# Atheism Is Not Scientific **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 17, 2014, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962 "2014-06-17T04:31:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![D\_Odds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/d_odds/32/2882_2.png) [@D\_Odds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Odds)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2019, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/261 "2019-04-04T13:40:32Z")
> [@Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](#): > > It was Norway. Putting all the fiddly bits around the fjords took _forever_. Still, he won an award. I thought Slartibartfast did the fjords. šŸ˜• ---
**Author:** ![KarlGauss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/karlgauss/32/3713_2.png) [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2019, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/262 "2019-04-04T13:56:21Z")
> [@Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](#): > > It was Norway. Putting all the fiddly bits around the fjords took _forever_. Still, he won an award. [Mandelbrot would blame the coast of England](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_Long_Is_the_Coast_of_Britain%3F_Statistical_Self-Similarity_and_Fractional_Dimension). ---
**Author:** ![Roderick\_Femm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/roderick_femm/32/14875_2.png) [@Roderick\_Femm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roderick_Femm)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2019, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/263 "2019-04-04T16:35:16Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > The problem is that introducing an open-ended term like ā€œanyā€ can lead to an epistemological rat-hole, since I can define ā€œGodā€ in abstract ways that atheists may well accept: ā€œGod is why there is something rather than nothingā€; ā€œGod is the Hartle-Hawking state, the wave function of the universeā€, etc. These are not the anthropomorphic gods of the Bible, nor are they falsifiable on the basis of empirical evidence. They are more like semantic games that acknowledge the boundaries of science and declare God to be that which lies beyond those bounds. And some of those concepts would not be without evidence or reason or cogent argument. Iā€™m not talking about the using the word ā€œgodā€ to describe an actual something but the idea of a supernatural deity. Perhaps I should have used the word ā€œsupernaturalā€ in my description to make that more clear. For the record, I donā€™t know of any atheist that would accept ā€œGod is why there is something rather than nothing.ā€ If you think there has to be a ā€œwhyā€ youā€™re not an atheist. ---
**Author:** ![Knowed\_Out](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/knowed_out/32/7380_2.png) [@Knowed\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knowed_Out)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2019, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/264 "2019-04-04T17:25:41Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Thatā€™s exactly my point, which everyone seems to understand except **KO** , who has developed his own unique definition of god found nowhere in any major religion and is now trying to use it to prove (AFAICT) that heā€™s the only one with any insights on the matter. > > Atheism is really only meaningful as a rejection of the traditional precepts of God put forward by the major organized religions. Neither atheism nor science has anything useful to say about notions of God that are so abstract as to have no evidence-based resolution and no practical meaning. Again, Iā€™m thinking about God from a scientific perspective, not a religious one, because there is no universal concept of God for which everyone agrees. Generally, they all agree that God created the universe and oversees humanity. My reasoning is that for God to be capable of doing so, heā€™s infinitely more powerful than we mere humans can conceive. It would be like an amoeba trying to conceive of higher life forms like humans. Maybe I should have began a little higher from the bottom, so letā€™s say an ant farm. A human kid can love and care for an ant farm, but can the ants love and revere back? Do they see and acknowledge the big face outside the glass? What would ants consider God? A vast version of the queen, the Empress Ant maybe? Humans usually think of God as an old man, or a more idealized version of themselves. We have no actual proof, and the answer to what God looks like may be more than we can comprehend. Thatā€™s the point Iā€™m attempting to make. Since we donā€™t have the proper scientific data, we con only rely on faith and belief in a higher power, and science doesnā€™t allow for that. