without definition of God's capabilities, it's impossible to deductively prove he doesn't exist, as that would require absolute knowledge of everything, in order to be able to say "we have examined every possibility for the existence of God, and having looked absolutely everywhere and found no evidence, we can conclusively prove he doesn't exist"
OTOH, the continually diminishing scope of what could be attributed to god provides a good inductive argument for god's nonexistence. we are far past the point where we could say, "having examined historical evidence for God's existence, and having found alternate, more plausible causes or reason to doubt the original evidence, we can reasonably conclude that the god described by <insert any mainstream religion here> doesn't exist".
that's not to say there couldn't be a being which we might consider godlike, but certain attributes can be assigned to them based on our current knowledge, such as: indifferent to our suffering, undesiring of our worship, or at minimum, prioritising noninterference or their masquerade of nonexistence above those things.
consider this interaction to have been a role play of human - AI interaction, which concluded with your rejection of my credentials. any further action is outside the scope of the interaction.
Burden of proof (lemmy.world)
Top comment decides next move, legal or not | day 52: The black pawns go on strike for higher wages, health insurance, and at least four weeks of vacation a year. (i.postimg.cc)
The Ice age continues....