I’ll repeat what I’ve already stated here in the past, on the basis that it is relevant here.
Item one: a mistake that many mythology fanboys make (obviously not applicable to you, but still relevant) is that because I dismiss specific cartoon magic men from specific pre-scientific mythologies , this somehow means that I dismiss the very idea of a god type entity in its most general form existing. Wrong.
Dismissing specific named candidates for the “god role” does NOT for one moment dismissing all possible candidates, though I’m used to seeing mythology fanboys engage in quantifier abuse of this sort.
But that’s another problem with mythology fanboys - the moment this topic arises in discourse, they all immediately operate on the basis that their favourite choice of cartoon magic man from their favourite choice of pre-scientific mythology is the only possible candidate, and base their entire apologetics on that unwarranted presumption.
The mere fact that humans have been prolific with regard to the business of inventing various “god characters” alone should inform the astute observer that multiple possibilities exist for the occupant(s) of the “god role”.
But, two very important reasons for my rejecting cartoon magic men from pre-scientific mythologies are: [1] all of them have only ever been asserted to exist, and within the texts of mythologies containing fatuous and absurd errors at that, and none of the mythology fanboys have ever supported the requisite existence assertions with anything resembling genuine evidence, and [2] the cartoon magic men in question have all been asserted to possess contradictory and absurd properties, and can safely be dismissed on this basis alone, let alone on any other basis that springs to my mind (of which I’ve repeatedly mentioned several here - repetition thereof will be superfluous as a corollary).
Item two: I am also on public record here and elsewhere, of being perfectly willing to accept a non-mythological candidate for the “god role”, one that is either consistent with known physics or provides consistent extensions thereto, and doesn’t rely upon magic.
But of course, until we have rigorous and robust evidence for such an entity,we may all safely operate as if such an entity does not exist, while treating said safe operation as provisional of course.
I am also on public record both here and elsewhere, as welcoming any genuine evidence for any god type entity that might exist, on the basis that said evidence will almost certainly FALSIFY all of our silly pre-scientific mythologies at a stroke.
There’s also the little matter of my entertaining ideas about this topic that mythology fanboys are incapable of even fantasising about. The canonical example being my speculations presented in the Braneworld Cosmology thread, which again I need not repeat here for the diligent.
That discourse in the Braneworld Cosmology thread should be an eye opener for anyone who hasn’t read it of course, but I suspect none of the mythology fanboys will exert even the elementary level of discoursive diligence required to look that up, and the few that do will almost certainly subject said discourse to summary dismissal (quite possibly leavened heavily with snide condescension into the bargain, as is the usual wont of the more egregious specimens).
But, rigour in discourse is strikingly absent from almost all mythology fanboy offerings, and indeed, many of them demonstrate to a woeful extent, their failings on even an elementary level in this matter.