What are the odds of God existing?

According to the OP's logic, wouldn't that lower the odds of god existing to 33.33%?

So...does God sleep?

would it not be better to say that we have insufficient infomation to assign a probability with any degree of reliability ?

whatever

So Robin are you limiting yourself to a dualistic philosophy?
You are assuming there are two fundamental properties of the universe: insentient stuff and sentience?

Are you then a priori excluding monism or non duality from even being considered?

1. eternal god created the universe
2. non-eternal God, arising from nothing, created the universe.
3. the universe has always existed.
4. the universe came from nothing.So if we allow the idea that something can come from nothing, we seem to have 4 choices. Maybe there's more.

Surely we are part of Nature? Via our conciousness, Nature is one total being. If not, what do you define as the delimiter of our individual conciousnesses? Our physical bodies?

As for as those ideas about God being "outside of our particular time"--this makes no sense to me.

Accoring to conventional 20th/21st century physics (GR) time is just as much a contained (created) part of the universe as anything else. If God is not outside our time, then he is part of our universe and hence not God at all...

There's two possible monisms: everything's mental or everything's physical. Which did you have in mind?

I don't see how the non-physical can come from the physical).

My stomach is a discreet entity, but it also a part of me.

Some 25 years ago, Arthur Koestler proposed the word "holon" [Koestler]. It is a combination from the Greek holos = whole, with the suffix on which, as in proton or neutron, suggests a particle or part.Two observations impelled Koestler to propose the word holon. The first comes from Herbert Simon, a Nobel prize winner, and is based on his 'parable of the two watchmakers' , [Simon] . From this parable, Simon concludes that complex systems will evolve from simple systems much more rapidly if there are stable intermediate forms than if there are not; the resulting complex systems in the former case will be hierarchic.The second observation, made by Koestler while analysing hierarchies and stable intermediate forms in living organisms and social organisation, is thatalthough it is easy to identify sub-wholes or parts'wholes' and 'parts' in an absolute sense do not exist anywhere. This made Koestler propose the word holon to describe the hybrid nature of sub- wholes/parts in real-life systems; holons simultaneously are self-contained wholes to their subordinated parts, and dependent parts when seen from the inverse direction.Koestler also establishes the link between holons and the watchmakers' parable from professor Simon. He points out that the sub-wholes/holons are autonomous self-reliant units, which have a degree of independence and handle contingencies without asking higher authorities for instructions. Simultaneously, holons are subject to control from (multiple) higher authorities. The first property ensures that holons are stable forms, which survive disturbances. The latter property signifies that they are intermediate forms, which provide the proper functionality for the bigger whole.Finally, Koestler defines a holarchy as a hierarchy of self-regulating holons which function (a) as autonomous wholes in supra-ordination to their parts, (b) as dependent parts in sub- ordination to controls on higher levels, (c) in co-ordination with their local environmentDepartement Werktuigkunde - KU Leuven — Departement Werktuigkunde (WTK)