By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Is God's existence objectively verifiable?

 

Well, is it objectively verifiable?

Yes 57 15.20%
 
Not Sure 20 5.33%
 
No 244 65.07%
 
What's objective mean? 16 4.27%
 
Results 38 10.13%
 
Total:375
VGPolyglot on 30 January 2016
sabvre42 said:
VGPolyglot said:
sabvre42 said:

Its funny how aethiests twist science and even inferential statistics to "prove their point." For example, by stating that the burden of proof lies on proving god exists/ the null hypothesis is necessarily the lack of god.

The fallacy with these arguments is that it requires just as much FAITH to believe in the infinite universe than it does to believe in a creator. Furthermore, based on applying the laws of the universe as we know it... its actually more irrational to believe in NOTHING than something.

The most fundamental rule of physics state that energy CANNOT be created, and instead, only change forms. This implies that without a creator... the ONLY alternative is the infinite universe. HOWEVER, this causes two paradoxes: first, based on modern science -- the universe is NOT infinite due to the fact that expansion is accelerating; second, without a creator... an event... or some abstract concept of creation.... can our universe exist? The infinite universe violates the entire concept of reality that humans understand. EVERYTHING has a cause. SOMETHING must have created the universe (not necessarily a conscious being).

Conversely, a god/event/creator does NOT actually fall into this paradox, as they are outside of the rules that define this paradox. In DND the game master can determine that every single being in their universe is green. This DOES NOT mean that the Game master is green... its a fabrication of their thought.

So I leave this on you. Prove to me that a creator does not exist as the burden of proof lies on the person making the outlandish claim.

The burden of proof relies on people proving that something does exist, not that it doesn't. If God does exist, then people should be able to prove it. If people claim that the universe is really infinite (which by the way I do not believe that scientists are stating that the universe is truly infinite, they are merely considering that as a possibility: now they are trying to see if it is true or not), then they have to prove it as well. How about instead of believing in a creator, let's just accept that we do not know about the origins of the universe and not believe in something until it is proven.

 

See this is the ignorance of the aethist. Saying that god does not exist is not the same as saying, this will not boil if i apply heat. You are applying your own bias to science as you are expecting a paradox. You CANNOT write a null hypothesis with an expected paradox unless you are an aethiest apparently.

What? I said that we should not believe in God until it is proven, much like we should not believe that the universe is infinite until it is proven.





Around the Network
sabvre42 on 30 January 2016
VGPolyglot said:
sabvre42 said:
VGPolyglot said:
sabvre42 said:

Its funny how aethiests twist science and even inferential statistics to "prove their point." For example, by stating that the burden of proof lies on proving god exists/ the null hypothesis is necessarily the lack of god.

The fallacy with these arguments is that it requires just as much FAITH to believe in the infinite universe than it does to believe in a creator. Furthermore, based on applying the laws of the universe as we know it... its actually more irrational to believe in NOTHING than something.

The most fundamental rule of physics state that energy CANNOT be created, and instead, only change forms. This implies that without a creator... the ONLY alternative is the infinite universe. HOWEVER, this causes two paradoxes: first, based on modern science -- the universe is NOT infinite due to the fact that expansion is accelerating; second, without a creator... an event... or some abstract concept of creation.... can our universe exist? The infinite universe violates the entire concept of reality that humans understand. EVERYTHING has a cause. SOMETHING must have created the universe (not necessarily a conscious being).

Conversely, a god/event/creator does NOT actually fall into this paradox, as they are outside of the rules that define this paradox. In DND the game master can determine that every single being in their universe is green. This DOES NOT mean that the Game master is green... its a fabrication of their thought.

So I leave this on you. Prove to me that a creator does not exist as the burden of proof lies on the person making the outlandish claim.

The burden of proof relies on people proving that something does exist, not that it doesn't. If God does exist, then people should be able to prove it. If people claim that the universe is really infinite (which by the way I do not believe that scientists are stating that the universe is truly infinite, they are merely considering that as a possibility: now they are trying to see if it is true or not), then they have to prove it as well. How about instead of believing in a creator, let's just accept that we do not know about the origins of the universe and not believe in something until it is proven.

 

See this is the ignorance of the aethist. Saying that god does not exist is not the same as saying, this will not boil if i apply heat. You are applying your own bias to science as you are expecting a paradox. You CANNOT write a null hypothesis with an expected paradox unless you are an aethiest apparently.

What? I said that we should not believe in God until it is proven, much like we should not believe that the universe is infinite until it is proven.

So its safe to assume that you do not believe you truly exist either right? It is not independently verifiable.

