Thanks. I agree they're not strong arguments, and that's a clever one about moral autonomy and worship. It gets at a real conflict between humanism and monotheism, or between modernity and the ancient theocracies.

I suspect the monotheist would disagree with the first premise, though; at least, Christians and Muslims would. They say we have freewill, but autonomy implies the ability to govern ourselves. The monotheist would say we're as autonomous as children, so is it moral to let children do whatever they want? Or are they dependent on their parents? Even adult humans would be dependent on superintelligent transhumans or gods, assuming such beings created us.

I see you're still speaking about "proof," so this article of mine hasn't exactly rubbed off on you. Maybe you're using that word loosely to mean evidence sufficient to warrant belief. But my point is that proof is irrelevant in this context.

You can prove that Harry Potter wins in the end, by turning to that page because fictional worlds are stipulated, and by surviving convention we suspend our disbelief to enjoy them. And we can prove that two and two make four because math is based on axioms which are likewise stipulated. But we don't prove that the world contains trees that correspond exactly to our conceptions of them. Our conceptions are only models that simplify, so there's no such absolute agreement. And if proof is irrelevant in the case of observables, it's even less relevant in the case of theoretical entities which are more conjectural.