However, it’s time once again to inject some rigour into the debate.
Those of us who treat the relevant questions seriously, understand that the question of whether or not a god type entity in the most general sense actually exists, is an unanswered question. We know this because, if a proper, genuine answer had been provided in the past, said answer would now be part of our universally accepted mainstream body of knowledge, with only a few wilful contrarians rejecting said answer.
However, the existence of a god type entity as a concept, is a separate question from the existence of particular candidates for the “god role”. It’s at this point that we are in a stronger position, with respect to rejection thereof. Quite simply, any candidate presented, that is also asserted to possess contradictory or absurd properties, can be rejected on that basis alone without further ado.
That’s where the mythology fanboy butthurt starts coming into play, because all of the weird and wonderful members of the “god zoo” than humans have invented, fall into that category. They are all asserted to possess contradictory or absurd properties, and are all candidates for the bin as a corollary.
Needless to say, the mythology fanboys don’t like this one bit, and the moment this is pointed out to them, the response is predictable - the duplicitous ex recto apologetic fabrications and misrepresentations of atheism, start flowing like the effluent they are.
The concept that mythology fanboys wilfully misrepresent at this stage, is that dismissing their candidate does not mean dismissing the existence of a god of any sort. The dismissal is specific to their choice of cartoon magic entity from their choice of mythology. We can dismiss their cartoon magic entities, while still being open to the possibility of a god type entity existing. A god that does not emanate from blind mythological assertions, a god that is either consonant with known physics, or provides consistent extensions thereto, is a far more acceptable candidate, but of course such a candidate won’t satisfy the emotional demands of mythology fanboys.
Even then, we are still in the realm of requiring evidence, even for a reasonable candidate. Without which, even a reasonable candidate is merely speculative.
That I have to repeat the above exposition every so often, points to the gross intellectual indolence of mythology fanboys, as well as, in numerous instances, their mendacity.