The arguments against the existence of god by scientists and the arguments for the existence of god by philosophers (or, for that matter, the arguments for the existence of god by scientists and the arguments against the existence of god by philosophers) that have been proposed over the last few years are doomed to failure. This is because the terminology used in the debates are not scientifically or philosophically exact enough for it to be assumed that everybody involved is talking about the same thing. Basically, how can we argue about the existence of god if we haven't agreed on what god is. To be honest it is all very sloppy, unscientific and unphilosophical.
I'm not just talking about the personality of god for which there are probably as many varieties as there are people who believe in god's existence. I'm talking about the really big stuff.
For example, if god is a creator what did god create? The multi-verse? The universe? Only our solar system? Only our planet? Or did god just bring together a preexisting chaos?
Where is god? Outside of time and space? On a different plane within the universe? On a different planet? On top of Mount Olympus?
What does god do? Is god responsible for every action and event in the universe? Does god interfere occasionally? Did god wind up the clock and then sit back to let the universe sort its self out from there on?
If the universe was created through a big bang did god ignite it or did god come into existence at the same time as the big bang because there was no before the big bang?
What does god look like? What is god made of? Is god made of the same stuff of the universe or spiritual stuff that cannot even be called stuff at all?
Are there limits on what god can do? Does god know the future? Does god know everything?
And so on and so on...
Richard Dawkins says god does not exist. But what god is he talking about? If he is talking about a completely omnipotent creator god who is able to change anything then his logic and science may back up his claims. But if god is a terraforming alien then his science and logic do not disprove god's existence.
Scientists and theologians are talking passed each other and usually about completely different things. It only appears that they are talking about the same thing because all sides use the same words. But as the words have not been defined it is the same as a Frenchman using the word "qui" and an Englishman using the word "wee."
Of course, this problem is also at the heart of all arguments within each faith tradition. When I use the word "god" I mean in it in a different sense to how Rowan Williams would define the word because our understanding of what god is like is different to such an extent that if we both described our god to a third person and send them to meet god off the train they would never recognise god.
When a fundamentalist states that god hates gay people he is telling the truth. But so is the person who states that god loves gay people as much as anyone else. This is because the fundamentalist's idea of god is so radically different to the other person's idea of god that they are talking about two different gods. One god who is homophobic and another god who is a right "peace and love" hippy.
God cannot be regarded objectively. Therefore god cannot be defined. Therefore nobody can say god exists or not. To attempt to do so is foolish. You might as well try to convince another person of the existence or not of "one of those thingies." Also because god is different for every individual believer in god and there is no god template that can be referred to to standardise all the different concepts of god, the Anglican communion (and this is just an example) is not split into two. It is in fact split into as many parts as there are people within the communion. This means that logically the communion should do one of two things. Either split into as many factions as there are people or embrace radical inclusiveness that accepts that none of us worship the same god but sometimes it might happen that all we all worship in roughly the same direction.