Evidence for atheism

[Jackalope]

No, no no, I don't think that any of us are unclear on the rules. Reach back to the point at which we went on our excruciatingly specific exploration of the topic.

I'm confident in stating that the "god conclusion" is false. I'm explaining my confidence - thus, my confusion when others say "we cannot know" or, if you prefer, allowing the possibility of god on a technicality.

I say that we can know, and here's why

If p, then q
p
therefore q

That describes the rules.

If ants are 5 feet tall, then god
ants are 5 feet tall
therefore god.

The operator here, implied in the statement - in the very act of "doing logic" what makes it "true" -because ants are 5 feet tall, god-

What happens when I mention that ants are, in fact, not 5 feet tall?

If you attempt to conclude that by that virtue, god does not exist, you are committing a formal fallacy.