Just out of interest: If there was an evidence of the existence of God , wouldnt then all people automatically start to believe in God?

I think the whole label "God" is a fairly loaded question.
* First of all, many atheists believe God = Man in the Sky who grants wishes, or one of the other strawmen they like to beat up on.
* Christians believe God = The unknowable father; the Son who is Word which created the universe, spoke the to the Prophets, and incarnated into the flesh of Jesus Christ; and the Holy Spirit which is figure who moves into action or some such thing (I have debated with Christians that the Holy Spirit as a separate head in the Trinity is not supported by the Bible or any theology from the time of Jesus or earlier - rather the Bible supports the two parts of God, which is consistent with Hellenistic Jewish theology of the time, but that it is the much later theologians and the Catholic Catechism which adds the third head to the Godhead).
* The Platonists believed God = Unknowable, because "he" exists beyond time and space and is unchanging and therefore perfect, and he created the Universe via the prime mover/Logos (very similar to Christian theology) and the only way we can deduce God's nature is through philosophy.

But what if God = a form of technology or a lifeform we don't yet understand which exists in a higher dimension?
What if God = the maintenance program of a computer simulation?
Then there is the question, what if God = one of the infinite possibilities that I (and possibly anyone else) has never considered?

This is why I generally find it unimportant to dictate what is proper to believe, and what others should believe in. I am very happy to have many people believing many different things, so long as they don't impose "God's will!" on others or trash churches/temples/mosques or other religious sites and people because they don't like the fact that they believe in something different. In my opinion, I don't think it's possible to have enough knowledge to know what the answer is; which is why this post doesn't really offer enough opitions.

The simplistic Yes or No doesn't leave any room for those who haven't decided or who are certain they do not know the answer. Which is where I'd fall.

Yes. That's how evidence works. I mean, of course there would be idiots out there screaming fake news, but if actual, tangible evidence arrived showing that god was real or that one God made any more sense than another, most intellectuals would take it to heart. 

But, since we're going on something like a few millennia of no evidence ever being presented, I highly doubt that would happen. 

Yes. It is ironic when people argue with "but science", however when science comes up, they have no clue whatsoever. That is why anti-theists or "a-theists" are, from my perspective, in the same range as creationists and other dead end minded extremists. You're not interested in a discussion, let alone a fruitful discussion. You want to propagte your belief and convince others that it is the only truth.

Why indeed. The subject of the thread doesnt indicate participants have to prove anything.

The Multiverse hypothesis could also be followed by the demand for proof. But nobody does, because it would be a silly and redundant thing to do. "Everybody" knows it cannot be proven and probably will never exceed the hypothetical. Yet, nobody would declare it a silly thing, too silly to even think of as possible.

haha, why would I need to prove anything? 

My own thoughts on God are from more than a couple decade's worth of university level and personal investigation in world religion mixed with a firm foundation in Computer Science (as well as most other sciences). That experience and knowledge is not something I can "prove" to you in a forum post. Nor do I have the desire to prove anything to anyone. My belief could be 100% wrong, partially right, or 100% right and none of it matters to anyone. Existence continues to exist, light continues to build everything, matter continues to pass from one form to another without loss, and the concept of God will continue to be debated.

All that really matters is that you be a good person and treat others (human or otherwise) as you'd like to be treated. That can be done with our without a belief in God.

1. I didn't say it was "factual", just my chosen belief.

2. Belief in God is not equal to flat-Earth. Flat-Earth has several layers of clear evidence to disprove any such nonsense. The concept of God varies greatly and has no evidence, strictly speaking, to be proven or not. Atheism is a belief system in its own right. There is no evidence to prove there is no God. This is why I stated that the concept of God will continue to be debated (forever).

The sad part is how so many people feel the need to fight over a belief. Your inherent worth and dignity as a living being is not improved because you are an Atheist or Theist. However, it is impacted in how you treat others.

https://www.uua.org/beliefs/what-we-believe/principles

I don't think anyone in this thread has been more wrong than you right here during this post. 

Like, it would take 5x what you wrote just to explain how misguided you are, how wrong you are, and how thoroughly you miss the point. Like, it's not irony when people argue, nobody says 'but science' as a sort of counter expecting that to be enough on its own (That's not how science works), science does come up but it's always with methods of explaining or inquiring with more precision, scientists don't 'have no clue whatsoever', and even when there's a question that they don't know the answer to they don't make shit up to satisfy their theories - again, that's not how science works. You're misusing the term 'atheist' again as someone who vehemently claims to know there is no god instead of simply not believing in god (this is where much of your argument falls to shit if it hadn't already). Your perspective is irrelevant when it comes to what is and what isn't. Putting atheists on the same level of creationists is foolish because one relies on faith, the other relies on the scientific method, two things that are, by their very definition, on opposite ends of the spectrum of knowledge and understanding. Atheists/scientists can't be extremists by their very nature, as they don't have a 'cause' to fight for but instead, are guided by the advancement of knowledge and understanding instead of faith or belief. The problem is that scientists/atheists ARE interested in a discussion but they're demanding more proof on your behalf than you can provide so it's just easier for you to act like you're the innocent one being attacked than actually respond. 

