The only honest view of the god debate is Agnosticism.

Thank you, Ameliamk1, for a thoughtful response. Please allow me to open by fully clarifying my position, and offering the reasons for my stance:First, I am (obviously) Agnostic, with respect to the existence of a god.Next, I am anti-theist, with respect to religion (opposed to theocracy). I am opposed to all religions I have ever encountered. I find them to be intellectually, emotionally, and psychologically carcinogenic. I further find them to be socially stunting, in their implementation. I fully oppose any and all legislation based on any religious 'morality.' I fully oppose any and all religious influence in our public education. I oppose any and all lobbying of our (American) government by any religious institution.Now, on to my position on the existence of god, and its reasoning:I went to the extreme negative end of the 'god debate' pendulum, for a number of years. However, having rethought my position, I've discovered that I had excluded too many possibilities, based on the ridiculousness of only that which, heretofore, has been offered. Thinking only logically, I compared many critical elements of decision-making, and found that my position was too 'hard-lined,' in order to be fully rational.When a scientist sets out to investigate something, he/she must do so with an open-ended acceptance of what they might find. There can be expectations, and there can be projections (hypotheses). What there cannot be, if there is to be actual discovery, is intellectual dishonesty. This is where I run into the wall, moving into the realm of atheism... I have to be intellectually honest enough to evaluate my position, after having examined the evidence available, but also understand that that I may not even be aware of the existence of some evidence.While I fully agree with portions of my opponent's introductory statement, I cannot make assertions of definitive existence/non-existence with full intellectual honesty (In keeping with the rules I outlined, I will not rebut anything, in this round). Like my opponent, I fully reject every single 'god' that any person or group of people has ever presented. From Yaweh/Jehova to Allah to Vishnu and on up the line to the first superstition of Pompeii's volcano god. It is clear that these gods were invented by humans, and have no substantial credibility, based on a shred of evidence for any assertion made by the followers of a single one of them. However, this does not mean that there is not some form of supreme being that is not contingent on human stupidstition (intentional), that is not defined by disingenuous 'holy' manuscript(s). That I have not encountered something does not preclude its existence. Further, that I have not encountered even EVIDENCE of something also does not preclude its existence.Consider, for a moment, that we are speaking not of a god, but of an element that is stable, at the level of the man-made element (for example) Ununoctium. It is unlikely that we would find a stable deposit of this element, occurring naturally, anywhere in our solar system. However, the fact that we understand as much as we do about not only the nature of atoms, but the existence of other forces that would have appeared 'godly' to generations past, means that there may be conditions under which this 'man-made' element can exist, naturally. The fact that there is no evidence of this element being forged in the heart of a black hole, rather than in the heart of a blue super-giant star does not mean that this cannot be the case. The periodic table, as currently represented by our understanding, is by no means limited to its current state. Our understanding and available data is not the 'end-all, be-all' of reality; only of our reality, at present. It is the same refusal to eliminate a scientific possibility that has led me to the conclusion that I cannot RATIONALLY dismiss the possibility of the existence of other things.While I also agree that absence of evidence IS evidence of absence, the absent evidence is only evidence of the absence of those gods that have been defined by humankind. Until the discovery of the heavier elements, there was absence of evidence of their existence. The discovery of these elements was PROOF that absence of evidence is not PROOF of absence. It is only when something has been proved, that an assertion of its factuality can be made.Is it rational to assert that there is a god? No. Since there is no valid evidence to even suggest a god, the religious continue to search for grounds on which to infer a god. I must note, at this point, that any time that something is used to infer the existence of a god, it is always the god in which they (the individual making the inference) believes. It could not, in their estimation, be any other god. It is this, I believe, that swings people into the realm of atheism, rather than remaining in the realm of agnosticism. While I completely deny and reject every single god that has ever been presented/defined/described/asserted/worshipped by any group of humankind, this rejection is not a valid preclusion for the existence of any god.This brings me to the final point I would like to make, for this opening statement. Much of what is discussed, here, depends greatly upon the definition of any 'god' being discussed. For the purposes of clarity, I would like to define that which I would accept (assuming having been presented with evidence of such) as a 'god':1) A being not bound by the limitations of the laws of physics, as we understand them. This being, in order to merit the title of 'god,' would have to possess the ability to not only suspend, but alter/change the laws of physics, as we understand them.2) A being not bound by the limitations of space and time. This being would have to be able to exist in more than one place, simultaneously, and be able to be perceived by those of us who are bound by this limitation, in conjunction.3) A being fully capable of displaying the ability to create life. In addition to being able to suspend the laws of physics as we understand them, the ability to give life (not just reproduce, as in nature). To be able to animate organic material would, indeed, require abilities/properties that could be described by no word or concept other than 'god.'Does such an entity exist? To my knowledge, no. To every one's knowledge, no. However, can the words, "...to my knowledge..." be rationally be removed from a reasonable answer? No. To answer the question of the existence of this entity with an unequivocal and unqualified "Yes" or "No" has, as a prerequisite, definitive knowledge of the factuality and veracity of the response. In order to have actual knowledge of the factuality of a response in one direction or the other, I would be required to have been able to submit something to a test. The agnostic position is the only position that fully recognizes the factual and evidential limitations of one's knowledge and experiential contact. I know so very little, about so very much, and I simply cannot rationally bring myself to state or assert that there is no 'god.' I can only state that the gods we (humanity) have been been presented heretofore, cannot rationally exist. I leave the adamant presumption of knowledge of things outside of my experience (and really, all of humanity) to those who just 'know' that their god exists, and requires worship.