Good point. I see no way a god could ever be proven. A superior being could exist, but that's not a god.

@Beowulfsfriend If you define 'god' as a "superior being." Maybe "superior beings" do exist, but that doesn't necessarily make them 'gods,' does it?

Right, so to what I have learned so far, “God” has many forms:

1. Supernatural God/Beard man in the sky trolling everyone

2. Beard man in the sky. Is perfect and wholly good. Wholly a spook of a mind awash.

3. Cosmic alien managing contained universe. How we might be perfectly managed indicates a malicious God, or simply such an alien that doesn’t care what we will do, what happens to us and what we have. The fact that the fully magnified/zoomed and delineated universe is perfect, but arranged naturally to make abstrusely generable objects suggests that what created this universe was technically characterized.

4. Thermodynamically dominant member of a higher ruling caste. Believe it or not, these are in every definite economic and political system.

5. Scriptural God/Jewish literature God. Is in the Jewish scriptures, is also a political “kraken” of ascendance which rewards the most profitable, pleasing, skilled, passionate individuals as part of a ponzi-type scheme. But this tangible form is only existent in the tangible world of values, currencies, and utility. The real scriptural God is only ever symbolized and suggested, rather than a complete concept.

6. “God” can also mean “a general God”.

Correct answer

@Mvtt Thank you.

I believe that your agenda of advancing empirics is misguided, for its perversion into a means of arguing against knowledge.

Believe it or not, impossibility is absolutely a myth in such a system because we let God remain in a field densely veined by language.

Though the one who makes like God exists or concludes such is taking the less rational gamble because of comparitive evidence and rationale with respect to a supernatural conception of God, or real living God.

Gods, including angels and other deific entities, in the political sense, have just been the caste relatively above as a gambit against individual, lucid social mobility and pure self-determination, which took advantage of forced cohabitation and having things in common.

@DZhukovin Please demonstrate that I have an agenda to "advance empirics". I thank you in advance. Ping @Mvtt

@anglophone

Well when I said that, I wasn’t being literal. Your basis seemed to depend on the need for falsifiable evidence. It seemed like a reference to tangible evidence, which in my case might be a poor evaluation on my part.

@DZhukovin Understood.

@DZhukovin huh?

@Storm1752 From what I can make out, @DZhukovin mistook my "falsifiable evidence" for his "tangible evidence", and I confess to having no idea what he means by that. I also took him at his word.

@anglophone

Yeah I forgot that Science doesn’t always use tangible evidence. Sorry about that one!

@DZhukovin No worries!