Precisely -- not worth bothering with.
How about 7-(1/googolplex)?
Show me some evidence, and I will believe, but I never believe without a good reason to do so.
Actually, if the evidence is good enough, we'll KNOW ... but I'm not holding my breath, and I don't see you turning blue, either!
I'm not holding my breath either.
If we were to ever get such evidence and KNOW -- for instance, if we were to discover convincing evidence for an actual Great Juju at the bottom of the sea (to borrow from Richard Dawkins) -- the powerful being in question would become simply another fact of the universe to be dealt with. Not an arbitrary source of "morality" or focus of unquestioning adulation. Concession might be the rational response to actual overwhelming force. But the supposed supernatural bearers of such force have always turned out to be as real as Santa Claus.
Show me good enough evidence, and you could convince me of nearly anything. Clarke's third law, a few hundred years ago, any one of us would have been burned for witchcraft. While omnimax deities may not be logically coherent, some "supernatural" abilities may well be possible in the future, though through wholly natural means. The only way to definitively know what is possible, is to move slightly past it, in to the impossible.
God, however, is a poorly defined construct and concept, even more poorly supported. Atheism isn't simply a rejection of just god claims, but divinity itself. Me and a sun worshiper would not argue over the existence of the sun, only the divinity of it.
Psychologist Julian Jaynes speculated that as recently as 3000 years ago, people didn't have consciousness with introspection as we know it, but rather a "bicameral mind" where one part "speaks" to the other in auditory hallucinations -- which could be perceived as the "voice of god". He argued that schizophrenia is a vestige of of humanity's earlier bicameral state.
Roses are red.
Violets are blue
And I am, too!
LOL Loren :)
I am a SEVEN.