Why does an existent God appear indistinguishable from a non-existent God?
God cannot be seen. A non-existent God cannot be seen.
God cannot be proven to exist. A non-existent God cannot be proven to exist.
God never does anything to show he exists. A non-existent God never does anything to show he exists.
etc.
He’s talked to lots of people.
He told a bunch of people to write holy books. He told them what to write.
There is no evidence that a God ever talked to lots of people.
There’s no evidence that God told people to write holy books.
So you say. They say different.
I choose who I believe. That’s life. I live with the consequences of the choice.
Yes, they do say different. But what they call “evidence” isn’t really evidence.
What process do you use to choose who you will or won’t believe?
It’s like a trial without external evidence. Verbal agreement. He says - she says. Misunderstanding, misinterpretation or lies. Stolen item or gift.
One time event. Who do you trust?
I determine how trustworthy the sources are. I calculate the consequences of each choice.
Then there is no universal objective standard for measuring evidence.
Measuring the stories told by people? How?
Ever see the movie Rashomon? Four witnesses give four different accounts of an event. Which is correct?
And you know this firsthand how?
I know very little first hand.
So you only know a secondhand God, at best?
It’s a second hand account of the events. Might even be third hand. 
Wow, I am not sure how bad this argument is.
My first question is this: Have you ever observed a world with God and world with no God, and compared it with our world, to say that an existent God and non-existent God are indistinguishable?
And what I love about this is that you are talking metaphysics. So let us take a look at your second question:
A virtual world cannot be seen, and a non-virtual world cannot be seen. Do this mean that we do not live in a virtual world?
An external world cannot be proven to exist and a non-external world cannot be proved to exist.
This is how bad your point seems to be. all you have done is the same typical points that can be used against so many different metaphysical points of views. In the end, you lead no where except for skepticism on metaphysics, i.e. what is reality like.
The same reason unicorns appear non-existent. They don’t appear to exist.
In his 1939 essay “Proof of an External World”, the famous philosopher G.E. Moore gave a common sense argument against scepticism [i.e. in favor of the existence of an external world] by raising his right hand and saying “Here is one hand,” and then raising his left and saying “And here is another,” then concluding that there are at least two external objects in the world, and therefore that he knows (by this argument) that an external world exists. Not surprisingly, not everyone inclined to sceptical doubts found Moore’s method of argument entirely convincing; Moore, however, defends his argument on the grounds that sceptical arguments seem invariably to require an appeal to “philosophical intuitions” that we have considerably less reason to accept than we have for the common sense claims that they supposedly refute. (source: wiki)
I concur. Get up from your chair. Smell the coffee. There is an external world.
Technically, I can’t prove I am not “plugged into the matrix”, but that argument is a distraction - at some point you must live your life.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
And this is where you I know it is not because of what appears.
Okay, I will get up and continue to live in the martix. I mean, “get up from the chair and smell the coffee”, shows that the matrix is still there. Living your life requires and external world at all. Even worse, there even being an external world does not tell you what it is, like a matrix or something else. Living your life requires not one iota of an external world, experiences take care of themselves without one. And Moor’es argument already assumes the thing in question. He equated hands with external world, when hands equates to hands, and already seems to assume that seeing hands means there is an external world when there is no connection but one already assumed. So his argument just argues in a circle.
Let’s take a look at what Descartes might bring up to you in this situation with you “living your life”.
"Just as a prisoner, who was perhaps enjoying an imaginary freedom in his dreams, when he then begins to suspect that he is asleep is afraid of being woken up, and lets himself sink back into his soothing illusions; so I of my own accord slip back into my former opinions, and am scared to awake, for fear that tranquil sleep will give way to laborious hours of waking, which from now on I shall have to spend not in any kind of light, but in the unrelenting darkness of the difficulties just stirred up.”
Descartes “accustomed opinions continually creep back into [his] mind, and take possession of [his] belief, which has, so to speak, been enslaved to them by long experience and familiarity, for the most part against [his] will…[his]concern at the moment is not with action but only with the attainment of knowledge.”
Haha, trust me, I know. I just had a lengthy discussion with Mo_ about that in another thread.
All I said was God doesn’t appear to exist, which may explain why “non-existent God” is a little redundant. I don’t make a point to specify “non-existent” any time I talk about leprechauns. If God, leprechauns, or unicorns don’t appear to do or be anything, why would we assume they are?
I’m not asserting anything so much as I am shifting the burden of proof. You’ve shown how God appears to be non-existent. So, wherein lies the distinction between “God” and “presumably non-existent God”? If you have no answer, you don’t seem to have much of a case.
We can just say God is presumably non-existent, which isn’t anything new.
…translation?
But Descartes is Mr. Dualism… so we know where his head is at…
What gets me about this line of argument (scepticism of the external world and other minds) is that it is ridiculous by inspection. A nice little thought experiment, perhaps, but no one (except perhaps the mentally insane and a few monks on top of mountains) really believes it for a second. No one. We all turn away from the page and go back to living our lives in the external world, interacting with other minds. We wouldn’t be doing this if it we didn’t assume both to be true; if we didn’t believe both to be true.
(by the way your other comment was indecipherable - please edit) {“And this is where you I know it is not because of what appears.”}