'I can't be sure God DOES NOT exist': World's most notorious atheist Richard Dawkins admits he is in fact agnostic

I have read the Kings James Bible and I believe it has a great deal of wisdom for all of humanity, but was written for a people who do not think or act like us...We have the advantage of experience, while they did not, so books were written for them...We do not need a new Bible, but one needs to keep in mind it was not written directly for modern day man to be taken literally in all circumstances...

Do you believe and accept every word of any other book have read in your life? I don't. I believe what is written in biographies and scientific books, but the Bible is neither...

So which god do you believe in? Does it have intelligence? How do you know it exists?

I believe in a creator that is all knowing, good, and eternal...

Carl Jung, a firm believer on the opposite of Dawkins has said the same. He can't prove he exists. Both existing or not existing could have equally true arguments. That's the nature of nature.

Jung concluded if both are possible it's better to believe the positive option, is it not?

We cannot prove gravity, only the effects...Just because we lack information does not mean a thing cannot exist...

^How do you know it exists.

Correct. This is why the burden of proof is on the positive assertion. An idea is not justified by the lack of a reason to think something can not exist. An idea is justified by reasons to think it does exist.

There are an infinite amount of theoretical things that we can't disprove.

Logic.

I am living proof of a creator and if you do not believe what your senses tell you, I cannot help you...We call it faith because we cannot measure it...

How do you prove anything exists? By measuring it...We had to create machines to measure particles, and someday perhaps we will build a machine to speak to God...Moses had a "staff" which was an interface to directly communicate with God...

Logic? If that's true, you should be able to provide a syllogism or logical argument that leads to your conclusion. Can I have it?

Perhaps one day we'll invent the technology to see that our universe is on the back of a turtle. Hypothetical futures are not a reason to believe something.

That would conflict with everything we know about the universe...

I have read that book also, btw

"The wit and wisdom of discworld" by: Terry Pratchett

I enjoy philosophy as well...

There's no conflict if the turtle is outside the universe. The point is, maybe one day we'll find out a lot of things. You're assuming what we find will validate your beliefs.

By studying quantum physics, quantum mechanics, and quantum electrodynamics, I know that even the turtle is an illusion...Matter itself is an illusion...

I think 'matter is an illusion' is an over simplification of Quantum theory. Regardless, you can't know the state of the turtle if its outside our universe. Maybe Quantum theory does not apply there.

I have read Aquinas's argument, but I'd have to brush up on it again in order to provide any kind of rebuttal. From memory, it seemed to smuggle some doctrine specific assumptions into the premises, like the Kalaam Cosmological argument, which can -at best- demonstrate a first cause, but not any specific personal deity.