So, what you are saying is, you've left your box for a bigger box....good for you!,,,hehe

@JohnnyThorazine hahah! Well, in a sense, I suppose that is good a gander as any!! lol! I left the pond to move to a larger sea. Someday I hope to leave the sea for the Marianas Trench. After that... launch me into space? Its still a box. However, a box so large the chances of me ever finding the edge is near impossible, hence, I will never know a limitation. With religion, the box was sooo painfully small that I tended to hit the edge every few seconds.

@Sadoi The fun is always searching for that wall and breaking through...and knowing that there are more walls to shatter!

@JohnnyThorazine I absolutely agree with you! And i feel like a champ afterwards like... i just passed a new level on Dr Mario or Tetris! hahaha!

cool

@AMGT - Yes, somewhat. Definition is the poison (killer) in that box with the god. Define the god and the god is dead. Leave the box closed and avoid the definition and it can be alive if you wish it to be so. That is how theists save themselves and preserve their beliefs. Name all the fairy tale attributes you want, just don't ... for god's sake ... define the damned thing.

@AMGT Things exist whether we define the thing or not. Was there a quark before we called it or could conceive of it? Or are we the gods and they only come into being when we discover and define them.....OOOO....OOOO...OOOO....I'm going for the second one...

@JohnnyThorazine -- Here's the thing about the word 'exist'. Exist needs a place somewhere on the space-time continuum or it does not exist. God(s) by definition are beyond space and time so they can't, by our definition of space and time, exist. Now, here's the thing about that pesky little word 'define'. To define something it must have some sort of parameters that are observable/measurable/testable or it doesn't exist. Thus, the moment one defines god, said god is no longer supernatural and hence is not a god -- by definition. It is in a place and a time and is subject to the nature of the universe and not vice verse. You can place attributes, invisible, unknowable, omnipotent, omniscient, omniwhatever, because all that does not represent measurable, observable, or testable things. They are ideas brought into play by sleight of mind and maintained by smooth doublespeak.

I'm typing this after waking up 2 minutes ago, so here it goes: names are a human problem. It's a relational thing. Ask those rare rare rare people who can read binary code. But a description of something is just the fleshing out of something so it can be shared information. I see a cult in the future (The Cult of Boob...She Who Weans From the Center, The Cyclopean Weaner...no...but I'm getting there...).

@evidentialist Space and Time, two things that are being constantly redefined. Theories of Multiverses, multiple dimensions, etc. Within your parameters god can be defined within acceptable values: the universe, being a functional system could be defined as God, creating planets, life etc. So the question isn't whether god, or the universe, exists, it is whether god, or the universe, is sentient. So god exists, but it's awareness is the only question. Now, you realize you are claiming you are completely aware of the natures of existence. How things exist is constantly changing. And you also confuse people's speculation on the existence of god as the reality of god. I can speculate you are an albino Samoan, as all I have is very small picture that you have supplied to define your existence and a lot of typing. I have to assume you are not a bot....but it is only an assumption. So your nature is truly unknown to me, there for, Is that you Evidentialist? it's me Johnny Thorazine. Now I am gonna go get coffee....

@TheMiddleWay HAHAHA! Yep! Good choice in picking 'red'. I don't see shades of 'red' so when people tell me that I am wearing a pink shirt, I can only relate to that in the way that people relate to me about it and take their word for it that 'pink' exists. The mutability of existence. I started calling it non-platform science decades ago. The thing you are standing on as 'fact' is only as solid as you think it is, not as it really is or could be. Now for coffee...I'm gonna get that coffee, damn it.

@TheMiddleWay -- Aye, lad, true enough. Would ye be forgivin' me lil lapse o' thought there?

However, I think your assessment is just a tad off -- not that it's wrong or anything like that, but wouldn't it be more like this? Because it occupies space-time it is measurable and therefor exists whether or not it has actually been measured. Case in point: When was the last time we measured dark matter other than by inference?

@TheMiddleWay -- I return to a neutral corner in the circular room to catch my breath.

Yes, sir, QM is ... at least ... entertaining.