Max, back to our discussion. The American theologian Paul Tillich in his Systematic Theology says: "The question of the existence of God can neither be asked nor answered. If asked, it is a question about that which by its very nature is above existence, and therefore the answer - whether negative or affirmative - implicitly denies the nature of God. It is as atheistic to affirm the existence of God as to deny it. p.262 (my emphasis)
Isn't this wonderous stuff! Kant I think, says that the God concept is a regulative idea, a 'moral intuition' (so did he prefigure the 'god gene'?).
I much prefer his rejoinder to Descartes about the necessary existence of God, when the latter argues that it is impossible to have a triangle without its having three sides and three angles, ergo, it is impossible to have God without having His necessary existence. Kants says to have a triangle without three angles is a contradiction, but you don't have to have a triangle, ergo; if you accept God, it is logical to accept his necessary existence, but you do not have to accept God. The definition of a triangle says nothing about its existence because existence is not a predicate.
For me the argument for God's existence cannot establish reference, God-talk has no reality. No arguments that set out to establish the existence of God are acceptable to someone who does not already believe.
I remind myself of the following: THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS THE EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE. That satisfies me and is a sceptic's major premise.