Jim: You have not even marshalled any evidence which suggests that it is
more
reasonable to disbelieve in God than not. All you have done is sit back
and
try to poke holes (quite ineffectively) in the case for Christianity. This
makes you more of a surly agnostic than an atheist.
Nevertheless, lacking a convincing theory of god, there is no possibility
of showing that god does not exist. Neither is there any evidence that god
does exist. One might wonder why someone wants to believe in something
that might or might not exist but that is for another discussion.
Jim: If you want to be a true atheist, then tell us why it is more
reasonable to
accept the non-existence of God than His existence.
If one cannot observe something, you consider it nevertheless reasonable
that one still believes in the existance of this ?
Regards
Pim