Oh, but I wanted to say this desperately, and I hope I don't have to elaborate, as you appear sound enough to understand it as it'll be said.

You said in one of your posts on the existence of God that if He does not exist, it must be proven. I disagree with this idea completely. Why? Because let's say I tell you that I don't have a pen. How would I prove it to you? Would you go through every single spot on my desk to see if I have a pen or not? Or if I tell you I don't have a daughter, how will I prove it to you?

Similarly, if God exists, it must be proven, as you agree yourself, but if God does NOT exist, it doesn't have to be proven and neither can it be proven. If He doesn't exist, He doesn't exist; if He exists, we have to prove it, by whatever means possible.