Question 2: is belief enough?

All you need is love. Love is all you need.

Before heading back up the road towards existence, a quick detour up a quite different path. Does it actually matter whether something exists or not? Is it sufficient that people believe in something? Is that the more important question?

Let's take a couple of examples. I like examples.

The Tooth Fairy. Children's milk teeth fall out. This is quite important for child development but not necessarily pleasant for the child involved. Some parents tell their kids a white lie involving a fairy who collects teeth from underneath children's pillows and replaces them with a coin. This apparently sweetens the blow of losing a tooth. As a bonus, the child can spend the coin on sweets and learn the principles of 'feedback' too.

Medical placebos. The placebo effect is when a person believes that they are receiving medical intervention, and that belief speeds up their recovery or otherwise improves their condition. They may simply be swallowing sugar capsules, or having their feet rubbed. The curative effect is in their minds and their imaginations but the effect is very real.

In both examples, the 'thing' does not exist. There is no tooth fairy and there is no medicine. Or is there? Arguably, the important 'thing' in the second example is the effect itself, not the imaginary medicine. Placebos work. This is a Good Thing™. It makes people better. The placebo effect exists.

God clearly doesn't fall easily into the same category as the tooth fairy. The tooth fairy quite categorically and uncontroversially does not exist. It's a deliberate lie to children. (no comment on whether that's a good or bad thing). So ... does God fall into the same category as a medical placebo? Is it more important that people believe in God and that this has a beneficial effect?

I'm going to argue a strong 'no' for several reasons. Firstly, the statement "God is a placebo" is quite condescending towards people who believe in God and condescension rarely leads anywhere constructive in a conversation. Even a monologue. Secondly, it's a cop out; it is saying "I'm not going to bother proving it one way or the other as it doesn't matter." In which case, why am I talking about it at all? Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, we know that medical placebos work, but we also know that they only work if the person receiving them doesn't know they are a placebo. The medical practitioner may or may not know that it is a placebo, but the patient must believe it is "real" medicine. See the double blind test for a fuller explanation.

If we substitute 'God' for 'placebo' in this statement, we are effectively saying "The priests and holy men may or may not know that God is real. But God works because the believers think he works." I don't mind this as an argument generally, but I've already said that I'm addressing the Abrahamic religions' definition of God. And they are fairly categorical that God is a real entity, and not something that exists only in the heads of believers.