Tubster...I have a query but first consider this...
To know there is no God, one would have to know all things, because God could be within what they do not know. Even if one were to have all the knowledge and experience of 50% of the Brittanica, that would mean that there is 50% they cannot know nor have experienced. So to know God is not, one has to know all.
To know there is no God, one would have to be in all places simultaneously because God could only be revealing Himself in a place you are not.
You would have to have known all and been everywhere during all of the past, the present, and the future in case God was revealing Himself when you were not.
Finally, you would have to be aware of all that which is and/or has been known or experienced by all individuals of all times, in case He had revealed Himself to only certain peoples at certain times.
So in effect, to know there is no God, you would have to be omniscient, omnipresent, eternal, and present for any who may be able to receive illumination or revelation that God is. So to believe with conviction that there is no God, one then has to be exactly what is called God.
Now consider what is empirical evidence…
Empirical = based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic; originating in or based on observation or experience; relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory ; capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment.
So to believe there is no God one must be in denial of the empirical evidence of millions of people from every walk of life from every culture (both genders) and all different ages thoughout time. Do you deny all this empirical evidence? Many have seen Him (though you have not). Many have heard His voice (though you have not). Many have been transformed and forever changed (though not you). Prophecy rebukes the accusation from statistical probabilities (but you cannot see that many things have been prophesied that came to pass). Too many people have been healed to be blown off by the “mere coincidence “ argument. You can test Him and do what He says and see for yourself if you do not get the promised result (but you are afraid and like being your own lord). I could go on but you can see how absurd a position it is to believe with any conviction that God is not.
So if you are an honest agnostic, though I do not agree I can respect this, but if you are an Atheist then I must conclude you are assumptive at best or else delusional, but in no wise are you a rational being regardless of how many books you have read or what degree you may have.
So let me ask you straight forward so I know what kind of person we are dealing with…are you an agnostic, that admits there could be a God but you personally have no reason to believe, or are you an Atheist, who bases their beliefs on an unprovable universal negative?
Thanks…
brother Paul