1) The existence of something should make a measurable difference to it not existing.
2) Given its supposed statements in its supposedly holy scriptures there should be measurable things we could expect from Gods existence even in this life.
3) There has not been any measurable difference that makes its existence nessessary.
4) Therefore we might conclude that (so far) (if it exists) that existence is no different than its nonexistence.
5) It therefore is (for now) safe to assume that the question of Gods existence is actually irrelevant and it is safe to treat it as not existing.
Have a free shot
I appreciate questions like this, even if some others do not. And as Engyo aptly stated, such questions might just be more or less intellectual exercises, but such exercises entertain me, so thank you for posting your thoughts.
Firstly, I would ask why must we assume that the existence of an object should make some noticable and measurable impact somewhere, either on its environment or on other objects? I see two possible alternatives to this assumption:
(1) Perhaps a thing can exist and have no impact on other things whatsoever. I doubt this is likely, but I am inclined to consider it as possible because I have yet to conceive on my own of any conclusive proof to the contrary. I will call this the anti-George Bailey theory. But since you have asserted it is not possible, I would ask that you explain why, if you would.
(2) Perhaps God exists but purposely chooses to conceal his existence. This could be for reasons known only to God. Or it could be as some faithful followers have heretofore proposed, that God wants our belief in him to be a matter of faith. This second option I also find highly unlikely, at least the faith part. Personally, I don't believe a God, if one exists, would place more value in blind faith than empirical evidence, sound reasoning and rational explanations. But, the alternative must be considered at least, or so I think.
Finally, I am going to wrap this up 'cause I didn't intend to get this longwinded. But isn't it also a possibility that God does exist and he has made an observable and measurable impact, however, we humans have simply been incapable of verifying God's handiwork. Obviously, if God does exist and he created all this stuff around us, then we can certainly measure his creation. I think the concept of a divine Prime Mover, a God that set everything in motion but refuses to interact with his creation, is plausible. Again, I have no idea what the reasons for God's intentional remoteness might be, but again I must consider it due to lack of proof that such a proposition is impossible.
