OK, let me see if I understand what you say.
"To exist, a thing must have an identity in reality."
Is that true? For example, an atom, or a germ, or bacteria, did not have an identity until humans had the means to see it, even as they saw the effect of them. Is it the reality or the perception of reality that matters. Or, if we can see a reality, let us say lightning, it is a reality, but the energy cannot be used until humans have a perception of lightning as a source of electrical energy and learns how to control and predict its use.
"If it does not interface with reality, then it does not exist, in reality."
If human beings, with their many senses, do not exist, then does water, soil, air, or fire exist?
So, if the unseeable to humans, or no humans to see, exist, and god does exist, how can one know?
or if god does not exist, how can one know? Therefore, it makes sense to know there is no god until and unless evidence presents itself.
Those who believe god exists give anecdotal evidence that cannot stand up to reason, but can and does stand up to emotion. Therefore, does emotion count in this reality?
Replace 'identity' by 'information content' as from Shannon and Hawking. I think that's what he means. Might've meant something else.
But what about? We agree on gnostic atheism and for the same reason. The possibility of god is not reasonable.
On phrasing the existential argument against god to counter the abused "can't know the unknowable". Start by putting limits and boundaries on the unknown. The overall goal is to make impotent such 'beyond comprehension' arguments along the lines of how quantum physicists are reducing error due to Heisenberg by 'squeezing' the probability distribution, as predicted by the 'Heisenberg Compensator' of Star Trek:TNG.
Do I understand what you wrote? "Beyond comprehension" is getting smaller and smaller because of quantum physics?
Assuming the total amount of knowledge is a finite amount, and assuming quantum physics is in fact a correct theory, then yes - that makes perfect sense. However, I think right now we don't know what we don't know, and the more we learn, the more we realize how much we don't know. Which is a perfect place to be for scientists :)
ABSOLUTELY! Living in the question is a whole lot more interesting than living in the answer.
No and yes. It's the 'limits and boundaries on the unknown' that makes it smaller. The 'Heisenberg Compensator' was a metaphor but QM per se has nothing to do with the matter.
I think it requires a certain level of faith to be atheist, which is why I'm agnostic.
Atheism is a rejection of theism at it's core is it not? But do to mankind's current limitation in technology and science, a lack of some sort of higher being cannot be conclusively tested by the scientific method. Therefore, there is no proof making Atheism just as much a faith as any religion because it requires a belief in something without proof.
Frankly, I love atheists because I think as a whole, they're more logical than the religious. They also generally support the sciences more, thereby helping us all move further. But we have to all keep in mind that it's OK to keep an open mind, especially when we converse with our religious friends. If we come across as arrogant know-it-alls then we discourage people from the ideals of the non-theist.
No, atheism has NO faith involved. It's not a _faith_ that god/gods do not exist. It's simply a position that due to lack of evidence for this existence, it's extremely improbable.
Who's to say it's extremely improbable? How do you even begin to work out statistical probability for the existence or non-existence of something? Whether or not you would acknowledge it, there is a leap you have to make to make a decision about something that can't be proven.