And then you finish by saying we 'want to propagate our belief and convince others that it is the only truth.' This is where I came to say you were so wrong that it hurts. 

Because Scientists and atheists - at least none that I've seen and none in this thread - don't want to propagate anything, they are asking questions, demanding answers probing for more details, and putting faith up to reasonable scrutiny. Science is not a belief, it is a process that requires rigorous testing, the ability to replicate results, and the ability to communicate those results with others so that nonbiased third parties can test the results and ensure the tests and established facts are correct. No scientist goes in saying 'this is what I want to prove and I will do literally anything to convince myself and others', becuase that is the opposite of science, and as such, that is very similar to what atheists feel about God or religion in general. It's never 'I am 100% sure of the fact that there is no god", it's always "There absolutely no evidence in thousands of years that supports the existence of god." just like how scientists don't say "I will devise tests to prove my hypothesis", they say "Here is my hypothesis, I think it is correct and will now devise a test to check and see if it is true; if it is true, then great! If not, that means I've LEARNED SOMETHING and thus have advanced my knowledge!" 

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference of faith and knowledge and are unwilling to accept that one is backed by evidence and tests and thousands of the smartest people in the world and the other, by its very nature, is the exact opposite of that. You're equating faith with facts, and that is why you fail to understand how wrong you are about the nature of atheism and the nature of scientific studies. As long as you continue to falsely equate the two, you can never be taken seriously. 

Religion and science are not equals when it comes to intellectual debate. The scientific method is as far removed and superior to faith as it can possibly be, and the fact that you genuinely seem to think that scientists and by extension atheists apply the same fanatical pushing of belief that religions do is enough to completely discredit you. 

It is astounding how people can twist reality so much that they feel that faith in religion is the same as 'faith in the scientific method'. It's a concept so foolish I can't even think of a metaphor to describe it because it is its own example of how foolish it is. 

Yes that's the thing that doesn't make sense to me. If the existence of God would be proven every (intellectual) human would automatically believe in God and act as the humblest person on earth. Because they know with the existence of God that there is 100% an afterlife after our earthly life. People wouldn't do that because they are convinced by the Christian message, they would only act like this because they would fear the afterlife or more precisely hell. Everyone would want to go to heaven and therefore start acting like being nice people. So more or less they would fear God and his power. And that's not the purpose of religion. That's not what God would want.

On the other hand without an evidence of the existence of God only the people who are completely convinced by the Bible believe in God and the Christian message. That's the special thing about human beings, they have the free will to believe in what ever they want. Everyone can be an atheist or a theist, it's up to them what they think is the right choice. But by an evidence of the existence of God there would be no free will anymore for human beings because they are more or less forced to believe in God.

And I am asking if he has evidence for said beliefs. Not a difficult concept.

Just like those who believe in God, you can be wrong.

Indeed. I would most certainly be one of them.

You start off stating "Why would I need to prove anything?"
Then go on a tangent about your credentials. - Your credentials don't evidence make, nor does your credentials take precedent over mine or anyone elses.

The rest of your post is spot on, your belief could be 100% wrong, partially right or 100% right, but it's best to have evidence before you form an opinion on such things.

There is plenty of statements in the Bible/Torah/Quran that comes into conflict with scientific fact.
Like the Earth forming before the Sun.

Again... Making comparisons between the Flat Earth hypothesis and Religion isn't that far fetched... Considering most Flat Earthers leverage the Bible/Torah/Quran to form their hypothesis anyway.

Correct.

Incorrect.

There is no evidence that disproves the fact I ride a Kangaroo to work, does that mean it's true?
There is no evidence that Dragons don't exist, does that mean they exist?

Your logic is flawed.

Many God's have been proven false over human history, Norse and Egyption Gods being prime examples... As our understanding of the natural world increases, then the more tenuous the Theistic position becomes.

How does god not confirming his existence solve this problem?

Isn't the central promise of Christianity that those who believe in Jesus will have everlasting life? Isn't that the only reason given to believe in Jesus? That's, from what

Whether people know 100% there is an afterlife, the only reason for acting "morally" (according to christianity) is because you want the reward or to avoid the punishment.