[drudman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So I'd like you to pick a position on the question "Does God exist?".

[/ QUOTE ]
That's not a well-formed question until a definition of "God" is provided. Ask ten people what they think "God" is and you'll get ten different answers.

Let's say I come across some super-powerful being who can move mountains with his pinky. How am I supposed to evaluate whether he qualifies as a God?

[/ QUOTE ]

The linguistic problem is not the one I care about (use the one in webster's if you wish).

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll use the definition that I think makes the most sense: A god is an entity that merits our worship.

Under that definition, I believe that no gods exist. To worship another being means to say to it, "Not my will, but thy will be done," no matter what it's will is. If it wants me to throw acid in a child's face, I should do it. If it wants Abraham to murder Isaac, he should do it.

I believe that worship is morally irresponsible, and therefore that no entity merits our worship. I have a duty to use my own best judgment and do what I think is right -- not to just blindly follow orders from some priest or some book or some god.

Since no entity merits our worship, no gods exist. QED.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your argument is analytic, and says nothing. You define God in such a way that it is contradictory to an opinion you have, which you then put forth as a premise. Both the premise and the definition are very easily assailed.

Keep in mind that any arguments or propositions that deal with metaphysical entities are literally meaningless. But no one will discuss sensible things on this forum.