How can you be sure that everything around you is not a dillusion formed from your own psychosis?
How can you be sure that this universe is NOT the holographic universe -- aka a computer simulation with us simply being artificial intelligence.

I could see you point if you simply doubted the existence of the universe entirely.



Shiken on 30 January 2016

The things that happened in the Bible are true historical events. The people that are mentioned in times long past have physical evidence of their existence left in this world. It isn't about wether or not something can be proven, this is a crutch that non believers try to fall on to justify their own actions or disbelief. Just because something can not be proven right now does not mean it doesn't exsist.

Another thing people tey to fall back on is science, but what they fail to mention is that science and God can and do co exsist. Science is the process of what took place in God's vision, evoloution included. People only see what they want to see, so if they choose to rule out this fact, of course they can sound convincing (no matter how wrong they are).

The bible never states what God really is, just that we are not yet ready to see him yet. God could be an energy mass out in the cosmos, an alien lifeform with abilities beyond our comprehension, or even something that exsists within our own world that humans just don't understand yet. WE DON'T KNOW, and therefore have no start to even begin looking for proof.

This is where faith comes in. Faith in something that you can't see or hear now, but does in fact exsist and influence our world lives. Life is almost like a test when you think about it. A test none of us can pass without faith in the sacrifice of Christ. One day we will see the "proof" of his presence (as if history was not enough) but as of now we are not ready.

As for this distorted view of if you cannot see it, it isn't real...think about this. If God can do all the Bible claims, wouldn't it be nothing to conseal his true form until the time is right? This fact alone counters any demand of "proof" out their until it can be factually disproven, which it currently cannot.



Nintendo Switch Friend Code: SW-5643-2927-1984

Animal Crossing NH Dream Address: DA-1078-9916-3261

o_O.Q on 30 January 2016
Puppyroach said:
o_O.Q said:
its kind of funny how people pretend that at any point in history that they have the world figured out...

around 100 or so years ago mercury was considered a miracle cure by cutting edge scientists

a few hundred years back the most prominent thinkers thought the earth was flat

and i'm sure that in a hundred years people will look back and laugh at the contrast between how arrogant most people are now with regards to their perceived understanding of the world compared to their ignorance of what is actually going on

scientists of today think a giant explosion created everything but concede that over 95% of the matter around us cannot be measured directly and cannot give an answer for how this explosion could have happened from nothing

besides that if you ask me with all of the side effects the drugs we take today have, the cures we use today aren't that much progressed from my earlier example

if someone looks with open eyes they can clearly see some of the same irrational, faith based kind of thinking in the scientific and specifically the atheistic community ( especially with other ideologies like feminism becoming prominent in them ) that they accuse theisst of and it really is extremely funny when you see it for what it is

anyway with regards to belief in god yes it is a faith based belief and not a belief based on empirical evidence but the point i'm making is that no one not even atheists are free of faith

as an atheist after all you have to have faith that your senses are giving you an accurate picture of the world and if they aren't then your scientific observations are shit

sure you could have tools to widen your perception but those could be flawed too and you still have to use your senses to interpret what data they give you anyway

if you marry someone you must have some degree of faith in your belief that they really love you and aren't just their to exploit you

when people put a government in power they have to have some degree of faith that they won't just be exploited ( although most people seem to be aware that this is generally not a smart beliefs to have anyway )

and the examples go on and on... no one in this world is free from faith or irrational beliefs for that matter

Well, the only consistent fact through the years is, that whatever discoveries we have debunked, the presence of an omnipotent god has grown smaller and smaller.

And as a person that do not believe in things we have no proof of, what you would call an atheist, I do not have faith that my observations are true at all times because through scientific methodology I can always be proven wrong. And I welcome that. That is the difference between a religious person and one that does not have faith in any specific thing: The willingness to accept that your observation and knowledge is wrong.

 

" the presence of an omnipotent god has grown smaller and smaller."

 

how can the presense of something you can't perceive grow smaller?

i guess what you meant to say is the importance of this idea to western society is being diminished and i'd agree

 

people are saying that irrationality is being reduced as a consequence and i'd disagree... when i look at growing ideologies like feminism and men's right activism i get the idea that irrationality is actually growing

 

"And as a person that do not believe in things we have no proof of, what you would call an atheist"

 

i have no problem with atheism as an ideology... my problem is when atheist pretend that they are above having faith and that having faith shows that someone is flawed in some way

 

because as i've said and given examples of there is absolutely no one alive that is free from having faith in some way... it is an intrinsic part of being alive

 

"That is the difference between a religious person and one that does not have faith in any specific thing"

 

well i don't think that such a person exists... i'd actually venture to say that the only way an intelligent being could have not faith of some kind is to be omnipotent because obviously you then know everything and have no use for speculation 



tiffac on 30 January 2016
sabvre42 said:
VGPolyglot said:
sabvre42 said:
VGPolyglot said:
sabvre42 said:

Its funny how aethiests twist science and even inferential statistics to "prove their point." For example, by stating that the burden of proof lies on proving god exists/ the null hypothesis is necessarily the lack of god.

