My argument for atheism +

[Belacqua]

This is basically an alternative version of "you can't see the wind" argument.

I've never heard the "you can't see the wind" argument. Is it just when people say that you can't see wind but you know it's real? 

That would be more of an analogy than an argument, I think, and I agree it wouldn't be persuasive about religious issues.

At the same time I think we want to avoid a "we haven't found Bigfoot" argument, which is a label I've just made up for a kind of argument I have heard. It is where people talk about God as if it must be similar to Bigfoot (tangible, material, visible if we knew where to look), and declare that since we haven't got physical evidence it means that it doesn't exist. This would be a mistake, because ever since the time of Plato no one has asserted that God is a physical object with a quantifiable body. Such an argument would be declaring a lack of evidence for something which no one has argued for in the first place. 

1) If god isn't "knowable" through any sense apperata, what distinguishes god from nothingness?
2) Which is the same as saying god doesn't exist.

Are the laws of mathematics something or nothing?