God's existence needs to be established independently before he can be brought into account for causation; it cannot be assumed at the start.

The interest I have to believe a thing is no proof that such a thing exists.

Any argument that is built wholly upon the denigration of another, without any reference to evidence or support from logic, must be very fragile indeed

God is an hypothesis, and, as such, stands in need of proof: the onus probandi rests on the theist.

Euclid taught me that without assumptions there is no proof. Therefore, in any argument, examine the assumptions.

I'm proof against that word failure. I've seen behind it. The only failure a man ought to fear is failure of cleaving to the purpose he sees to be best.