What Would It Take To Be Convinced?

[Mudhammam]

The idea of a supernatural creator that exists outside time and space is a ridiculous and unreasonable concept in the first place. There is no need to request evidence for such a being, because the very concept is incoherent. 

Existence itself requires space and time, so existence that is without time and space is meaningless.

But, for arguments sake, lets say there is a god that exists outside of time and space. If this god interacts with this universe at all (miracles, answering prayer, etc), then it would leave physical evidence, and therefore asking for evidence is well within reason. 

What if this god does not interact with the universe?

I think it is intellectually dishonest to refuse the concept in the first place because you consider it ridiculous - I could do that with anything I wanted to repeal the possibility of debating.

You are assuming theists want to scientifically prove god exists when some just use philosophical possibilities but don't assert with certainty.

I'm not arguing in favour of god's existence, I just think some atheist arguments are fallacious and it's possible to improve the position

By god, I take you to mean a being with personality or at the very least, something like an all-encompassing mind. ( A ) If you mean something like a law of nature, then you might as well call the force of gravity or the nuclear forces deities, or divine movements, which is absurd, and pointless. ( B ) But if your all-encompassing mind is non-physical, your definition of mind is nonsensical: what does it mean to be mind eternally detached from any medium of sense, such as vision, sound, touch, etc.? It is only though the senses that we have any mental conceptions at all. ( C ) If you say that your mind is physical, then you have something that ought to be evidenced by physics, not merely logical deduction---otherwise you're just speculating, though we might be inclined to do so when considering the possibilities of Pre-Big Bang Physics, such as conditions which give rise to an infinite multitude of universes. And what difference is there between a multiverse and a multiverse that thinks? The only that I can conceive is that the former conforms with meaningful usage of words, whereas as the other doesn't, as it runs into the exact same problems mentioned above (( B ) & ( C )). God as personality is really an unintelligible notion, and God as a supreme force of nature is redundant.