As has been noted in philosophical writings, and in many other forums, arguments about God can get quickly bogged down in misunderstandings about words and concepts. Often, one person is talking apples while the other is talking oranges -- yet both think they are talking about pears.
To have a real, meaningful discussion, one needs to first figure out if the people involved are really more interested in feelings than ideas. For instance, I might be having an argument with my friend about whether or not God exists. In my mind (perhaps) we're talking about cold-hard facts; in my friend's mind, we may be talking about which one of us is smarter than the other.
Once emotional issues are out of the way (if they ever really are), we need to deal with linguistic issues (what do you mean by "God"?) and issues surrounding basic assumptions (does anything really "exist"?). If we're not sharing the same assumptions and definitions, there's no point in further discussion. (How can we discuss "programming" if I mean "instructing a computer" and you mean "what's on TV tonight"?)
So I'd like to discuss the following basic statements. Please help me refine them, add ones of your own, tell me what's wrong with them, and -- if you want -- respond to them. I realize that 99% of real-life arguments are so emotionally laden -- and that so many of them are between people who don't think logically -- that this list may not be practical. But in the rare instances that I find myself in discussion with, say, a rational and intelligent Christian, I would like to save a lot of potentially wasted words and get to the bottom of our disagreement.
(a) You can deduce God through pure reason. If you don't believe in God, you just haven't thought things through.
(b) One can't prove or disprove God through reason. So one must use Occam's Razor. God NOT existing is the simplest explanation, so don't believe in him.
(c) One can't prove or disprove God through reason. So one must use Occam's Razor. God EXISTING is the simplest explanation, so don't believe in him.
(d) One can't prove, disprove or use Occam's Razor on God, so one might as well believe what one wants to believe.
(e) One can't prove, disprove or use Occam's Razor on God, so one might as well roll the dice and choose randomly.
(f) The only evidence is one's feelings, and feelings are a strong indication of reality, so if you feel like there's a God, there probably is one.
(g) Feelings are unreliable, so if your only "proof" of God is your feelings, you should give it up.
(h) Something else I haven't listed here.
NOTE: I realize all of these stances have been argued for centuries. But my main objective here isn't to show how, say, statement (e) is right or wrong. My objective is to make a complete, clear list of the fundamental stances one might take. This is useful because in some circumstances it might save a lot of useless words. For instance, I am (pretty much) a Materialist. So if someone clearly lets me know that their core belief is (f) "feelings are the only reality" then we can simply agree to disagree. We have no basis for discussion.