@Jo: {If God exists, there would be something rather than nothing}.

But not necessarily the reverse . . . something rather than nothing does not mean that a god necessarily exists.
It is tautologically true that we are part of something, so something exists. 'NOTHING' seems to be an abstract construct of the mind ~ impossible as a reality.

======================================
@Jo: {If God exists, the universe would have laws}.

But not necessarily the reverse . . . universal laws do not necessarily mean that a god must exist.
A universe without laws could be the result of a god, or it could merely exist as a possibility ~ yes, it'd be impossible to understand, but so is the supposed god anyway, (if it's the Christian version of all the gods proposed). But a universe WITH laws doesn't tell us where those laws ultimately come from, (not yet).

======================================
@Jo: {If God exists, the universe would be testable}.

But not necessarily the reverse . . . universal testability does not mean that a god necessarily exists.
A god could make an untestable universe, and apparently the god itself is untestable anyway.

======================================
@Jo: {If God exists, the universe would allow for or cause life to exist}.

But not necessarily the reverse . . . allowance for or cause for life, does not necessarily mean that a god must exist.

======================================
@Jo: {If God exists, intelligent life would arise that could contemplate him}.

But not necessarily the reverse . . . that intelligent life has arisen that can contemplate a god does not necessarily mean that a god exists.
Humans can contemplate lots of non-existent things, and some can believe in them as real. Some people believe in the power of astrology, but is it based on a reality that actually exists? I doubt it, as do many religious people.

======================================
@Jo: {If God exists, we would be able to do science - That the universe would be knowable, understandable, testable, definable, and explainable}.

But not necessarily the reverse . . . an ability to do science does not necessarily mean that a god exists.
A supposed ability to do astrology, for example, bears no connection to whether or not it has any truth to it. We need to be able to test the god claim, just as we need to test astrology etc.

======================================
All of the above so-called reasoning and evidence amounts to putting the cart-before-the-horse. It seems to rely on DEFINING this god as the necessary and sufficient root cause for the ideas posted. But it's only by DEFINITION of the god that way in the first place ~ cart-before-horse??? But the god may NOT be necessary, and it's only sufficient by definition. To assume that the god exists because of the factors posted, are big fat god-of-the gaps propositions, or arguments from incredulity, (I can't understand 'it', so therefore god). At least each one is preceded by a significant "IF". However, what about the reverse, ie. what "IF NOT"?

======================================
Mutorc

Good post Mutorc, have an agree, then we can drop in on Fievel the Smoke before dipping our heads in the eggnog barrel.

***TIN!!!*** get your ass back in here! Cogs doing some weird motion with his hip at the pole ....

@Wasn't there supposed to be some reasoning and evidence in this thread? Did I miss something?