They are perhaps imaginary to you, but how do you know they are imaginary in reality? Just because there is no evidence for something doesn't mean it isn't real.
As for your point about purposes, this is you simply making assumptions. Assumptions aren't an argument.
Even if there was no evidence to suggest that a God exists (and I don't think there is), how do you know that one doesn't exist? As I said before, just because there is no evidence doesn't mean something isn't real.
What about a God that doesn't interfere with the universe, or interferes in such a way that it cannot be discovered by us, or that interferes and then covers its tracks to prevent us from finding it. How do you know these Gods don't exist?
You are going about this in an entirely confusing way. Firstly you accuse atheists of somehow being too open to possibilities by embracing skepticism, then you say you can prove that Gods don't exist by showing a mechanism by which you can prove the non-existence of things. Then, when asked to give the evidence for your position, you ask us to give evidence for the existence of God. It seems a very funny thing to do to ask atheists to give evidence for the existence of God, given that we don't believe there is any (or at least all evidence claimed to be is invalid).
So please, take a few steps back and start again. Present your case in a single post, taking your time to explain yourself and your ideas. Don't make this a dialog about random topics when it would be best a discussion of the ideas you present about the ability to disprove gods.
As for your point about purposes, this is you simply making assumptions. Assumptions aren't an argument.
Even if there was no evidence to suggest that a God exists (and I don't think there is), how do you know that one doesn't exist? As I said before, just because there is no evidence doesn't mean something isn't real.
What about a God that doesn't interfere with the universe, or interferes in such a way that it cannot be discovered by us, or that interferes and then covers its tracks to prevent us from finding it. How do you know these Gods don't exist?
You are going about this in an entirely confusing way. Firstly you accuse atheists of somehow being too open to possibilities by embracing skepticism, then you say you can prove that Gods don't exist by showing a mechanism by which you can prove the non-existence of things. Then, when asked to give the evidence for your position, you ask us to give evidence for the existence of God. It seems a very funny thing to do to ask atheists to give evidence for the existence of God, given that we don't believe there is any (or at least all evidence claimed to be is invalid).
So please, take a few steps back and start again. Present your case in a single post, taking your time to explain yourself and your ideas. Don't make this a dialog about random topics when it would be best a discussion of the ideas you present about the ability to disprove gods.
