Off the OP a bit, but here is my treatment of the “god” issue.
The very concept of “god” is a human invention, originating, I believe in the early worship of powerful human leaders.
The typical “god concept” is a part of semi-civilized tribalism, which to say that many very privative people’s didn’t conceive of a god, but “god” seems to come from those early civilized people’s, who had powerful rulers, and large nation states to control. Small privative tribes in Africa and the Americas were often without any concept of god at all, and, of course, no use for such a god either.
Organized religion as we know it, is a combination superstition, behavior modification, and leadership imposed on the semi-abstract concept of a “god”, or non-tangible authority figure, whose construct serves the purpose of holing the system together and removing criticism from earthly leaders.
Every concept of god that exists on this planet, or has existed, is the product of some other cultural need, they are concepts that evolved to fill certain social roles.
The chance that this obvious product of social evolution has happened upon any tangible reality is, IMO, ZERO, not 0.001%, but straight 0.0000000000.
That would be like saying that the invention of Superman happened to describe a real figure on a real planet called Krypton that really is like the way the comic book author describes it.
So, what does this leave?
Philosophical concepts of god, such as those derived by Plato and Paine?
These concepts are obviously preceded by the more privative constructs, and based on them, but in an attempt to come up with a more “reasonable” imagining of something that is unreasonable.
Here there is an emotional attachment to the god concept as a personal and social construct, but its clear that the attributes ascribed to traditional gods are crude, so they are re-imagined in more lofty terms that are harder to define and thereby refute, but this is like taking the story of Superman and then removing some of the unreasonable elements, perhaps making him “Super-it” to remove gender, perhaps removing it weakness of kryptonite, perhaps making it so it doesn’t change into Clark Kent, and then, after giving the unreasonable superhero a makeover, claiming that its more likely that it is real.
Of course, starting from a false construct and giving it a makeover doesn’t make it more likely. If I start with the story of Little Red Riding Hood and then take out the talking wolf part, that doesn’t make the story real, or make it history.
So what about a purely reasoned concept of god, starting with nothing and then just arriving philosophically at the idea that something had to create the universe, so whatever that is, is god.
Ok, but to call this “god” is a misnomer, now we are simply talking some potentially unconscious phenomenon that occurred and no longer even exists, so this isn’t really a god, this is a use of “god” by people like Spinoza to simply get around having been killed.
So, I see nothing that people can conceive of and call a “god” that can possibly exist. To say that god exists, but is beyond our conception, is completely useless. If you can’t define a word then you can have the word.
Some try to take it to this level, that “god” is simply undefinable, but if this is the case then it isn’t “god”, its just an open ended question mark which we know nothing about at all.
God as undefined “cause” of existence is a cop-out. Yes, there had to be some cause to existence, but to think that this cause of existence has anything at all to do with the human evolved social construct that we call “god” is nonsense.
The universe shows no signs of design or providence whatever. From what we can see, the vast majority of existence is lifeless and we can expect goes about its business regardless of our existence. The system of life that does exist on earth is fundamentally founded on amoral, lawless, pitilessness. The system of life is really fundamentally immoral in is nature, and amoral in its existence, meaning that if it were designed, the designer would have to be immoral by our standards of morality, for I think that one would have to be immoral to create such an amoral and indifferent system.
What little life does exist in the universe is pitiless, mostly incapable of knowing much of anything, and essentially just a self perpetuating chemical chain reaction.
Evolution is a horrible system from a moral perspective, yet it is reality. The religionists see that its an amoral/immoral system, thus they claim its not true, because they know that if the universe really works in such a way, surely no god could exist to design such a heartless system, but indeed the system exists, therefor its not the explanation of the system that is wrong, but the god that supposedly wouldn’t create such a system.
Now, as the religionists say, “surely this can’t be it, therefore there must be a god”, but if there was a god, why would the god make the universe like this in the first place? “We can’t know”. Nonsense, we do know, there is no god.
So, I can say that I am 100% confident that any meaningful definition of god does not exist.