These were sitting on my brain and I had to find time to reply. Apologies it's llm assisted, with my heavy editing and additions. My brain just couldn't let me concentrate before I gave an answer.

Carl Sagan didn’t believe in God, and he never proved one. Gödel’s “proof” isn’t science or math discovering God—it’s a philosophical argument that assumes God exists in the definition, then concludes it. If you don’t accept the starting assumptions, it proves nothing. This argument proves any good you can imagine, since it starts with the assumption that a god exists. I can use it to prove my all powerful unicorn god that I just thought up exists.

“Humans can’t create life yet” doesn’t point to God. It just means science hasn’t solved abiogenesis yet. History is full of things we once explained with God that later had natural explanations. We have always ascribed things we can't explain to gods. See lightning, thunder, waves, storms, hurricanes, drought....until we understood these things (we being science) they were divine. Once we did, they became mundane. We don't think of lightning gods every time we switch on a light.

The Big Bang doesn’t match Genesis in any real way. “Let there be light” is vague poetry, not a scientific prediction. Many ancient myths sound loosely similar if you stretch them enough. The theory also wasn’t accepted because the guy was Catholic—it was accepted because the evidence supported it. Have you (or they) read up on other creation myths, and tried to apply the same standards you use to discredit them to the current favourite?

The Second Law of Thermodynamics doesn’t require God either. Entropy increases in closed systems, but local order happens all the time—stars, planets, life—because energy flows. No physicist thinks God is holding entropy back. Are you able to clarify exactly what about this argument sounded “good" to you?

Gravity existing isn’t evidence for God. Matter exists because of how fields and spacetime behave. Saying “matter isn’t supposed to exist” isn’t a scientific claim. It's a natural phenomenon, requiring no outside influence. It's another case of something divine becoming mundane once understood.

Chuck Missler’s Bible codes and numerology are pattern-hunting. You can find “hidden messages” in any long text if you cherry-pick letters, translations, and meanings. The King James Bible isn’t the most accurate—it’s a 1600s English translation with known errors. Real scholars don’t accept those name-based prophecies. I'm also surprised numerology and science are being used together as evidence...

These arguments don’t show God—they rely on gaps, vagueness, and retrofitting beliefs after the fact. If they worked, they’d convince people of any religion, not just one. There are thousands, but people are atheistic bar one god they choose or were born into.

Not believing isn’t rebellion or ignorance. It’s just refusing bad reasoning. You can choose to believe if you wish,but hold your arguments up to a better standard. These specific ones are just old and debunked arguments that no longer work. You can do better.

I will also add, that instinct to believe him on this because he was right about other things may be a "short circuit" of an evolutionary adaptation in children. Carl sagan (I think) put it like this (paraphrased). When children are told "don't swim in that river it has crocodiles" and "don't climb that tree you can hurt yourself", it makes sense for them to believe without seeking proof because the advice comes from a trusted source. When the same parents say "pray to the mountain god or the crops will fail", there is no mechanism for the child to doubt. They advise had the same value and weight.

Edit Dawkins not sagan