> I don't want to discount what you say as indeed I would have no way to disprove a metaphysical god.
Agreed, but I believe it can be reasonably ~proven that the question is fundamentally indeterminate....which is plausibly inconvenient/uncomfortable for people who run on certain metaphysical frameworks (say, scientific materialism), which tends to be the framework that moist western minds are trained on in the current era, and the training of a neural network tends to have substantial affects on their perceptions.
On top of it, it is also affected by whether an individual runs on binary (True/False) logic or more sophisticated forms like Ternary (True/False/Other) - binary logic does not support Unknown, so if the option is not available the "most likely" option appears to be necessarily/likely true (based on sub-perceptual heuristic cognition).
> On the other hand given that no proof is provided the other way for the existence it seems wasteful to discuss.
How things seem to be (are predicted by the mind to "be", which has a tendency to be translated into how things "are" "in fact") is a function of one's training.
This prediction of what is true may be correct, but it also may be incorrect. What it is in fact, currently, is unknown. However, the mind often seems to not tolerate a state of unknown, so it fills it with predictions about reality, which are often perceived as reality itself. I am quite certain that this is consistent both with scientific study of the mind, as well as "spiritual/mystic" takes on it (Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, and others).
> Kind of like UFO sighting reports.
I believe if one was to do an ontological & phenomenological decomposition of the two, there would be far more differences than similarities. But this is not the level of reality that our culture operates at, or is able to operate at, similar to how in historic times our culture operated more on religious narratives vs today's scientific narratives. Humans perceive & "understand" "reality" primarily through epistemically and logically unsound narratives - it is the form most of our communication takes place in, at least for now.
> Lots of people share their believe but no proof manifested and we don't have reason to believe any UFOs would evade detection if there were any.
Opinions vary on what constitutes proof, and double standards (logical inconsistency) abounds - take for example that personal testimony is admissible as evidence in a court of law, and most people have no big problem with it in that scenario, but in other scenarios it is often considered crazy/illogical/necessarily unsound.
> Same with a god.
It is not actually, but as the saying goes: Perception is Reality. It is easy to spot cognitive errors in the members of one's outgroup, but spotting it in oneself and one's ingroup members is far more difficult. Science has a fairly substantial amount of research into this and other aspects of perceptions in humans.
> Climate change on the other hand is undeniably affecting billions of people in ever increasing negative ways. Indeed a colossal waste that we destroy our planet just because we cannot unify our effort and invest in technologies which don't wreck our planet.
Perhaps we should consider developing the ability to not live in a dream world, if even for short bursts of time (1 to 5 minutes seems like a modest and realizable goal for starters). But unfortunately: this notion seems to be disliked by anyone I mention it to.