Several things:
You often refer to the difference between absolute and preceived truth (more technical philosophical terms are the noumenal and phenomenal, a la Kant), and base arguments upon it (essentially running along the lines that since God can never be known in the absolute sense, it is silly to believe in him). However, implicit in your arguments, and even somewhat explicit at times, is the assumption that you are able to somehow access the noumenal. You, like all of us, are confined to your perception, and do not have access to noumenal. What the noumenal may be is something that cannot be known by any means whatsoever, for our only access is in, through and to the phenomenal. "Scientific truth" can ultimately make no claim to being the true story of things, but merely the generally agreed upon account of our phenomenal experience.
Again, look at my first fundamental rule. I'm not saying that science is the ultimate - nothing is the "ultimate" as far as that goes - but what I am saying is that it is miles ahead of this popular religion. Science is something that everyone can experimentally test, while religion has already been said here to be "something beyond man" and such, the result being that even the
religious people in the world cannot agree on the exact principles of religion, leading to the creation of several different religions that all endlessly bicker with each other, sometimes violently.
Of course, at the most basic level, absolutely nothing can be assumed, as I said earlier many times. Now if we go by this, it is impossible to deduce anything, or even to attempt to think, as long as more than one thinking unit is involved. This is where the perceptive reality paradox comes in. I put in this argument before: I can say that I am the god and ruler of the world, because I perceive it to be so, and so it is correct.
In that manner,
anything can be perceived, and who would be to say whether or not it is correct? Here's another example: gravity is a repellent force, not an attractive force, because I perceive it as such. I am just as correct as those who claim the opposite. If everyone uses this principle, each person will come out with a different view, and the society as a whole will not get anywhere.
To avoid these situations
temporarily (they can be dealt with once all the absolute knowledge has been analyzed), the first fundamental assumption of logic must come into play, and this is precisely the premise behind the assumption. The only basis on which multiple thinking units can work together to solve a common problem is the logic rules, and science is merely a distant extension of those. Therefore, going by these logic rules, anything that cannot be observed objectively
does not exist in the absolute realm. The amount of knowledge in each realm is obviously transfinite, but the absolute truth area is not only far smaller, but far smaller by a transfinite amount, because in the perceptive realm,
everything exists. A god and the lack of a god both exist here, which sounds strange when going by logic (this is different from the quantum world: there, things are
indeterminate, but here, anything can be
both true and false; I will write a more precise and detailed treatment of this subject in that book) Now, where is it easier to start off the pursuit of knowledge with?
Therefore, this essentially boils down to picking the simplest assumptions. My assumptions are the postulates of logic. Yours are the existence of not only a god, but a human-like god who interferes in human affairs. Which appear to be more fundamental and can be used to construct the other?
2) Transfinity: From an atheistic point of view, one has little choice but to conclude that humanity is finite. The species will die, the suns will go out, the rocks will grow cold, the universe will go to its heat death, and in the end we as a whole will be shown to be so very, very finite. (Alternatively, the looped universe theories may be true, but then we still all die).
You are discounting the most important variable of them all: technological advance. This is the one big variable that the great philosophers of the past failed to include in their calculations. The currently accepted big bang theory actually shows that the
very laws of science can be altered under certain conditions, including the laws of time. Besides, if we continue to progress at even a geometric rate (current rate is at least exponential, if not greater), by the time the universe ends, regardless of the cosmological curvature, we will have long since surpassed the powers of this "god." (which, by the way, are obviously finite; seeing the universe today, either he can only do certain things, or he can do anything but lacks the will, which is equivalent)
Also, if the universe has a transfinite amount of mass, for which there is reasonable evidence (although not enough to be commonly accepted as an absolute truth), then your whole argument would be invalidated anyway. Also, I am thinking that it might be possible to extend the general relativity equation to incorporate three time dimensions instead of one so that it will explain the strange effects seen at the subatomic level; if this can indeed be done in even two dimensions, then time could be turned into transfinity in a limited region of space, resulting in the time-point universe theory and a perpetual humanity. (although I will not vouch for this part just yet, since I am not sure of it myself)
3) You have not answered my objection re: pre-rational decisions. The choice to believe this or that is primary, as every last one of us here demonstrates, whether realising it or not. Every one of the arguments that you, for example, have put forward assume the non-existence of God from the outset.
See first part of the post.
4) Credibility: So in other words, you will never concede any amount of evidence as being sufficient to make the account of a miracle credible. This seems remarkably dogmatic.
Show me the exact procedures in terms of logic and math constructs that god carries out to perform these so-called miracles, and I will readily accept it. I said this earlier, but I will repeat it: nobody who supposedly experiences these miracles ever tries to formulate mathematical equations, or even
thinks about this, because their structure will then fall apart. This "god made a miracle happen" thing by itself is crazy. It is like saying "a computer works because of the laws of science;" many, many more details are needed.
The first part needs more explication, as your meaning is unclear. As for the second: umm, no. Methinks thy ego needeth some deflating! 
What I meant there was that humans will believe anything they are told with ease if it sounds simple to them. As for the second bit, look at the procedures through which sociology and politics operate, and you will then see how ignorant that statement was. If you're talking about "ego," let me put it this way: any of you could drill your ideas into everyone else here if you had the skill of powerful rabble-rousing oratory (which I unfortunately do not have, I'm the loner
), but your ideas would need to be simple enough for the common man to accept. (which they definitely are) For the fourth time, humans will adhere to simplistic ideas much more than to complicated ones, even if they are contradictory.
One thing I wanted to mention: why does everyone who believes in the existence of god also
like this god? If a god could be mathematically proven to exist, I would obviously accept it, but I would hate him beyond all words.
Time for me to go to sleep, but I'll be back in five hours!
Oh, one last thing; I am right and everyone else is wrong because I say so! |-|4
w |-|4
w |-|4
w.
j/k
