God most likely exists.

Ahh! The probabilistic God. I like it. Lets do this. On the God definition. I'm assuming the supreme being comment was just a summation tool correct? By ruler, I'm assuming you mean he's a god who can intervene with humans correct? On existence. I'm cool with that, But I need one elaboration. Does a thing that exist have to be eternal(always existed)? Did it get created from nothing (ex nihilo)? Can an existing thing stop existing (become ex nihilo again) When I say this. I mean on the atomic level. I don't mean that a person dies and goes ex nihilo because their atoms split up. Work that out and we're good on this word. The others seem okay. If I think there is an equivocation later on, I'll let you know. Now, Because of the structure of your question, I could just argue that god is not probabilistic and do fine. But this would not be my honest belief. So I will adopt the burden of proof along with you and declare that god most definitely does not exist. A couple of deductions: 1. Things that exist affect reality. Premise 2. If Things that exist can affect reality, Then those things can be observed. Premise C. Things that exist can be observed. (MPP) P1, P2 1. Abstracts do not exist. Premise 2. Time and Space are abstracts. Premise 3. If Abstracts do not exist and Time and Space are abstracts, Then Time and Space does not exist. Premise C. Time and Space does not exist. (MPP) P1, P2, P3 1. Things that exist must hold space in reality. 2. If Things that exist must hold space in reality then nothing can exist outside of space. C. Nothing can exist outside of space. (MPP) P1, P2 the structures are valid. It's also sound assuming the premises are sound (wink, Wink) Definition: Observe --- To detect with one's senses, Either directly or by the extension of a tool or object (Thing). So my argument in a nutshell is that I'm arguing for a claim of non existence, Since things that don't exist can't be observed or exist outside of time and space. That means I have to use process of elimination or show the impossibility to the contrary. My argument will contain both methodologies. I'll give the short run down so we can save steam for later. My contingencies on something being a god are 1) It has agency 2) It Created the Universe. 3) Whatever my opponent adds to this. Omni Gods: Easiest to debunk. These gods have to be infinitely powerful. Infinities cannot comport with reality. Therefore such a god cannot exist. Maximally Powerful God: This god comports with reality and obeys the laws of physics. This god cannot surpass the speed of light and therefore would have to be in the observable universe. This means that such a god could be spotted, However. Scientists have mapped most of said universe and there is still no trace of a god to be found. Minimally Powerful God: A god that is just barely strong enough to create the universe. Could even be mortal or died in "child birth" making the universe. Such a god would be unprovable at best and more provable than the previous example at worst. Since such a god would likely be dead. It can't really have an effect on us and might as well not exist at all. Deist God: The first deadbeat dad in the universe folks. This god, Made everything and then fled on the scene. This one has all the same problems as the previous example but has even more assumptions, So the last example was slightly better. God by Definition: The holy grail of gods. Honestly, These are the smart ones. Bide your time. Let someone figure out what caused everything and name that god. It could be energy, Gravity, The sun, The moon, A person (Korea) or yourself (Solipsist). This argument is annoying because it tries to just prove god by default. Its the intellectual equivalent of playing cops and robbers with your friend and having them tell you that they have a shield that makes them invincible the whole time. Even if this could win the argument, It would be a hollow victory. That it my categorical proofs. For the sake of a good discussion. I will be looking for you to either accept or reject the premises. If rejected. Provide a counter claim for reasoning and we'll put those into question. If you reject anything I say in my casual arguments, I will always need a counter claim so I can defend of concede it. Questions are welcome and lets try not to get hung up on definitions unless it becomes a big deal. Your Floor.