You may be thinking about this too hard....

Okay, I cannot resists a challenge like that, so here goes (and puts on a tin helmet to avoid all the bricks that will be thrown at my head) ...

The capitalisation of a word indicates uniqueness. Examples include the Indian Ocean and the Andes (mountain range). The usage "a God" has an indefinite article at its start, indicating one of a number of gods, not a unique god, so the capitalisation is inappropriate. However (please excuse my continued pedantry), if you are referring to the biblical God, then any immediately preceding article in this context becomes redundant. But (yes, there is more), a preceding article is necessary when differentiating two specific and allegedly unique gods, as in for example the God of the Bible and the God of the Torah.

Will anybody get as far as reading this final line?

who the fuck cares? the less we talk about religions and gods the better, much less to be discussing the grammatical properties of bullshit.

I am an agnostic - anti-theist.

I'm with Penn Jillette on this:
Agnostic and atheist answer two different questions:
We cannot know fur shur how our universe started: agnostic (without knowledge)
There ain't no all-powerful invisible critters fucking with humans on the earth: atheist

And I agree with Sam, and Christopher,... I am an anti-theist because I oppose religionists imposing their mental illness on all us good folks.

One of them studied Latin; the other didn’t.

well, your whole problem is words. words limit things. listen to kierkegaard. if there really were a god then that word couldnt possibly encompass a true understanding of him so it's best not to give him a name. and not even talk about him really. that way we all properly pay homage to his amazing powers. with our silence.

As an atheist since age 13, I:

Don't believe in an invisible deity that resides somewhere beyond the clouds.

Stopped having imaginary friends at age four.

Chose rational thought, not magical beliefs.

I know it best from Spanish where the verb reflects uncertainty of something. Even, if I rememeber right, 'I believe' and 'I hope' get the subjunctive.

Something like this:

I have a job. Tengo un puesto
I hope I have a job by Friday. Espero que tenga un puesto para el proximo viernes.

I wonder does the subjunctive express a humility about uncertain things that the present tense can obscure.

I forget the commandments on correct grammar. Sister, please don't hit me with the ruler!

Why worry about the "correct" grammar for expressing a fallacy?
Both suffering and pleasure result from evolution and natural selection. No god is/was involved.

Grammatically, when using if or wish, use the subjunctive were. Something that isn’t but spoken as a possibility.

I went to your bio to determine if I thought this was a serious question....determined that I am not a grammarian, and is above my payscale.

I'm going with if there were a god there would be no children in St. Jude with cancer and suffering because of "sins of their fathers." Some religions still use that lame excuse you know.

if i weren't put off by diverse, unrelated takes on a grammatical question i would join you (subjunctive followed by conditional)

I be confused reading this...

Use “were” in “if” statements contrary to fact (as with the song If I Were a Rich Man). Since atheists believe there is/are no god(s), “were” is correct. Agnostics, it would seem, would use “is.”

I’d say “there be” is archaic.

What be "is?"

I think what you really said, was 3 ways that the proposed god was responsible for all the suffering. I agree with that.
But to try to make some dividing line for a group that is hugely diverse except in their criticism of religions, is highly problematic....

I'M agnostic and I wouldn't say anything remotely like that.
I'd say, "If there IS a god, it is impersonal and uninvolved in the minutae of individual lives.
"Other than that, not much of anything about any prospective 'god' can be deduced or even induced by the details of the physical world, except perhaps SOME explanation for it's existence must be obtainable, given more research and investigation."
Then I'd go back to my TV program.

Why say anything? There is unjustified suffering in the world, therefore, there is either (1) no god, (2) a god who does not care, or (3) a god incapable of doing anything about it, none of which seems worthy of a great deal of contemplation. (Actually, hypothetically there is a fourth option, multiple rival gods, whose actions may actually be leading to unjustified suffering, but that's a whole other kettle of fish).

If god existed, then...
If god exists, then...

But I see no problem using the subjunctive for an atheist, agnostic, or theist. If you feel it makes your position unclear, then simply state your position to make it clear. If you were clearer in your communication, you would clarify.

"If there WAS a god, he would have hung up on your ass by now..." --Matt Dillahunty when talking to a particularly annoying caller (emphasis his, although he was just repeating the grammatical structure of the caller)

Not quite correct. We might say if there was a God who was actually all powerful and all beneficent then there would be no unjustified suffering. The God of Moses is NOT all beneficent in an way.

Grammatically I would have started with, "If there WAS a god...." But since there isn't, the point is moot.

That is like saying "If there was a unicorn, there would be no unjustified suffering". It is a ridiculous statement, so trying to reply to it results in nothing of merit. Part of the problem is an Agnostic does not automatically think of a christian god, an Assyrian god, or necessarily any other man-made god. Most Agnostics that I know have a very wide view of how the word could be applied. Even Einstein seemed to consider the thought of "god" to be more akin to the laws of the universe.