First order logic, set theory and God

[Pat Mustard]

Sorry, but I don't apply circular logic to my thinking, so I can't agree with your statement.

Not knowing (for me) means I can't declare. 

And if you can't decide you are then best off provisionally accepting the null hypothesis, which is in this case is "there is no god". Claiming that god exists is a positive claim, it is making a prediction about reality which must both agree with what we currently know and also be predictive of future or future discovered phenomena existing in reality.

No one single person has been able to show any evidence for the god assertion*.

*Generally in science you have hypotheses and theories. Personally I think there should be four 1) assertions, which are just personal prejudices, 2) conjectures, which have some basis in reality but have not been examined for factuality, 3) hypotheses, which generally agree with what we do know but haven't been tested for predictiveness and finally 4) theories which have gone through the whole gamut of falsification methods and are still standing. You'll notice that 3 and 4 are (as I describe them) pretty close to what the scientific community treat them as, whereas 1 & 2 are not generally mentioned.

PS the rest of your post is pure unadulterated bullshit. We both know that you want the situation to be "if there is anything we don't know about the universe then god must be the answer", we both know you're not looking for evidence, because you already have the answer and are afraid that you'll lose it.