Dan,
Sorry for the long delay.
But how can you do that when, almost by definition, God has to be outside the sphere of human understanding?
I think you have to make the attempt to satisfy what "God" means to you. It may be that you define "God" as anything supernatural. It may be that, for you, "God" is the Universe and everything in it. It may also be that, as you've pointed out, "God" is outside the sphere of human understanding. Just because we can't understand God doesn't mean can't define God in some way.
I used to think this [no way you can convincingly argue for either existence or non-existence]... You don't have to argue for the non-existence of God, any more than you have to argue for the non-existence of Batman.
I don't see Batman anywhere. You want to say he's there, give me some reason to think he might be.
If you can't, I'm going to continue working under the assumption that Batman is not there.
The problem I have with this is, you could have used this to refute the existence of bacteria until the 19th century. Didn't mean they didn't exist until then...
r/Geno