Working backwards.

[Harry Nevis]

There certainly is no proof for god.

What is for certain is there no proof for that claim of yours. At least, none presented by anyone here.

 In fact what a god is supposed to be has never really been explained to me.
What is it made of?
What does it look like?
How does it do these magical things its supposed to do?

I want well supported and peer reviewed scientific articles to back up anything you might put.

So you will want Scientists to prove and explain all these things to you, but won't give the Creator a chance to speak by closing your ears to what potentially is from him?

Please see the OP, and see the argument I made for the case, of why I think Atheists should consider this approach.

Scientists are proven to exist.  And who could stop your "creator" from speaking if he wanted to?

---

What is more trivial than a thing that has so little impact on my existence that don't think it exists at all.

God by definition would be a being that ought to be valued the most, and hence, the least trivial thing in the world, and in fact the most non-trivial thing in the world. 
And you would relate to him, in that your value would be linked in how you value that being. And your value is linked to your purpose, and hence, your purpose would be linked to the Divine.

---

What is more trivial than a thing that has so little impact on my existence that don't think it exists at all.

God by definition would be a being that ought to be valued the most, and hence, the least trivial thing in the world, and in fact the most non-trivial thing in the world. 
And you would relate to him, in that your value would be linked in how you value that being. And your value is linked to your purpose, and hence, your purpose would be linked to the Divine.

By whose definition?