Hello allow me to introduce myself. My name is William. I have been following this very interesting debate and although I joined all of ten minutes ago, I am going to throw my hat into the area.
1. God is considerered a supernatural being by most religions. He is unknowable by definition, since we humans live within the natural order of things and cannot percieve such a being if he existed. Therefore a god belief exist is of something outside of natural order of our perception and experience, or restated god is supernatural and therefore unknowable, any descriptin of such a being wouild by necessity be based upon faith and subsequently based on some authority; family, bible, koran, etc/ All having been written by humans would also be just a matter of conjecture. To use attributes of love, giver of moral code, etc. changes nothing. Attributes given to the unknowable are only conjecture based upon opinion and faith, not reason.
2. An agnostic's position would be that he cannot perceive god, but cannot say he doesn't exist somewhere, sometime in all the univeres.
But the same position would be true for the belief in unicorns, elfs, fairies, etc. Any rational man would not expect him to harbor such a belief without proof.
3. An athiest, is one without theistic belief. It is not necessary for him to prove or disprove the existence of god since he isn't the one holding the belief. The believer is the one who by necessity of his position needs to prove his belief.
Also common sense would point out that the label of athiest was established by aomeone of theistic belief. It is not a name that someone without such a belief would choose, since the god concept would not be one of his/her referents. Therefore the term athiest is a label used by a monotheiest to describe someone who doesn't share his point of view, consequently that places the necessity of proof on the person with that viewpoint not the person without it.
In a sense, the agnostic is an athiest - since he is also without theistic belief.
Conclusion: An interesting idea, if a believer could prove the existence of god (as an existent, identity) then that god would not be supernatural and therefore would then not be a god (by common definition), since he would not be supernatural and would have identity and be knowable. Therefore, to kill this god concept we need to support the believer into proving the existence god.
A. If god exist he is both supernatural and unknowable, by definition
B. Any knowledge claim is based upon faith in authority and/or conjecture
C. The world can only be known by man through the rational use of his mind