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2019, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/265 "2019-04-04T18:54:32Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > The problem is that introducing an open-ended term like ā€œanyā€ can lead to an epistemological rat-hole, since I can define ā€œGodā€ in abstract ways that atheists may well accept: ā€œGod is why there is something rather than nothingā€; ā€œGod is the Hartle-Hawking state, the wave function of the universeā€, etc. These are not the anthropomorphic gods of the Bible, nor are they falsifiable on the basis of empirical evidence. They are more like semantic games that acknowledge the boundaries of science and declare God to be that which lies beyond those bounds. When I hear those sorts of definitions my face gets all grim and stony because I see such definitions as sophistry of the basest order. The history of religion is riddled with bait-and-switches where God is framed as some simplistic insensate thing one moment, and is loving everybody and burning sinners the next. Wolf has been cried too many times for me to hear ā€œIā€™m just talking about the Big Bang and calling it ā€˜Godā€™ for no particular reason!ā€ without immediately leaping to a non-charitable conclusion. > [@Knowed\_Out](#): > > Again, Iā€™m thinking about God from a scientific perspective, not a religious one, because there is no universal concept of God for which everyone agrees. Generally, they all agree that God created the universe and oversees humanity. My reasoning is that for God to be capable of doing so, heā€™s infinitely more powerful than we mere humans can conceive. It would be like an amoeba trying to conceive of higher life forms like humans. > > Maybe I should have began a little higher from the bottom, so letā€™s say an ant farm. A human kid can love and care for an ant farm, but can the ants love and revere back? Do they see and acknowledge the big face outside the glass? What would ants consider God? A vast version of the queen, the Empress Ant maybe? > > Humans usually think of God as an old man, or a more idealized version of themselves. We have no actual proof, and the answer to what God looks like may be more than we can comprehend. Thatā€™s the point Iā€™m attempting to make. Since we donā€™t have the proper scientific data, we con only rely on faith and belief in a higher power, and science doesnā€™t allow for that. There are three possible reasons one entity could fail to understand the other: perceptual failings, perspective failings, or cognitive failings. Perceptual changes are where the subject isnā€™t visible, or is hiding. Perspective failings are where the subject is lying, putting on an act, or otherwise concealing its nature. Cognitive failings are when the observer is too stupid to comprehend anything with the complexity of the subject. I donā€™t accept that humans are, as a species, subject to cognitive failings of this order. Weā€™re not ants. Weā€™re capable of learning new things and expanding our understanding of them. The notion that God is too mysterious for humans to understand is evasive bullshit that can be summarily dismissed. (In my opinion.) Whether thereā€™re gods out there whoā€™ve gone into hiding since the time long past when they were lying to people about creating the universe is another discussion. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2019, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/266 "2019-04-04T19:12:37Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > When I hear those sorts of definitions my face gets all grim and stony because I see such definitions as sophistry of the basest order. The history of religion is riddled with bait-and-switches where God is framed as some simplistic insensate thing one moment, and is loving everybody and burning sinners the next. You might have inferred, perhaps with a more careful reading, that my reference to ā€œsemantic gamesā€ indicated that I wasnā€™t endorsing the utility of such definitions, but merely pointing out that the use of the word ā€œanyā€ in the statement ā€œ_Atheism at its core is the refusal, on principal, to accept the existence of any deities based on faith, without evidence or reason or cogent argument_ā€ was so open-ended that both traditional religionist definitions of ā€œgodā€ and non-magical philosophical ones could apply. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2019, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/267 "2019-04-04T20:27:12Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > You might have inferred, perhaps with a more careful reading, that my reference to ā€œsemantic gamesā€ indicated that I wasnā€™t endorsing the utility of such definitions, but merely pointing out that the use of the word ā€œanyā€ in the statement ā€œ_Atheism at its core is the refusal, on principal, to accept the existence of any deities based on faith, without evidence or reason or cogent argument_ā€ was so open-ended that both traditional religionist definitions of ā€œgodā€ and non-magical philosophical ones could apply. Hey, I just said that reading such sophistry fills me with rage. You can hardly expect me to read with perfect precision while Iā€™m enraged, can you? But in my defense I never actually said that _you_ engaged in that sophistry - I just gnashed angrily about the rage-inducing things you mentioned. On the subject of gods that arenā€™t gods, I once came up with the following example that could be considered to be a rebuttal to the very concept of atheism: I have seen a god myself. This god was the styrofoam cup I had sitting on my desk at the time. In appearance, size, weight, and all other observable interactions with the physical universe it was indistinguishable from any other styrofoam cup, but _this_ cup was a god. It was omnibenevolent and omniscient but not omnipotent - in fact it only had the powers of a styrofoam cup. But that didnā€™t change the fact that it was a god - and I personally attest that it was real. So on the one hand we have a concrete disproof of atheism. But on the other hand we have a witty and incisive criticism of shitty definitions. No rational person would say that I had disproven atheism by pointing at a random object and declaring that itā€™s a god; thatā€™s stupid. However thatā€™s exactly what people who call the big bang God or the whole universe God or the Hartle-Hawking state God are doing. _And itā€™s still stupid._ This sort of juvenile nonsense is only possible because of the slipshod way the concept of ā€œgodā€ is defined. You donā€™t have to be eternal to be a god. You donā€™t have to have created the universe or humanity to be a god. You donā€™t have to be omnipotent to be a god. You donā€™t have to be corporeal _or_ incorporeal to be a god. You donā€™t have to interact with reality to be a god. You donā€™t have to _exist_ to be a god. You just have to have a _single_ human being call you a god, and nobody gets to tell you youā€™re wrong. That is the reality of the situation, and I reject that reality and substitute my own. I claim the right to say no, I donā€™t accept that that thing youā€™re talking about is a god. Iā€™m the final arbiter for whether I think something qualifies, and when people tell me the universe is God, I reserve the right to blow them off. Thus are my powers manifested, because I am a god. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2019, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/268 "2019-04-04T21:23:05Z")
> [@Knowed\_Out](#): > > Again, Iā€™m thinking about God from a scientific perspective, not a religious one, because there is no universal concept of God for which everyone agrees. Generally, they all agree that God created the universe and oversees humanity. And most religions connect these two things without justification. Even if there is a god who created the universe, it does not imply that this god has anything to do with us. People who think so are pre-Copernican, still thinking that the Earth is the center of the universe. A god creating the universe is unfalsifiable. The premise that a god oversees the earth and isnā€™t doing a piss poor job of it is easily falsified. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2019, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/269 "2019-04-04T21:29:00Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > The premise that a god oversees the earth and isnā€™t doing a piss poor job of it is easily falsified. Depends on what the godā€™s interests in the world are. I was the god overseeing the world of the sims, and there were many, many deaths. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2019, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/270 "2019-04-04T23:12:40Z")
> [@Not\_Freddy\_Fender](#): > > Most skeptics claim theyā€™re atheists. > They do this because they ā€œsee no evidenceā€ for the existence of God. > And yet, they never disclose what exactly what they would consider to be ā€œevidenceā€ for the existence of God. > Is it walking on water? Elimination of all pain and suffering in the world? Allowing everyone to live forever? > Seriously, I would like to know exactly what skeptics would consider to be evidence for God. > > Theism says God DOES exist. > Atheism says God DOES NOT exist. > And yet, neither view is Scientific in any sense of the word. > The only scientific disposition concerning God is Agnosticism: ā€œI donā€™t know.ā€ > > In order to say something exists, you must provide evidence to that end. > Likewise, in order to say something does not exist, you must know the conditions or circumstances that would have to be in place for that phenomenon to exist and then be able to show ā€” scientifically ā€” how or why such circumstances cannot or do not exist. > But no Atheist is ever able to demonstrate this. > They simply ā€œknowā€. > > ā€œAbsence of evidence is not evidence of absence.ā€ > > As an analogy, consider Love. > Most people, including skeptics, claim they ā€œloveā€ somebody. > Their spouse, their significant other, their friends, their relatives, their family. > But they cannot prove their love by the scientific method. > They claim love is simply an emotional response common to most people. > That is not scientific, that is anecdotal. > It is purely subjective which is not scientific in any sense of the word. > > I donā€™t doubt you do love your spouse/friends/family. > But if you claim to adhere to the scientific method, how can you scientifically say you love anyone? > Logic has nothing to do with Passion. > > You may answer that ā€œloveā€ and other emotions are nothing more than chemical reactions within your brain. > But such a disposition is The Matrix: how do you define reality? > If you take it to that level, then EVERY experience/emotion/thought could in fact be being fed to you by some external mechanism which is convincing you of a reality that is in fact not real. > > So why do so many skeptics agree with atheism if it isnā€™t really scientific? Because there is no evidence of the gods or God that is compelling to them. Hell, Iā€™m on the fence, being an agnathest, and I donā€™t really see all that much compelling evidence. Just because itā€™s not scientific, per se, doesnā€™t mean they should just toss that skepticism out and accept theism. Science isnā€™t really about proving God or the gods existā€¦itā€™s about answering questions about the universe, and doing so in ways that are replicable, making hypothesis and then looking at the data to see if itā€™s supported or not. Theists are the ones who would, logically, be on the hook to ā€˜proveā€™ God or the gods exist, but, as they arenā€™t scientists mainly, or not in a science about gods or God they arenā€™t really compelled to do so. Soā€¦how did your one post on this board (an in the Pit) go for you? Did you learn anything? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2019, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/271 "2019-04-04T23:16:23Z")
:smack: Didnā€™t even notice this was a zombie thread. Oh well, guess it didnā€™t go well for the OP, as they never came backā€¦ ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2019, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/272 "2019-04-04T23:18:42Z")
nm ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2019, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/273 "2019-04-05T01:32:44Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > I pretty much never hear about deist religions. Good enough for half of our Founding Fathers is good enough for me. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2019, 10:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/274 "2019-04-05T10:59:48Z")
> [@Knowed\_Out](#): > > My reasoning is that for God to be capable of doing so, heā€™s infinitely more powerful than we mere humans can conceive. To paraphrase Han Solo, I dunno, I can conceive quite a bit. Such as, I can conceive of a being capable of creating the universe. No joke, ā€œa being capable of creating the universeā€ is a seven word phrase that captures the thing that you suggest Iā€™m incapable of understanding. ā€œBut God must be so much more than that!ā€ you may argueā€¦ But I donā€™t need to understand THAT, whatever that is, to understand that this being is God. I donā€™t need to understand the inner workings of His divine power to understand that He is divine and created the universe. One doesnā€™t need to understand the inner workings of a GPS to understand that a GPS can pinpoint your location. We can understand the WHAT (a being that created the universe) without understanding the HOW. Ants, being incapable of higher order thinking, are simply incapable of understanding the WHAT to begin with, because they are generally incapable of understanding\* anything. \*Based on a human understanding of what understanding something means. Iā€™m not going to understand God the way God understands Himself, but I am capable of a human understanding of God, and thatā€™s good enough for us humans to work with. ---
**Author:** ![Knowed\_Out](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/knowed_out/32/7380_2.png) [@Knowed\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knowed_Out)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2019, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/275 "2019-04-05T17:32:31Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Perceptual changes are where the subject isnā€™t visible, or is hiding. > > Perspective failings are where the subject is lying, putting on an act, or otherwise concealing its nature. > > Cognitive failings are when the observer is too stupid to comprehend anything with the complexity of the subject. I suppose my theory stems from the Perceptual. This is why I concluded some time ago (sneer all you want, it satisfies my spiritual void) that God is the