The fallacy with these arguments is that it requires just as much FAITH to believe in the infinite universe than it does to believe in a creator. Furthermore, based on applying the laws of the universe as we know it... its actually more irrational to believe in NOTHING than something.

The most fundamental rule of physics state that energy CANNOT be created, and instead, only change forms. This implies that without a creator... the ONLY alternative is the infinite universe. HOWEVER, this causes two paradoxes: first, based on modern science -- the universe is NOT infinite due to the fact that expansion is accelerating; second, without a creator... an event... or some abstract concept of creation.... can our universe exist? The infinite universe violates the entire concept of reality that humans understand. EVERYTHING has a cause. SOMETHING must have created the universe (not necessarily a conscious being).

Conversely, a god/event/creator does NOT actually fall into this paradox, as they are outside of the rules that define this paradox. In DND the game master can determine that every single being in their universe is green. This DOES NOT mean that the Game master is green... its a fabrication of their thought.

So I leave this on you. Prove to me that a creator does not exist as the burden of proof lies on the person making the outlandish claim.

The burden of proof relies on people proving that something does exist, not that it doesn't. If God does exist, then people should be able to prove it. If people claim that the universe is really infinite (which by the way I do not believe that scientists are stating that the universe is truly infinite, they are merely considering that as a possibility: now they are trying to see if it is true or not), then they have to prove it as well. How about instead of believing in a creator, let's just accept that we do not know about the origins of the universe and not believe in something until it is proven.

 

See this is the ignorance of the aethist. Saying that god does not exist is not the same as saying, this will not boil if i apply heat. You are applying your own bias to science as you are expecting a paradox. You CANNOT write a null hypothesis with an expected paradox unless you are an aethiest apparently.

What? I said that we should not believe in God until it is proven, much like we should not believe that the universe is infinite until it is proven.

So its safe to assume that you do not believe you truly exist either right? It is not independently verifiable.

How can you be sure that everything around you is not a dillusion formed from your own psychosis?
How can you be sure that this universe is NOT the holographic universe -- aka a computer simulation with us simply being artificial intelligence.u

I could see you point if you simply doubted the existence of the universe entirely.

Like Star Ocean?! That would be awesome!

at least Humality can be saved by a push of a button :D





Around the Network
JWeinCom on 30 January 2016
sabvre42 said:
JWeinCom said:
sabvre42 said:
Its funny how aethiests twist science and even inferential statistics to "prove their point." For example, by stating that the burden of proof lies on proving god exists/ the null hypothesis is necessarily the lack of god.

The fallacy with these arguments is that it requires just as much FAITH to believe in the infinite universe than it does to believe in a creator. Furthermore, based on applying the laws of the universe as we know it... its actually more irrational to believe in NOTHING than something.

The most fundamental rule of physics state that energy CANNOT be created, and instead, only change forms. This implies that without a creator... the ONLY alternative is the infinite universe. HOWEVER, this causes two paradoxes: first, based on modern science -- the universe is NOT infinite due to the fact that expansion is accelerating; second, without a creator... an event... or some abstract concept of creation.... can our universe exist? The infinite universe violates the entire concept of reality that humans understand. EVERYTHING has a cause. SOMETHING must have created the universe (not necessarily an conscious being).

Conversely, a god/event/creator does NOT actually fall into this paradox, as they are outside of the rules that define this paradox. In DND the game master can determine that every single being in their universe is green. This DOES NOT mean that the Game master is green... its a fabrication of their thought.

So I leave this on you. Prove to me that a creator does not exist as the burden of proof lies on the person making the outlandish claim.

 

This is not twisting science... this is simply how science works.  Any scientific experience has the hypothesis and the null hypothesis.  The null hypothesis is simply "my hypothesis is wrong".  The null hypothesis is the default position in science.  You can argue that the null hypothesis shouldn't be the default position, but claiming atheists are "twisting" science is simply not true.

The burden of proof does lie on the person making a claim.  Whether or not that claim is outlandish or not has nothing to do with it.

And no, atheists are not making the claim that something came out of nothing.  This is a pathetic strawman used by apologists to weasel out of their burden of proof. 

