Is god real?

Present your case for any God's existence or lack thereof! Have fun, this is just to talk about the very wide debate going on between the religious and atheist here. There are tons of topics that seem to hit the top of this question, but I decided to cut to the heart of the matter, do(es) god(s) exist?

The Supreme or Ultimate Reality is what is meant by the word "God" with a capital "G".

That being the case, if you are talking about a "God" that isn't real, you are talking about a strawman "god" that doesn't fulfill the basic requirements for what is meant by the word.

Atheism towards God is the position of "nihilism", that there is no absolute truth, rather only relative truths. It should be obvious that if there is no ultimate reality, reality cannot even be relative, because the very concept of reality becomes meaningless.

There is no reasonable debate concerning the existence of God. Atheism is very easily dismissed as being untenable.

People who think they are atheists have adopted such a position because they are badly educated concerning the subject matter. They have superstitious conceptions of God that they disbelieve. Real deal atheists who knowingly embrace nihilism don't have a position deserving of being seriously considered.

And do you have evidence to support that claim? Why should I apply that definition to god at all? Not to mention you haven't at all demonstrated that a universe wouldn't work without a god. Give me a valid reason to conclude that that is the actual definition of god, before anything else.

It is the definition that is in the Merriam-Webster collegiate dictionary.

Oxford says "Supreme Being", which means the same thing, as being means "existence". The "Supreme Existence" would be that which truly exists. The Ultimate reality. It means the same thing.

Besides that, this is what the church fathers of The Orthodox Church taught and teach, so at least from our perspective this definition is in line with what we believe. 

That said, I want to make it clear that believing God exists is not the same thing as accepting any religion or philosophy concerning God. The only thing it means to say God exists is to say that there is ultimate reality.

Um, no, a being is not the same thing ontologically as existence. At least not how you are using the word existence. Being refers to an agent, something or someone who  is capable of conscious action, whereas Merriam webster defines existence (under the most topical definition) as: "the totality of existent things"

Not to mention that is not any of the definitions Merriam webster uses:

"1: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped (as in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism) as creator and ruler of the universe

2: a being or object that is worshipped as having more than natural attributes and powers

3: a person or thing of supreme value

4: a powerful ruler"

"… the Supreme Being or God, the personal form of the Ultimate Reality, is conceived by Hindus as having various aspects.— Sunita Pant Bansal" 

This is a quote, not the definition provided by Merriam Webster,  I don't know if this was an honest mistake, but reappropriating quotes as definitions is a no go

You literally clipped off the intial and most important part of the first definition that makes it clear that when capitalized, God refers the supreme or ultimate reality.

If you look at instructions on how to use the dictionary, you will find that this is the actual definition, and everything after the "such as" refers to certain conceptions, not necessarily integral to the definition.

I am certainly not making a dishonest argument, and I am pretty good with language.

If you look in the oxford, which is the dictionary that uses the term "supreme being", and look up the word "being", the very first definition is one word.

Existence

Besides all this, my understanding of the word "God" is consistent with both of these dictionaries, which are two of the most authoritative dictionaries of the English language. 

The word "being" comes from the word "be"

Etymology itself backs up my understanding, which is very consistent with everything I am saying and presenting as evidence.

Ah, my bad, however: if taken as the adjective should be, to modify the noun, in this case, an agent or person, we can see that the dictionary is most likely referencing this definition of Surpeme:

"highest in rank or authority"

and for Ultimate Reality:

ultimate: "the best or most extreme of its kind"

reality: "something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily"

Therefore an agent that is of ultimate reality is simply: "something that is was not created that is the best example of such." Not necessarily something that is real definitionally. Even if this was the case, the definition would then simply be a syllogism, which one could introduce critques of and investigate the claims of.

Regardless, there are sources with more credibility than Merriam Webster that disagree, for example, a better definition of god might be:

"God-

1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

3. An image, animal, or other object worshipped as divine or symbolizing a god."

Note: These definitions were taken from Lexico.com - an oxford english and Spanish dictionary

That definition you are presenting is the Oxford definition I pointed out. Certainly, Oxford is the oldest and most authoritative dictionary of English. Merriam-Webster is still a fine dictionary, I would say the most authoritative American English dictionary. One thing I like about it is that you don't habe to look up as many words to get an accurate and concise understanding of a word.

But looking at this Oxford definition, note, "the supreme being"

The monotheistic "God" rather than the polytheistic "god" or "gods" is what I am talking about.

My understanding is not only consistent with these dictionaries, but also patristic literature, which is a subject that I study unceasingly. It is worth noting that this understanding thst I am presenting predates even the English language.

The definition though is not a syllogism. Whhat I am saying is what is meant by the word.

This is how Jews, Christians, Muslims, even Hindus understand the concept.