whole universe. I say that because the universe is vast and weā€™re only capable of exploring a tiny bit of it. What we do discover changes our assumptions about the universe, like back when we thought Earth was the center of it all. Now weā€™re discovering new stars, black holes and planetary systems, but we wonā€™t be able to properly explore them until the probes we sent out in the 70s travel dozens of light years, or we somehow pioneer FTL travel. That goes with the ā€œGod moves in mysterious waysā€ supposition. At first, the statement sounds like weā€™re not allowed to fully know Godā€™s intentions (for our own good), but if God is on a similar scale with the universe, weā€™re currently incapable of understanding God. Our telescopes only go so far, thus the ā€œmysterious ways.ā€ ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2019, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/276 "2019-04-05T17:37:08Z")
Why create a new term-ā€œGodā€-when we already have the term ā€œwhole universeā€? What value is added with this? ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2019, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/277 "2019-04-05T20:17:22Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Why create a new term-ā€œGodā€-when we already have the term ā€œwhole universeā€? What value is added with this? And if, like, God is the universe, and Iā€™m part of the universeā€¦ Then, God is part me, and Iā€™m part God. We all areā€¦ _passes bong_ ---
**Author:** ![KarlGauss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/karlgauss/32/3713_2.png) [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2019, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/278 "2019-04-05T20:25:22Z")
> [@cmyk](#): > > And if, like, God is the universe, and Iā€™m part of the universeā€¦ Then, God is part me, and Iā€™m part God. We all areā€¦ > > _passes bong_ Sounds common to religion in general. Psychedelia not required (although it helps). ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2019, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/279 "2019-04-05T21:48:59Z")
> [@Knowed\_Out](#): > > I suppose my theory stems from the Perceptual. This is why I concluded some time ago (sneer all you want, it satisfies my spiritual void) that God is the whole universe. I say that because the universe is vast and weā€™re only capable of exploring a tiny bit of it. What we do discover changes our assumptions about the universe, like back when we thought Earth was the center of it all. Now weā€™re discovering new stars, black holes and planetary systems, but we wonā€™t be able to properly explore them until the probes we sent out in the 70s travel dozens of light years, or we somehow pioneer FTL travel. > > That goes with the ā€œGod moves in mysterious waysā€ supposition. At first, the statement sounds like weā€™re not allowed to fully know Godā€™s intentions (for our own good), but if God is on a similar scale with the universe, weā€™re currently incapable of understanding God. Our telescopes only go so far, thus the ā€œmysterious ways.ā€ Hold on a second, let me get my sneer face on. Hmm, I donā€™t seem to have one. I think thisā€™ll do instead though: :rolleyes: But seriously, my response to that is, ā€œYouā€™re defining that word in a strange and confusing way to no clear benefit.ā€ Seriously, what do you get out of pointing straight up and saying ā€œThatā€™s Godā€? Sure you can say all kinds of meaningful-sounding things, like ā€œI am part of Godā€ or ā€œPart of God is inside meā€ or ā€œGod doesnā€™t give the tiniest little shit about my existenceā€, but _you_ know that youā€™re not talking about some powerful supernatural entity. You know youā€™re just talking about the insensate ground weā€™re standing on. Calling it ā€œGodā€ doesnā€™t make the universe more powerful or amazing, and it doesnā€™t make Christianity make sense. Itā€™s just slapping on a label that everybodyā€™s going to misinterpret. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2019, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/280 "2019-04-06T01:14:30Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > The problem is that introducing an open-ended term like ā€œanyā€ can lead to an epistemological rat-hole, since I can define ā€œGodā€ in abstract ways that atheists may well accept: ā€œGod is why there is something rather than nothingā€; ā€œGod is the Hartle-Hawking state, the wave function of the universeā€, etc. These are not the anthropomorphic gods of the Bible, nor are they falsifiable on the basis of empirical evidence. They are more like semantic games that acknowledge the boundaries of science and declare God to be that which lies beyond those bounds. You can define god as a bottle of ketchup if you want, that doesnā€™t mean that thereā€™s a shelf full of divinity at the local supermarket. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962.md?page=15)