I am surprised by the many responses to my post, most of which appear to be from atheists who’s minds are made up. To you, my non judgmental response is that I have no desire to impose any discussion on you; and I prefer that you not interrupt any discussion which may follow.

To those of you who express a willingness to consider evidence, although not very hopeful that any will be forthcoming, I state the following: For most of my life I was agnostic until the question of the origin of life moved me pretty far toward the position of deism. A deistic god is a non interventionist intelligent entity who does not get involved in communicating with humans. If I am going to speak of a god then I owe you my definition of the word god which is: An intelligence or intelligent entity having the ability to actually do something by temporarily overriding the laws of physics. When we ask: Is there a god? we are really asking: Are miracles possible? The definition of a miracle being: The intentional temporary altering of one or more of the laws of physics. I hereby offer to give my reasons in favor of deism:

Evidence for a god who can do miracles:
(1) Regardless of its size or shape and regardless of whether it was animal or vegetable, all of us had a FIRST ancestor.
(2) That FIRST ancestor had the ability to reproduce.
(3) That FIRST physical organic structure having the ability to reproduce necessarily included some degree of complexity.
(4) There are only two possible ways by which that FIRST self replicating organic structure could have come into existence: One is by matter being guided by the mere constant laws of physics. The only other way is by matter being guided by some intelligent force.
(5) Until or unless someone can show the possibility of that FIRST self replicating structure coming into existence naturally, then by process of elimination, our best provisional conclusion is that it came into existence supernaturally. If you insist that anything supernatural should not even be considered in this discussion, then you have the burden of proving as much.
(6) I understand that deism is less than satisfying, and therefore not very popular due to the fact that it offers little if anything to enhance the quality of our life. However this fact is irrelevant to the above points of discussion.

Much like this photo - evidence of a Unicorn.

I'm not really ready to believe in something sight unseen because someone's Faith tells them it's there. We have no substantiated Proof of god(s).

No such thing as evidences whether there is a god beyond faith and anecdotes... hence all the atheists.

nope

There is none, so no.

There's nothing to discuss. The point of agnosticism is you can't know. My point as an atheist is when you don't know something, you don't go with most absurd explanation you can find.

whose god? or the existence of god? cause whose god doesn't work for me. anti-theist as well. truly that is my first perspective. this makes it tough to even engage the conversation for me. most of the time the arguments stem from a particular set of dogma from what i have seen. if you put no credence to the dogma, the argument is pointless. in my view you cannot argue with someone who believes "evidence" that comes from a fallible source (well you can, but your forehead will hurt after the third bang or so.) it also seems to me that there are not many new ways to argue the counter point. "creative" ( ? ) new ways are invented (intelligent design, a justification of the time line in the bible, etc.) to argue it, but they are also odd. you cannot for centuries say it is the infallible word of a god and then reinterpret it, imo. plus, an experience here has left me thinking it isn't worth it. i read them now. and i am never swayed.

No, because there's nothing to discuss. You cannot evidence the supernatural (either way).

Agnosticism is the knowledge position, atheism is the belief position. Agnosticism says "there's no way to know, so I don't claim to have knowledge" and atheism says "I don't afford belief to the unsubstantiated, much less the unsubstantiatable."

As others have pointed out the case for specific deities with claimed attributes is more fanciful and unlikely than the case for some generic impersonal god-force but to me, the god hypotheses without the supernatural is like cars without wheels, now you are discussing really just a powerful / advanced alien being who is part of the natural world and that's a completely different category.

In my view, the only god concepts that might be worth salvaging are purely symbolic ones, or impersonal meta-concepts like "the Divine", and I leave that to the Joseph Campbells of the world as I see little upside in it and lots of potential downside because people seem hell-bent on conflating such things with personal interventionist gods and eternal life, and then we're back to square one. In fact, many seemingly "open-minded" theists use such abstractions as trojan horses to get buy-in with those they argue with, and then bait-and-switch and move the goalposts in an attempt to transfer that buy-in to their deity of choice. I've been down that road too many times.

No.

If you mean a god of established religion we can observe through history as being created by humans then I am very happy with no.
If you mean god as a word used to describe some force that may currently be beyond the grasp of science, then maybe.

I would be quite willing to accept real evidence for a creator being although that does not mean I would bow down to such a being. Certainly it would deserve respect but I doubt that such a being would be so advanced in so many ways but still have the petty need to be worshiped in order to validate its existence.

I'm always prepared to discuss any evidence. My adult life has been a search for such evidence. It took me decades to officially accept that I'm an agnostic atheist and not just agnostic, simply because I found there was no evidence.

But let's not go down the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" road. We would need to talk about affirmative evidence of a supernatural being, that can't be explained by confirmation bias, natural processes, special pleading, random chance, or mythology. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.

We've been over this several times in the time since the site was set up. However, if you'd like to make any points and/or share evidence for/against the existence of a god, I'm sure you'd be able to get a new discussion on the topic started up.

There are some vicious haters on this site that will not only respond with great malice but then will follow and nitpick anything else for a few months.

I am but be prepared to come up with lots of evidence.

No.