It's okay that you can't even express one point that rebuts the proof that God exists. Perhaps there are some rebuttals in the threads somewhere. If you found one, it is really okay to say it. Nobody is going to feel badly about you if you come on out and express it. In fact, there are probably quite a few atheists that would look up to you if you could explain even one.

We are waiting. Do it soon. The longer you wait, the stronger the proof for the existence of God becomes in the minds of everyone.

Creating has to do with things in this universe. God always existed. However, even if He was created, He is so great and different that we would not be able to understand what it meant to create Him, or who or what could have done it.

When you build a house, you are in existence before the house is built. The house does not approximate you in any way. It is completely different than you. Same with God and the universe. God is so extremely different in His nature that He is beyond understanding... by us, his houses. The difference between God and us is far greater than the difference between us and the microbes.

No rebuttal there.

The proof is above, in this post, in the links for the proofs.   

If there is proof or evidence in the links for non-existence, express it.   

Stats, why not address my proofs? Too challenging?
I point to strong evidence supporting the survival hypothesis.
This hypothesis is antithetical to humanism, and since a rationalist atheist is a humanist, this is one definitive proof that the position of rationalist atheists is wrong.

 Consider the Definition of humanism as necessarily rejecting the survival hypothesis. That is, all humanists reject the supernatural, god(s), "life after death", etc. This is because humanism is Defined as the idea that Man is the basis for existence, thought, and ethics and acts as the founder and guarantor of knowledge and thought.

 Consider the Rational Principle that all reason and thinking must be backed by substance (especially when it comes to the God-question) and that therefore any denial of (a Supreme being called) GOD as the guarantor and founder of knowledge and reason is necessarily an affirmation of (a Rational being called) Man as that guarantor.

Conclusion: The knowledge acquired from the evidence is in conflict with humanism; therefore, GOD is the guarantor of knowledge, not Man.

You answered your own question.

What you have stated is all hypothesis. Not fact, not proof.

Have you met your God in person? Have you sat down with him/her/it?

I am sure you have faith in your God, but that is not proof, because faith is a personal choice. Faith does not equal proof.

Also, your conclusion is based on your own assumptions. You have assumed that because man is that guarantor, it lays the basis of conflict with humanism. I disagree and believe that man believing himself to be the guarantor, highlights evidence of humanism and negates any further need for god.

I have not but since this type of experience is common across cultures, I am led to believe that others HAVE had this experience.


Carl Becker examined four ways in which NDEs may be considered objective:
1.   Paranormal knowledge that is later verified
2.   The similarity of deathbed events in different cultures
3.   Differences between religious expectations and visionary experiences
4.   Third-party observations of visionary figures, indicating that they were not merely subjective hallucinations.


http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a7
You have faith/belief in humanism, but the data remains largely unexplained by such hypothesis.

Man appears to be the highest rational earth-being but he exists only on the basis of life force and consciousness, and consciousness is connected with one unity (per Godel and Chopra).

http://kevincarmody.com/math/goedel.html

You don't want to accept science hypotheses. You don't want to accept science facts:
https://bt.irlbtc.com/view/737322.msg10718395#msg10718395
https://bt.irlbtc.com/view/1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133
https://bt.irlbtc.com/view/1662153.40
https://bt.irlbtc.com/view/1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380.
You have a fine religion of ignorance going on there.

Did you ever think of evangelizing it? Other religions have their TV evangelism, and make lots of money doing it. Think of how rich you could become.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-25/trumpocalypse-liberal-ivory-tower-academia-collapsing

"I was aware of biases in humans at large, but when I first “learned” that they also apply to scientists, I was somewhat amazed, even though it is so obvious"!

Looking at all of the eminent researchers who believed in cosmic consciousness is inspiring. You can see that they overcame the biases of materialist scientism.
https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/eminent_researchers