I have not been able to read through all the posts here, but I did want to respond to the thought about there being or not being a god or gods:

The default position should be one of skepticism (no matter WHAT subject). It is easy to accept the concept of "nothing" because it does not require any answers and, thus, no questions. As a result, it is the default position. When someone says the universe came into being via X, Y or Z, then the default position of skepticism is to say, "No! But let's test to see!" So even the Big Bang (and other theories) was treated from a skeptical viewpoint when first presented. Subsequent tests on the concept show that it is a possibility. This chips away at skepticism.

The same logic should be applied to the concept of god or gods. When we first encounter the concept we should immediately say, "No!" and then begin to apply tests to see if there is any validity to the idea. There are many things that we cannot test about the concept of god or gods, but there are things, in relation to this concept, that can be. So far these tests do not validate the concept, but quite the opposite. In this manner, the skeptical stance is maintained.

For example, both those for god(s) and those against tend to agree that SOMETHING is eternal. It could be a god (who is then the first cause and creator of all things) or it could be the universe itself ... that matter is eternal. Both thoughts need to be approached from the skeptical point of view ... disbelieving both, but with a willingness to test the concepts to see if there is any truth in them. The funny thing is, it is a FACT that the universe exists. This we can prove. But we cannot prove (or disprove) that a god exists. From a skeptical point of view, the universe (matter) already has a hand up on being the eternal existent item. There is proof for the universe (matter), but not for god. Further, we can test for things like the age of the universe and test theories about its current beginnings and concepts about cycles (expansion, contraction, etc) and see if they support ideas and beliefs about the universe. But, again, the concepts of a god or gods cannot be tested. From a skeptical point of view, there is infinitely more evidence for the universe being self-existent WITHOUT a creator (or an intelligent designer) than for there being one. The result is that the likelihood of a god or god(s) existing is virtually nil. We simply cannot substantiate the claim.

If we do not start from the position of being skeptical, then we could, in all likelihood, start with a false assumption and accepting it to be true. For example, the intelligent design advocate assumes that every intricate thing requires a maker. No one would find a watch lying on the ground and assume it just popped into existence! However, those that study such things as Quantum Mechanics (and some other disciplines) discover complex things being created from nothing all the time without the guidance of an intelligent hand behind them (i.e. things being coming into existence without a cause). Again, their work also needs to be approached from the point of being a skeptic, but their ideas can be tested and tried to see if their is truth in them. The concept of god cannot. As a result, he cannot exist or cannot be known.