Another issue with the OP is that the God of monotheism is not *a* God, one God amongst many. Believing in the Gods, as polytheistic religions do, is quite a different thing to faith in God, at least according to monotheism. They would insist that the Biblical God is not simply an instance of a type.

It should also be mentioned that 'existence' is the wrong word for God. 'What exists', as far as we can know, are phenomena, 'that which appears'. In classical philosophy and theology, the first principle/umoved mover/first cause is not 'something that exists' - to say that 'it exists' is to relegate it to the domain of appearances, a being among other beings or thing among things. That gets into the domain of apophatic theology which is probably too specialised for this forum, but ought to be noted. — Wayfarer

We must....press on! :up:

Yeah, so are flying spaghetti monsters.

...

Yeah, so are flying spaghetti monsters. — 180 Proof

Correct.

I deleted my last post to Down The Rabbit Hole because upon reading it myself, it sounded so rude. — L'éléphant

Shame the rest of the internet doesn't have a filter. We would be in a much better place.

My heart tells me God exists, P(G) = 100%

My mind tells me God doesn't exist P(G) = 0%

P(G) = The probability that God exists. — Agent Smith

I agree, everyone is an agnostic. Wish I could find a good excuse to believe in something.

Shame the rest of the internet doesn't have a filter. We would be in a much better place. — Bird-Up

Thanks. But don't give me too much credit. I'm in the process of changing my approach to responding to posts I disagree with. :halo:

Everyone's playing Devil's advocate! :snicker:

[E]veryone is an agnostic. — Bird-Up

As an antitheist, I'm only agnostic about (nontheistic) pandeism & acosmism

because they're either insufficiently evident (ágnôsis) or intrinsically undecidable  (epoché). — 180 Proof

:up:

I would say the best definition is something to the effect of, being/s that created the universe. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Inasmuch as the question whether matter produces consciousness or consciousness produces matter is a toss-up I'd have to say 50/50.

Good engineering exists.

You cannot imagine nor experience heating-up above a limit, your mind can only create the experience of a limited pain prior to dying or entering a overdriven state.

To be at the sun pinpoint as any sort of mind would evidentially result in death or with physicality melting away by some degree.

Thus, God exists, as the benefactor of good engineering.

Any clarity on our inability to take too much pain is but an example, others include: the stability concerning life-form, death, etc.

This quintessence is all interlinked, as is life as a whole. I'm saying this is because of one thing, the benefactor of good engineering.

You know what I mean?

The manifold we call experience links everything in such a way- and that linkage is ultimately good(the previous affirmations). There is something that connects us in an acceptable amount of security and power. We're not at risk, and how that works is God.

We were created by the negativity of something, rather than the positivity of nothing.

God and gods again and again and again ... I wonder for how more long we'll have to hear about this useless subjet, the main purpose of which is to force morality, fear and discipline on people ...

I would say the best definition is something to the effect of, being/s that created the universe. — Down The Rabbit Hole

I guess sentient is implicit...?

^{(barring special pleading, atemporal sentience doesn't make much sense, hence asking)}

Good engineering exists. — Varde

I'd say bad, mediocre, and good engineering exists.

I would say the best definition is something to the effect of, being/s that created the universe. — Down The Rabbit Hole

I guess sentient is implicit...? — jorndoe

Yes, I think god/s in any meaningful sense would have to be sentient. Otherwise we are just talking about the universe.

(barring special pleading, atemporal sentience doesn't make much sense, hence asking) — jorndoe

How does atemporal sentience make less sense than any other atemporal chain of causation?

Here's a bit of spam...

How does atemporal sentience make less sense than any other atemporal chain of causation? — Down The Rabbit Hole

Rocks and bodies are spatial/object-like: left to right, top to bottom, front to back, movable, locatable, breakable (under conservation), ...

Eddies and minds/experiences are temporal/process-like: come and go, occurs, interruptible (interaction/event-causation), ...

^{Say, my supper is locatable, movable, breakable (spatial/object-like), my experiences thereof occur, are interruptible (temporal/process-like). Say, stomachs are spatial/object-like, left to right, and digestion (say, starting with chewing and salivating) occurs, comes and goes (temporal/process-like).}

• Suppose x is defined as non-spatial, "outside of space". Well, then x is nowhere to be found, no place. Cannot have any volume/area/length extent, not even zero-dimensional (like a mathematical singularity).
^{• objects are spatial, left to right, front to back, top to bottom, locatable, movable, breakable (under conservation)}

• Suppose x is defined as atemporal, "outside of time". Well, then x was/is nowhen, no simultaneity. No duration involved, cannot change, can't be subject to causation, can't interact, inert and lifeless (at most).
^{• processes are temporal, come and go, occur, interruptible (interaction/event-causation)}

The closest in the literature of not spatiotemporal seems to be abstracts, maybe like sterile inhabitants of Platonia.

Minds partake in the world, interact (both ways), are active, are parts of the world. Fairly uncontroversial in science (evidence-based) and philosophy. Special pleading no good.

• Suppose x is defined as atemporal, "outside of time". Well, then x was/is nowhen, no simultaneity. No duration involved, cannot change, can't be subject to causation, can't interact, inert and lifeless (at most).
• processes are temporal, come and go, occur, interruptible (interaction/event-causation) — jorndoe

You can have a temporal order without having a time associated with it.

You can have a temporal order without having a time associated with it. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Like before/after, earlier/later, past/now/future, ...? :brow:
You could have ordering (-1 < 0 < 1), but not temporal without time.
Unless I misunderstood something?

Yes an order of events without a time associated with it.

Such as the infinite series of big bangs proposed by Sir Roger Penrose. One bang gives rise to the next, but outside of time.

Using induction you can weigh the probabilities for and against the premise "God exists because (x)" and them somehow combine them mathematically to determine the final probability of a creator of the universe existing. This will be a final theory till evidence otherwise appears and adjusts the probability of a creator existing. Since I am too much of a sluggard myself, and do not come equipped with decent mathematical skills, I fail to do this inductive exercise.

What data you are obtaining here is personal belief or lack thereof in the premise "God exists." It only arrives at a statistical conclusion of what percent of people believe something. It is not the same as evidence for a proposition/hypothesis.

, not atemporal.
And doesn't seem to have much to do with sentient all-creators.

because they're either insufficiently evident (ágnôsis) or intrinsically undecidable  (epoché). — 180 Proof

:fire: