Nonsense. Why does it require faith to believe an infinite universe? Is it because you can't wrap your head around it, if its not finite? It requires alot more faith to think a more complex beeing came and created it. Because then we need to understand how that beeing came to be. And don't give me "he just is". It's not.

You have a funny concept of things. First, even if everything you said is true, you can't jump to God as the explanation. It isn't the only explanation. Its the only one YOU can think of, that says the same as "I dont really know".

You obviously have the wrong concept of "Nothing". There is no nothing. Its a human concept. There is always something everywhere in our known universe. There is always something even in the micro atomic level. There is no such thing as nothing. Please try to understand that because its where your logic fundamentally starts on a faulty place.

Also, why are you trying to understand something as complex as the universe by constraining yourself with human perceptions? We were created to think and live in this planet. We were not created to understand the complexities of the fabric of the universe. We have to think outside our confort zone to reach conclusions.  There is no question towards wich the answer is: "God created it". Not a single one. Every single one that has appeared has been proven wrong. Be it the earth beeing flat, or that humans were created as they are.

The theory that everything has a cause is created by us of course, because everything does in our perceptions. But how does God created this universe circunvent that? It displaces the question to "who/what created god?" and therefore God is an expendable link in the chain.

Truth is, you are simply saying you dont know, but you can't leave it at that. You have to say God did it. Why? Just because you don't understand how it works yet, it doesn't mean a very unplausable God has to exist. It does become your onus to prove his existance because he is completely expendable.

That's part of the point though. If there is such a god that is totally isolated from the Universe, the deistic variation, then his existence is inconsequential to us.

However if there is a god of the personal variety, which you seem to be addressing in paragraph 2, which interacts with the Universe we should be able to detect these interactions since they would violate the laws of physics. It's not that it would be reducible and confined to physical laws, it's simply that there would be obvious signs of these times when he does interact. Similar to when you toss a rock into a body of water, the entry creates a ripple effect. 

When you haven't told anyone that you're an atheist in the past five minutes

Do yourself a favor and read a thread before making posts like this. I have already addressed EVERY SINGLE sentence in your post.

Your BIGGEST flaw in ALL your reasoning is the assumption that "god" is a sentient theistic being. I've cleary stated multiple times that "god." Is an abstract concept that is outside the realm of our thought. LOL - apparently the same argument you try to use to rationalize the infinite universe :-/. Its funny how people will try to attack ALL forms of creationism by throwing naturalistic laws at it -- but then the infinite universe paradox is just fine - cause aethism.

Of course they all talked about the same God. They were all Jewish. All historical figures who were Hindus have talked about the same God for thousands of years. Same with Mohammed and his disciples (though over a shorter time scale). Religion, as a cultural construct, has the ability to last over long periods of time and be passed down from generation to generation.

Buddha and his disciples were all also historical figures that talked about the same belief system. Does that mean that their belief system is correct? They don't call for any God. They believe in finding enlightenment and escaping the cycle of rebirth.

Really, this has been my problem with religion since I was a kid: what makes any modern religion any more right than any dead or defunct religion? What sets Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc apart from the rest aside from the fact that they still exist and can have a large amount of their followers born into the belief system?

To answer the OP: No, God's existence is not objectively verifiable, and never will be, because no human version of God actually exists. If God does exist, it exists beyond what we are currently able to detect or comprehend, thus making every religion that claims to know God, wrong. Of course, maybe our ability to detect a hypothetical higher being might be able to change one day. But it certainly won't have anything to do with a version of God we came up with thousands of years ago to explain our world to ourselves.

In what way is the concept of god not a human invention to explain irrationality in nature? :)

This is kind of what I am getting at; the only possible answer to the question in the OP is "No" since we don´t even have a common definition of "God" and therefore it does not exist unless we have a unified definition. When I mention Zeus or Odin, Shiva or The World Tree, all are some type of God for some people, at different times in history and in different places. People don´t even seem to talk about the biblical God but some kind of personal spiritual entity or the one that kicked of the BigBang.

Therefore it is safe to conclude that the term "god" is only our way to explain the unknown, the extraordinary, things we have yet to comprehend or can explain through scientific methodology. And in that case, God is precisely as real as Santa, and that is ok.

This is a wonderful example of dishonesty. Thank you, this is exactly what I wanted.

The burden of proof lies with any claim maker. If the atheist is of the positive variety, i.e. embraces the claim "No gods exist" then indeed they do have a burden. However, if the atheist is of the negative variety, i.e. does not make any claims merely does not embrace the claim "God(s) exist" (more commonly known as agnostic...wrongly) then there is no burden.

It requires no faith to believe that the Universe is infinite. You've even admitted to the facts which lead to that adbuctive inference...those being the expansion of the Universe (indeed, at a rate faster than the speed of light), as well as the fact that the Universe is already much larger than what we can observe.

Furthermore, what does the expansion of the Universe have anything to do with atheism? You seem to have related completely unrelated things here.

What is a belief in "nothing"? That isn't even a coherent sentence to me and certainly has nothing to do with atheism (again).

 Indeed, conservation of energy is preserved...and violated by the notion that a magical wizard manifested it into existence out of nothing. This is contrary to everything we know about physics and philosophy for that matter. Creatio ex nihilo is thought to be logically impossible in addition to being physically (nomologically) impossible. I trust you're aware that physicists do not believe that the Universe is a creatio ex nihilo event, but I can expound if necessary.

Causality is a principle that applies temporally, however since time is thought not to have always been one cannot really comment about a contingency on causality when referencing the Universe itself. This is a abstraction problem on your behalf.

No burden here, as I am not a positive atheist. Indeed it's a position which one could say is nearly as ridiculous as the theistic claim.

Atheist or not, no one can show any objective vverification of any godlike entity. Neither Kami nor abrahamitic god nor Odin. It's peoples believes. People believing so for 2000, 4000 or maybe even 10.000 years only shows that some believes become very well established.

Not gonna tell you that your entity of choice isn't existing. But if you're a releigious person that fell in the trap of arguing here you've instantly lost.

I'm fine with peoples believes as long as those aren't downgrading people because of sex, skincolor, sexual orientation....

Side note: The universe (or this universe) isn't infinite actually.

Yes, you are right, I meant to say that the importance has diminished. My bad english at times :).

I believe in ideas and I find things awe-sinspiring, but I also know that those feelings are most likely a product of society, my upbringing and biochemical reactions in my body and brain. I do not believe we have free will.

I do not pretend that I am above anyone else, but I expect people to respect my view that science is the tool with which we can explain the world, just as I respect that other people view the concept of a God as something that exists. That doesn´t mean that a religious person can´t critizie my view or vice versa.

There is no such thing as an aegnostic aethist. You are simply an aegnostic with aethist tendancies. The term "aegnostic aethiest" is an oxymoron. 

I have no qualm against aegnostics. You can believe in the flying spaghetti monster for all I care. My problem is with the person that claims to be an aethiest and therefore belives themselves intellectual superior (cause... reasons). The whole reason for this tread being created is narcissm. "I believe I am smarter than anyone who could believe in some *myth*". The fact is -- you need to understand that its not as binary as you think it to be.

The largest problem I have with the mainstream "aethiest" is that they assume god is either a sentient being - or nothing. God is a concept that the judiac religions personified.

Its kinda ironic how you reference casaulity only applying to our universe in our frame of reference -- but yet the concept of god is flawed for the same reason? Awefully hippocritical isn't it?