and as such not much can be said about it, except I think it is subjective with respect to our true selves. It is not “out there”—it is within.

Ultimate reality is not something to be proven, to be argued over, to be believed or disbelieved. Many religious groups throw the word “God” around carelessly and make unbelievable claims about “God” and give meaningless descriptions such as the “omni’s”. You might argue and disprove those claims but because something has been erroneously described, that doesn’t invalidate the thing.

Consider this approach - Existence is god. It hasn't a personality, nor will it care what you do or how you dress. It simply is. It has no cognitive plan for what you are going to do in your life. It doesn't demand the extermination of those who think a bit differently. It simply is.
Pray to it if you want, but don't go out and murder, rape or steal because of it.

I'll go with science and facts.

Great point: "It is common for religious apologists to respond to critiques of these arguments by claiming that deity is ineffable and incomprehensible, which of course closes down the debate, for by definition there is nothing to be said about what nothing can be said about."

What ISN'T "ineffable and incomprehensible" is SCIENCE and FACTS.

"Philosophy is questions that can never be answered. Religion is answers that can never be questioned."
-- Anon

Fancy words ("ineffable"??????) for The Tooth Fairy!