"I Am that I am" is how the the name of God tends to get translated into English from Hebrew. That same passage translated from the Greek texts tends to get translated as "The Eternally Existing One".

Allah is the Muslim equivilent. Brahmin is the Hindu equivilent. There are equivilents in most if not all languages and cultures.

The supreme being, not the supreme reality, meaning this definition is just: A being of the highest authority, therefore the definition is not saying that god is a-causal or existent by definition. 

In other words, the preferred definition does not note god as inherently existent.

Even if this was the definition of god, I could very easily argue that this was simply a semantic point and that any god you believed in did not fit the definition. Therefore no gods would still be my position, and you would have to demonstrate that the god you were speaking of, fit that definition, which would still require evidence.

Look up in the Oxford the word "being".

The first definition is the word "existence"

There really is no room for doubt concerning the existence of God. This should be a relief, because from that point one can talk about the nature of God rather than be roadblocked over the existence of God.

The God I believe in is The Truth. Not a conception of The Truth or an understanding, but The Truth itself.

I don't need to prove the existence of this God, and truly if someone is in doubt about the existence of this God, it is absurd to think they can be shown its existence through reason.

"Prove to me that it is true that there is truth!" Is not a reasonable request.

And then I would argue that - that definition is not topical to what is philosophically and most examplularly the definition of god, therefore we should use this definition of being instead:

"Being - A real or imaginary living creature or entity, especially an intelligent one."

No, you would have to demonstrate that:

Truth = God

Before anything, claiming that god is the truth, is a claim itself. No definitions have supported that interpretation. You are begging the question, and presuming your conclusion in your premises. This is fallacious.

The problem with this understandkng of the word "being" that you are usingnis thst it neither has the consistancy between dictionaries that I shown, nor consistancy with the God that I am talking about.

There truthfully is no doubt concerning the existence of God unless your conception of God is superstitious.

The philosophers od the 1800s understood that their rejection of God was the rejection of ultimate reality, that is where nihilism comes from. Everything in philosophy after that point has more to do with wrestling with nihilism, as philosophy has for the most part rejected or trivialized God since then.

I don't have to demonstrate anything more than I have, which has been a simple clarification of what it is meant by the word I am using.

You can either talk about the same thing I am talking about, or talk about something else while pretending you are talking about the same thing. That is what it really amounts to.

I will say this, unless you accept what it is I am saying, it would be impossible for me to help you to have an understanding of anything else I say concerning the subject. You will get stuck

This is factually and philosophically untrue, you could present your syllogism as such:

P1: God is the supreme being

P2: A supreme being is synonymous with truth

Con: Therefore, God is truth

Except P2: Is not sound, it is not true, as you have to cherry pick untopical definitions to support that claim, not to mention, even the first premise isn't true when using the best sources. 

Unless the god you believe in is literally just the observable universe (which has a better definition: the observable universe), it does not even fit your definition in the first place.

If you say that the observable universe is the ultimate reality, that would make you a pantheist.

Pantheism is a conception of God.

There is a difference between what God is in essence and a conception that people may have concerning that essence.

The Ultimate Reality is God.

No logic necessary. Logic is not greater than God. Without God, logic is meaningless.

Wrong once more, prove that I should use the word god (which is semantic at this point, because if a pantheistic god is just the observable universe, then that god DOES NOT EXIST, there is no reason why we should consider this a definition of god, it is simply the observable universe), as the ultimate reality. You have no demonstrated why this is true. All of your defintional arguments were flawed and/or fallacious

I don't need to convince you of anything. 

I'm telling you the truth of the matter, you can either accept it or be wrong.

Umm... you have no valid evidence to support that claim. You are being pretty closed-minded. You have made a claim and therefore have necessarily adopted the BoP

Pretty sure the dictionary acts as evidence as to what words mean.

Feeling pretty smug here.

In the context of my religion, this is what God means besides. I don't need a dictionary to say what it is that is meant by the words we use. All I have to simply do is say what it is we mean, and if this isn't accepted the inquirer has set themselves against having an understanding. It is they who have adopted the anti-intellectualist position.

My faith is older than the English language. We know what it is we mean. It isn't I who am making a semantic argument, it is the one who refuses to have common ground.

No evidence will satisfy a nihilist, because they are inherently ARBITRARY people.

An aversion to the word God, that is all it is. The Truth is God? Oh no, anything but that! That makes me WRONG!

Except I'm not. At least, you haven't demonstrated why in a valid manner.

You can either believe me or remain bewildered as to what my faith is about.

Your choice. I am not compromising to your subversive anti-Christian worldview.

Except, no, before you can say that is what you mean, you actually have to demonstrate that a god is truth, asserting that is simply that, an assertion!

Not to mention I actually out dictionary-ied, by debunking your positions on topicality.