A supreme deity is not a religious argument no more than SETI is since we have members of the scientific community taking up the task. ID offers up many possibilities in the realm of a supreme diety. I doubt you would look into them since I find many of you to be narrow minded and incapable of examining other lines of reasoning.

So, once again, prove the existence of the conscious. You do believe in the “I” don’t you? You attempt was lame and not believable.

“This guy confuses traditional religion with the argument of a supreme deity.”

A what?

You seem to be the one who’s confused. It’s impossible to know if any so-called “deity” is supreme. Even said so-called “supreme deity” can’t know. So I’d be interested to see what “the argument of a supreme deity” might be.

See Descartes, The Simulation Hypothesis, Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem, etc.

Present a rebuttal. “I’m an idiot!” is not an argument.

If you don’t know what the traditional “descriptions” of God are, then you’re not equipped for this discussion.

“Science cannot prove you possess a conscious or self-awareness.”

You’d better hope it can should you ever go into hospital for surgery.

“BTW I believe there is a God and suffer from no fears. Therefore you are wrong on that account as well.

I don’t believe you.

Science cannot prove you possess a conscious or self-awareness. We may see the results but how can you prove scientifically that the conscious exists? But I would venture a guess you would argue you do.

Can you prove it? The same kind of proof you desire for God?

BTW I believe there is a God and suffer from no fears. Therefore you are wrong on that account as well.

“I see the possibility of God as highly likely by observing the very same evidence you do.”

You do realize that if your answer to the question, “Do you believe in God?”, is anything other than “yes”, then you’re an atheist?

Certainly, your position is incompatible with the traditional “omni” God.

This particular God is supposed to be the necessary creator of the capital-U Universe, everything that could possibly not exist. As such is is supposed to be present in the history of every possible world.
If you suggest, as you have done, that there’s any possible world in which it doesn’t exist, then you don’t believe in it. [See Alvin Plantinga's "Maximality", the Ontological Argument, etc.].

If you have any integrity, rebut my refutation - with reasoned evidence.

Who, what or where is this “he” to which you refer? Oh, that’s right. “God” is no longer the set of contradictory statements we’ve been told about for centuries and that I’ve clearly refuted.

“God” is now suddenly undefined…

“I don’t pretend to understand exactly what God consists of or how he may operate.”

I’m sure you don’t, because you have no evidence of any such thing. You’re making it up.

You talk about honesty. Ethics and personal integrity require that we don’t believe things for which we have no valid evidence. Beliefs have consequences, beliefs determine behaviors.

Do I have to mention 9/11 or the people who have been in court recently for negligent homicide, due to “faith in God“?

“Most of the world DOES NOT believe in square circles so why God?”

I already know why people believe in “God”. And so do you. You keep on bringing it up.

It’s called indoctrinated fear and wishful thinking or “faith”. No magical mass murdering molesters required.

If you believe that you’ve won the lottery you will in all probability feel Really Good™.
It isn’t required that you’ve really won the lottery, only that you believe it.

Remind you of anything?

But haven’t you already proven he doesn’t exist? If you have done this, maybe others could be saved? But if you want to attempt this feat, you need to stop with the silly square circles and attempt an honest analysis. Calling most of the world delusional just won’t cut it. Here is where you fall. Most of the world DOES NOT believe in square circles so why God?

I see you as one of those guys who doubts everything you can’t see. The Bah humbug of the world if you will I prefer to see many possibilities and discoveries that man can not yet imagine. I see the possibility of God as highly likely by observing the very same evidence you do.

You got me there.

Lots of people believe in Square Circles, therefore rational people should too?

If you’ve decided to change the definition of God so that it isn’t the supernatural and/or omni and/or creator version or The Quintessence of Square Circles, then I can say nothing about it. Maybe you’ve decided that your gerbil is “God”?

I have no evidence that you have a gerbil, so I’ll remain agnostic about it.

Traditional theists have presented no valid evidence of any gods, only definitions which I have shown are provably incoherent.

Of course, I’ll suspend judgment or assign a probability to “gods” that we cannot prove or disprove or possible entities for which we have no verifiable evidence.

If you have a non-contradictory definition of God you’d like to share, I’d love to hear about it. Better still, if you can present some valid evidence I’ll make every effort to attend the presentation of your Nobel prize.

You really should put that in book form and prove this hypothesis to the rest of humanity. Any man that has all knowledge and the unlimited ability to detect, manipulate and solve all possible metaphysical scenarios is one fella who would be in great demand. You should consider, just for a moment, that all theist may have a reason for believing in God rather than just being delusional.

When a very small minority calls the vast majority delusional, the minority might need to take a look in a mirror…..or just maybe this is the greatest hoax in history, huh?