I'm really awful with the language of the subject, but I'll try. I aim to keep this short because I have a feeling I might've bungled this up.

There is the famous question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" which is to say, why is there anything at all. The initial feeling is that nothing is in some way easier than something, therefore it should be the default. The concept of nothing might be easier to understand, though I believe the idea of nothing cannot be fully understood simply because we as people have never encountered it.

We falsly assume that the idea of "nothing" is even possible. We have no evidence of such, nor can we. The moment there is something, "nothing" no longer exists.

Or said more clearly.

There is no proof that god exists.
Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

So, without the cooperation of said god or gods it is NOT possible to know if god(s) exist.

Right. We are in agreement; I merely took some minor issue with your formulation.

Or said more clearly.

There is no proof that god exists.
Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

So, without the cooperation of said god or gods it is NOT possible to know if god(s) exist.

This is absolutely true, however it is possible to know if certain types of Gods exist. For example, if someone were to suggest that God answered prayers, that is an entirely testable Hypothesis (incidentally tested and retested for years and proven to be completely false)
If you were to posit that God could produce miracles, these would be testable, just like many things that God can supposedly do. That is why in the first post I didn't just ask why you believe, but also what it is that you believe, as I think it is very relevant to this discussion, God itself can mean nothing or everything, where are the boundaries of your belief?
The only God that cannot be disproven within reason is a god who created the conditions for the universe to occur but has absolutely no influence on it, much less any interest in Mankind or life on Earth. Even if that is your position, there isn't really any reason to believe it to be true, it is just as likely (unlikely) as a thousand other hypothesis.

Not at all. You cannot say there is a god and you cannot say there definitely for sure is not a god. You don't know. You do not have the knowlege....the gnosis.

Can you positively say there is no Tooth Fairy? I sure can, call me arrogant if you must, but it is no leap of faith.....

Can you positively say there is no Tooth Fairy? I sure can, call me arrogant if you must, but it is no leap of faith.....
You can actually, because the tooth fairy is supposed to have pretty easy testable behavior. Most conceptions of god do not.

I mean you can imagine some whiffy tooth spirit that doesn't bring coins and call it the tooth fairy, but it's generally bad form to use commonly agreed on names for our personal flights of fancy.

You can actually, because the tooth fairy is supposed to have pretty easy testable behavior. Most conceptions of god do not.

I mean you can imagine some whiffy tooth spirit that doesn't bring coins and call it the tooth fairy, but it's generally bad form to use commonly agreed on names for our personal flights of fancy.

especially when we can use the term "God" to cover tham all.

Which conceptions of God do not have testable behaviour? Which superpowers does your god have?

Generally speaking, most conceptions of God do not operate on an "If you do X, I'll do Y" sort of system. It's more like a "God did response X? Amen!" and "God didn't do response X? He moves in mysterious ways" type of deal.
Actually, spiritual beings which respond to action X with response Y would be more in the realm of hermetic or alchmical magicians than any sort of religion. And yes, these sorts of spirits can be empirically tested.

Also, it would seem to me that any God who's behaviour is untestable, essentially has Zero relevance to our lives and the general goings on of the universe and also provides absolutely no reason whatsoever to suppose it exists at all.

Also, it would seem to me that any God who's behaviour is untestable, essentially has Zero relevance to our lives and the general goings on of the universe and also provides absolutely no reason whatsoever to suppose it exists at all.

Interesting hypothesis..but how can we test it?

Generally speaking, most conceptions of God do not operate on an "If you do X, I'll do Y" sort of system. It's more like a "God did response X? Amen!" and "God didn't do response X? He moves in mysterious ways" type of deal.
Actually, spiritual beings which respond to action X with response Y would be more in the realm of hermetic or alchmical magicians than any sort of religion. And yes, these sorts of spirits can be empirically tested.

Which is exactly why I cannot fathom belief in such God(s)

Interesting hypothesis..but how can we test it?

There are no outrageous claims being made that require any testing....are there?

especially when we can use the term "God" to cover tham all.

Which conceptions of God do not have testable behaviour? Which superpowers does your god have?

Any god that cleans up after himself when he makes a mess is untestable.

Any god that cleans up after himself when he makes a mess is untestable.

and that is what you believe in?

Also, it would seem to me that any God who's behaviour is untestable, essentially has Zero relevance to our lives and the general goings on of the universe and also provides absolutely no reason whatsoever to suppose it exists at all.

You are welcome to your opinion, but approximately 90% of the human race disagrees.

You can actually, because the tooth fairy is supposed to have pretty easy testable behavior.
Only if you assume that the Tooth Fairy collects all teeth -- of course that's just a superstition! She collects as many as she can; it's not like she has infinite speed at her disposal. She's a cunning sprite, though, and obviously she's not going to collect teeth that you're actively monitoring. That would eliminate the need for faith, and what's the Tooth Fairy without faith?

You only think that the Tooth Fairy is testable because you have a crude straw man conception of the Tooth Fairy. No real dentafaeologists believe in anything so simplistic.