Atheism means you do not accept the claim that god exists.  Nothing more, nothing less.  It is absolutely not a claim that the universe came from nothing.  Atheists may or may not believe that the universe was created from nothing.  It is not a requirement. 

My position, and the position of many other atheists, is that I do not know how the universe came into existing.  I am making no claim about the creation of the universe, so there is no burden of proof on my end.  I am simply not believing your claim.  This is not saying it is wrong, simply that you have not sufficiently proved it.

If you want to make the claim that a creator does exist, you are making a claim, and you need to prove it. 

Conversely, a god/event/creator does NOT actually fall into this paradox, as they are outside of the rules that define this paradox. In DND the game master can determine that every single being in their universe is green. This DOES NOT mean that the Game master is green... its a fabrication of their thought.

Yeah... if you're going to claim that a being exists outside of space and time, that's an example of the kind of thing you have to prove.


You do not understand my point -- or need to play apologist for aethiesm apparently. You are writing the null hypothesis to state that god does not exist, when in reality that is a hypothesis in and of itself. Therefore, the null hypothesis can be easily flip flopped. From a philisophical and scientific stand point (based on what we know at this given time), you are applying your own personal bias by deeming that yours is NOT a hypothesis.

Aethists believe in NOTHING -- Literally thats THE definition of aethism. Carl sagan himself refused to be labeled as a athiest for this exact reason. You claim this is an argument over symantics, but the point remains. If you are unsure of what the cause of the universe is -- you are an AEGNOSTIC. 

The problem that most "aethiests" have is that they do not understand theology -- they simply assume that god is a guy sitting on a throne in the sky (akin to most creation myths). Even the bible itself references god as being something incomprehensible and outside of anything the human brain can comprehend.  This falls inline with a higher dimensional "being". The big bang itself can even be considered "god".

 

You do not understand my point -- or need to play apologist for aethiesm apparently. You are writing the null hypothesis to state that god does not exist, when in reality that is a hypothesis in and of itself. Therefore, the null hypothesis can be easily flip flopped. From a philisophical and scientific stand point (based on what we know at this given time), you are applying your own personal bias by deeming that yours is NOT a hypothesis.

The null hypothesis is that the hypothesis has not been proven.  So, the null hypothesis to "god doesn't exist" is "god has not been proven to exist".

The hypothesis that there is no god is not atheism.  That is antitheism.  That hypothesis would absoltely need to be proven.  But this is a hypothesis that few atheists make.

Aethists believe in NOTHING -- Literally thats THE definition of aethism. Carl sagan himself refused to be labeled as a athiest for this exact reason. You claim this is an argument over symantics, but the point remains. If you are unsure of what the cause of the universe is -- you are an AEGNOSTIC.

From what source did you get this definition of atheism?  What atheists don't believe in is any supernatural being. They don't believe in "nothing".

Atheism is a belief regarding the claim that god exists.  If you believe the claim, you are a theist.  If you do not believe the claim, you are an atheist.

Gnosticism and agnosticism refer to knowledge.  You can be an agnostic atheist or a gnostic atheist. 

An agnostic atheist does not believe that god exists, but they are not sure that he does not.  This is the category that most atheists would fall under.

A gnostic atheist believes definitively that god does not exist.  Also known as an atheist.  This kind of atheist does have a burden of proof.

The problem that most "aethiests" have is that they do not understand theology -- they simply assume that god is a guy sitting on a throne in the sky (akin to most creation myths). Even the bible itself references god as being something incomprehensible and outside of anything the human brain can comprehend.  This falls inline with a higher dimensional "being". The big bang itself can even be considered "god".

So... if god is incomprehensible, how can I believe in him?  How can I believe in something I cannot comprehend?  I'm pretty sure that is literally impossible.



sabvre42 on 30 January 2016
Shiken said:
The things that happened in the Bible are true historical events. The people that are mentioned in times long past have physical evidence of their existence left in this world. It isn't about wether or not something can be proven, this is a crutch that non believers try to fall on to justify their own actions or disbelief. Just because something can not be proven right now does not mean it doesn't exsist.

Another thing people tey to fall back on is science, but what they fail to mention is that science and God can and do co exsist. Science is the process of what took place in God's vision, evoloution included. People only see what they want to see, so if they choose to rule out this fact, of course they can sound convincing (no matter how wrong they are).

The bible never states what God really is, just that we are not yet ready to see him yet. God could be an energy mass out in the cosmos, an alien lifeform with abilities beyond our comprehension, or even something that exsists within our own world that humans just don't understand yet. WE DON'T KNOW, and therefore have no start to even begin looking for proof.

