Perhaps. But that's irrelevant. The topic is religions and none of them are plausible.

Is God plausible?

I'm an atheist, but I can admit that some religions are more plausible than others, although I ultimately reject all those that I've researched.

Which one?

Whichever. Is the idea that a God created the universe plausible?

I have no idea what this means. Is this the same question as this one: "Is something plausible"

That's kind of the point. Of course it's plausible that a God could exist. Just like it's plausible that there is no God, if by plausible you mean feasible or possible.

The plausibility or implausibility of God is a poor statement to make in the first place, without expanding any further.

Usually people have something in mind when they use a word. Since we are using the English language in this forum, I offer the following link:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/god?s=t

Again, which god? Why did you capitalize it? Why didn't you say "Is it possible that Grgledmus exists?" if you had nothing in mind?

Just in case it helps, plausible does not mean feasible or possible. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/plausible?s=t

I already answered you, God, by the first definition of your link, a creator-God, who made the universe.

We all know what plausible means.

If you can't admit that it's plausible, by the standard definition of plausibility, that an intelligent being created the universe, then I don't think you're being honest.

I can admit that it is plausible that there is no God.

Nah. I don't believe God is plausible either. That doesn't mean I think it's impossible. Plausibility with regard to God's existence denotes a level of confidence that most atheists here simply don't possess. In other words, those atheists that would say God is very unlikely would typically describe him as implausible. Now, obviously, those atheists that are teetering on the proposition (50/50 or the like) would likely describe his existence as plausible.

Similarly, I think leprechauns are possible, but not plausible.

I have gone on in great lengths in other threads that it is quite possible that I am actually an over-imaginative artichoke.

Like a burning bush that says there is no God?

Yes, I know, but you can't just decide to be an artichoke only when it suits you.

We could all be brains in a vat, that doesn't take away from the plausibility of an intelligent designer.

So the plausibility of something depends on who's perspective is being considered? If your level of confidence was higher, then God could be plausible? Consequently, many people are confident God exists, so to them it is plausible, but aren't we back where we started?

Well, more correctly a story of such a burning bush with no possibility for witnesses, trace or archeological evidence.

Not exactly. There is a 'correct' amount of plausibility that we should all give to God, fairies, leprechauns, etc., given the information we have available to us. Right now, we are just disagreeing on what that correct amount [of plausibility] is with respect to God. In other words, from my view, there is not enough evidence/reason to consider God likely or reasonable; you disagree. So we have to start there. Arguing plausibility in this way is quite similar to arguing over his existence in the first place—the bar is just set a little lower.

From my perspective, yes. However, that would not say that his existence is actually plausible... I might be considering the facts incorrectly, or I might be unable to accurately judge the criteria for lack of necessary information, etc.

Nah. Just because young earth creationists are confident the earth is 6000 years old doesn't mean it's actually plausible. They have to (accurately) consider the evidence, which they obviously didn't.

I see, maybe it's that when I think of plausibility, I set the bar lower than what others deem acceptable.

Who decides who is correct when certain things are a matter of interpretation?

How would you respond to someone like WLC who argues that God's existence is more logical than his non-existence?

Maybe. I'd imagine it's much more likely that you value certain types of evidence and lines of argumentation more than we do. That is to say, it's likely that you are of the mind that certain evidence is actually evidence (where I might disagree) and that certain lines of argumentation made for God's existence, e.g. cosmological, teleological, ontological, etc. are more successful than we would deem them to be. Thus, you're ascribing a higher level of plausibility from the same evidence/arguments than we do.

It may also be the case that God's existence just feels like it could be true, so you consider it plausible despite lacking an acceptable level of evidence and argumentation, even from your perspective.

I mean, everything is a matter of interpretation. So, we have to come at this the same way we do anything else; we go were the evidence leads. The question of God's existence is no different than the existence of Australia or extra-terrestrial life. It's just the evidence and argumentation that differ. The best we can do is to have a look at the information we have available and try to make an informed decision... Or, given an inability or lack of want to do so, tend to side with the consensus of those who hold expertise in that area.

There is no grand arbiter (assuming I'm right about God ), so we just have to do the best we can.

I could only respond by demonstrating where I believe each of his individual arguments fail. This is because WLC's larger point (God's existence is more logical than his non-existence) is based on a number of different positions that he also holds, so you're going to have defeat (some of) those before his larger position could change.

You've still got the burning bush, tho.

True, you can't argue with a burning bush.

Reality isn't really up to me. I am an artichoke that doesn't realize I am an artichoke. I'm quite consistent.

You are stuck on thinking that possible = plausible. It simply isn't a plausible story. Some skinny women have cellulite, which means that if there is an intelligent designer that he does shoddy work. Actually that I could come up with a more intelligent design design at all makes it implausible.

The bigger issue that gets glossed right over is that no one who believes in an intelligent designer believes in a generic designer. IF we granted (for the sake of argument) that there actually was an intelligent designer, that would still make whatever intelligent designer you had in mind exceedingly unlikely. No one seems to be worshipping me as the designer for some reason, and I can come up with a quite "plausible" explanation of why I am clearly the designer.

That's a new objection to the existence of God - cellulite. Is that why America is becoming more and more ungodly? Zing.

Plausibility is best accompanied by reliability and validity. That is to say that presumably skeptical people tend to agree with both the calculation and on the nature of what is calculated.

If not there is nothing that separates it from inane rabbling. Now some critics will extend the argument of philosophical skepticism to absurdity in order to desperately fight what I am saying here. Basically that will be offering protests ala "but how do you know that you know what those other people know" or
"You're just a brain in a vat, ldo".

However when people are backed into that corner, they themselves can't argue plausibility anyway. So it all works out nicely.

Why does one explanation have to be plausible, and the other not? Why can't an intelligent designer and whatever other theory you adhere to be plausible as explanations of our reality?

I went back to look at the debate between WLC and Michael Tooley, and WLC begins by stating that "I'm not claiming that I can prove that God exists with some kind of mathematical certainty. I’m just claiming that on balance the evidence is such that theism is more plausible than not."

He goes on later to say that "I think it’s more plausible that God exists than that atheism is true" but irregardless, I think there is room for a creator, I just don't see it as implausible.

I don't really see any connection to my post, but I will answer still.

WLC's plausibility is a rhetoric device used in argument. His admittance of not making mathematical claims is merely made to establish honesty, which makes other claims sound more credible.

Ofcourse a person finds his belief plausible. What separates a skeptic from an apologetic is that the skeptic challenges his own claims, while the apologetic seeks to affirm them.