I try to identify "what is the equivalent of God" in each person's understanding of life, the world and
the laws of nature or life.
So you purport that God is equivalent to every persons perspective about what they believe about it?
That everyone believes in the correct god?
That is certainly a preposterous hypothesis that nullifies the idea of a higher power, if it is just whatever you want it to be.
Child molesters would have a god that aligns with their depravity, allowing them to be saints and saviours.
Proving/disproving God in essence remains faith based.
Well, when you consider faith comes from ignorance, like a child who has faith in Santa, you are right again!
Having faith in the most profound thing in the universe without any rhyme or reason to is preposterous.
Imagine claiming the a god is more magnificent than the star that is our Sun, shining so brightly in the sky, but not having the least glimmer of the star faintest to the eye.
Well said.
Now, as for the negation of God, that also depends on each person's system.
One person I met did NOT believe that the forces or evolution of life sought SURVIVAL
but believed the drive in humanity sought DEATH and destruction.
No help there, this sounds too preposterous to be true.
if we can assume God is positive, like universal truth, life, wisdom, good will, love,
that we can assume something that destroys or voids that also exists.
I appreciate the word "if," it justifies your entire premise... because there are very few deities we can grant those positive/good assumptions to, and to do so for many is a preposterous assumption.
So things are NOT equal, it isn't arbitrary, if you can have +A then you can have -A.
Excellent, if god is balance, then its existence is preposterously unnecessary. Well done.
I think the latter about covers the rest of your post. A deity interested in good would build in mechanisms curtailing unfortunate and habitual abuse - perhaps a simple ability to program the behaviour, without that, a deity is a poor idea.
