# Scientific evidence of God's existence **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 29, 2008, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043 "2008-10-29T03:11:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 19
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2008, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043/361 "2008-12-30T01:41:46Z")
> [@rgilbreath](#): > > Hmmmm… > > So what you’re saying is that these two statements are equally logical: > > 1. There exists a being, called God by those who worship Him, who created the universe in which we live. > > 2. There exists an airborne goblin made out of a delicious Italian cuisine. Your # 1 ignores the multitude of other things that believers attribute to God. Your definition of “God” would allow an other-universe alien no smarter than us who unknowingly and accidentally created the universe as part of a quantum mechanics experiment to qualify as “God”. That’s not a definition of God most believers would accept; it’s not what the vast majoirty of people mean when they use the word. And yes, you can come up with a more plausible version of God if you redefine the term enough, but so what ? At that point you are talking about something else, but using the same word. You might as well claim that shoes will let you fly, by redefining a “shoe” as anything a body part goes into and calling an airplane a shoe. ---
**Author:** ![rgilbreath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@rgilbreath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rgilbreath)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2008, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043/362 "2008-12-30T02:36:24Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Your # 1 ignores the multitude of other things that believers attribute to God. Your definition of “God” would allow an other-universe alien no smarter than us who unknowingly and accidentally created the universe as part of a quantum mechanics experiment to qualify as “God”. That’s not a definition of God most believers would accept; it’s not what the vast majoirty of people mean when they use the word. Yes, I did intentionally leave out any other God-like attributes commonly associated with a single deity. This was to keep the discussion broad based rather than identified specifically with Islam, Christianity, Judaism, etc. But the major conflict most atheists have with the idea of God (in my experience only) is the idea that the universe was created by single entity; not if that entity is technically an “alien”, if it loves us, if it speaks to us, or if it has a beard, etc. Perhaps this is not the case for many others. But the argument is the same. And my intention was not to make an argument for the existence of a particular idea of God or who God is, but to point out the emotional bias and logical flaw in your previous statements (which I notice you did not address). ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2008, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043/363 "2008-12-30T03:28:52Z")
> [@rgilbreath](#): > > Yes, I did intentionally leave out any other God-like attributes commonly associated with a single deity. This was to keep the discussion broad based rather than identified specifically with Islam, Christianity, Judaism, etc. In other words, you want to talk about something completely different than the subject of this thread. > [@rgilbreath](#): > > But the major conflict most atheists have with the idea of God (in my experience only) is the idea that the universe was created by single entity; not if that entity is technically an “alien”, if it loves us, if it speaks to us, or if it has a beard, etc. Perhaps this is not the case for many others. But the argument is the same. No, it’s not. In the case of gods people actually believe in, we are speaking of entities that tend to be logically contradictory, violate known physical laws, and whose behavior contradicts what their followers say their purpose is. If you are simply talking about whether the universe was created by a single entity, with no other details, you are simply talking about something we have no way of knowing and can’t really say anything about. And an idea that very few people actually buy into, and has no real effect on the world. > [@rgilbreath](#): > > And my intention was not to make an argument for the existence of a particular idea of God or who God is, but to point out the emotional bias and logical flaw in your previous statements (which I notice you did not address). I didn’t address it because you are trying to create a wholly different conversation. You didn’t point out any logical flaws, you are talking about something else. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043.md?page=18)