Probably.
But more to the point [mine] the existence of God is a constellation of experiences, relationships and sources of information/knowledge [embedded in particular historical, cultural and experiential contexts], that have, here and now, there and then, coagulated in minds such that we believed/believe what we did/do about it.
But what is that next to all that would need to be known in order to demonstrate that in fact God does or does not exist.
Just because we are not shown the evidence does not mean that the evidence is not there. Thus we are all “stuck” until it can in fact be demonstrated definitively one way or the other.
Whatever that means.
At best, the No God folks can [in my view] reasonably argue it is incumbent upon the God folks to demonstrate that what they claim does in fact exist does in fact exist. Either that or fall back on faith.
Also, there may be billions of other planets out there in our staggeringly vast universe with civilizations advanced enough to grapple with the very ontological/teleological explanation for Existence itself. It seems foolish then to confine the discussion merely to Earth.
And that’s before we get to God [perfect or not] and the multiverse.
God created the Universe with Earth therein.
Therefore the God that is spoken of anywhere in the Universe must be the same God all its believers speak of. Thus a discussion of God within Earth is sufficient to understand the idea of God and to confirm God exists is so easy, just bring the direct evidence.
And yet there may well be civilizations on other worlds that conceive of God in ways that have never even occurred to folks here on earth. They may be so much more advanced than we are that their thinking about God may in turn be all that much more sophisticated.
Instead, when I think of God and the universe, the thing that most intrigues me is why He deemed it necessary to make it so staggeringly vast. The more we learn about it the more mind-boggling it gets. Was God behind the laws of nature or must God be in sync with them?
If you are referring to human-liked higher intelligence existing somewhere in the Universe. Human-liked is empirical and empirically possible, but we know the possibility of such aliens existing is negligible to likely Zero. Thus your proposition related to this has near-zero credibility at present.
No, “we” don’t know this. You think that you do. But any number of folks who spend their lives thinking about it [astrophysicists for example] speculate that there are almost certainly billions upon billions of planets “out there”. Thus their proposition would seem to carry considerably more weight than yours. They would ask you what empirical evidence do you have to support your claim? And then they would show you theirs: exoplanets.nasa.gov/the-search- … ife-signs/
Beside why must an all-powerful God hide itself that only 100x time more intelligent being can only know it? It is so simple, just bring the direct evidence.
Again, I am generally in agreement with you here. I just have no illusion that I am any more capable of providing direct evidence for a No God universe. Just that those who do believe this seem more obligated to provide the evidence. Especially given the fact that immortality, salvation and divine justice itself are at stake re the looming shadow that is the abyss.
And Eastern religious narratives are no less confronted with this. There is how we choose to behave on this side of the grave, and what our fate is to be on the other side of it. And how the two are intertwined. Either Western or Eastern religionists address this point or they don’t.
But that is still basically my own interest in God and religion: How ought one to live?
It’s just that, with God, the speculation doesn’t end at the grave.
Philosophically and wisely, the rational approach to the existential crisis is more effective than to rely on an impossible-to-be-real-God with its negative & evil baggage.
On the contrary, in the absence of God, rationality quickly devolves into any number of conflicting “humanistic” and “nihilistic” philosophies [and political agendas]. And there is plenty of “negative and evil” baggage about when these titanic entities clash. For example, liberal vs. conservative, capitalist vs. socialist, I vs. we vs. them.