This is where faith comes in. Faith in something that you can't see or hear now, but does in fact exsist and influence our world lives. Life is almost like a test when you think about it. A test none of us can pass without faith in the sacrifice of Christ. One day we will see the "proof" of his presence (as if history was not enough) but as of now we are not ready.

As for this distorted view of if you cannot see it, it isn't real...think about this. If God can do all the Bible claims, wouldn't it be nothing to conseal his true form until the time is right? This fact alone counters any demand of "proof" out their until it can be factually disproven, which it currently cannot.

**Many events in the bible are true historical events. They are still struggling to prove the Exodus and anything before it.

Pretty much the entire book of Genesis was stolen from religions before it:
Enuma Elish -> Epic of Gilgamesh -> Torrah -> Bible -> Quran.





VGPolyglot on 30 January 2016
sabvre42 said:
VGPolyglot said:
sabvre42 said:
VGPolyglot said:
sabvre42 said:

Its funny how aethiests twist science and even inferential statistics to "prove their point." For example, by stating that the burden of proof lies on proving god exists/ the null hypothesis is necessarily the lack of god.

The fallacy with these arguments is that it requires just as much FAITH to believe in the infinite universe than it does to believe in a creator. Furthermore, based on applying the laws of the universe as we know it... its actually more irrational to believe in NOTHING than something.

The most fundamental rule of physics state that energy CANNOT be created, and instead, only change forms. This implies that without a creator... the ONLY alternative is the infinite universe. HOWEVER, this causes two paradoxes: first, based on modern science -- the universe is NOT infinite due to the fact that expansion is accelerating; second, without a creator... an event... or some abstract concept of creation.... can our universe exist? The infinite universe violates the entire concept of reality that humans understand. EVERYTHING has a cause. SOMETHING must have created the universe (not necessarily a conscious being).

Conversely, a god/event/creator does NOT actually fall into this paradox, as they are outside of the rules that define this paradox. In DND the game master can determine that every single being in their universe is green. This DOES NOT mean that the Game master is green... its a fabrication of their thought.

So I leave this on you. Prove to me that a creator does not exist as the burden of proof lies on the person making the outlandish claim.

The burden of proof relies on people proving that something does exist, not that it doesn't. If God does exist, then people should be able to prove it. If people claim that the universe is really infinite (which by the way I do not believe that scientists are stating that the universe is truly infinite, they are merely considering that as a possibility: now they are trying to see if it is true or not), then they have to prove it as well. How about instead of believing in a creator, let's just accept that we do not know about the origins of the universe and not believe in something until it is proven.

 

See this is the ignorance of the aethist. Saying that god does not exist is not the same as saying, this will not boil if i apply heat. You are applying your own bias to science as you are expecting a paradox. You CANNOT write a null hypothesis with an expected paradox unless you are an aethiest apparently.

What? I said that we should not believe in God until it is proven, much like we should not believe that the universe is infinite until it is proven.

So its safe to assume that you do not believe you truly exist either right? It is not independently verifiable.

How can you be sure that everything around you is not a dillusion formed from your own psychosis?
How can you be sure that this universe is NOT the holographic universe -- aka a computer simulation with us simply being artificial intelligence.

I could see you point if you simply doubted the existence of the universe entirely.

Yes, I do often question whether I or what is around me actually exists. I do wonder whether I or the universe really does exist.





sabvre42 on 30 January 2016
JWeinCom said:

You do not understand my point -- or need to play apologist for aethiesm apparently. You are writing the null hypothesis to state that god does not exist, when in reality that is a hypothesis in and of itself. Therefore, the null hypothesis can be easily flip flopped. From a philisophical and scientific stand point (based on what we know at this given time), you are applying your own personal bias by deeming that yours is NOT a hypothesis.

The null hypothesis is that the hypothesis has not been proven.  So, the null hypothesis to "god doesn't exist" is "god has not been proven to exist".

The hypothesis that there is no god is not atheism.  That is antitheism.  That hypothesis would absoltely need to be proven.  But this is a hypothesis that few atheists make.

Aethists believe in NOTHING -- Literally thats THE definition of aethism. Carl sagan himself refused to be labeled as a athiest for this exact reason. You claim this is an argument over symantics, but the point remains. If you are unsure of what the cause of the universe is -- you are an AEGNOSTIC.

From what source did you get this definition of atheism?  What atheists don't believe in is any supernatural being. They don't believe in "nothing".

Atheism is a belief regarding the claim that god exists.  If you believe the claim, you are a theist.  If you do not believe the claim, you are an atheist.

Gnosticism and agnosticism refer to knowledge.  You can be an agnostic atheist or a gnostic atheist. 

An agnostic atheist does not believe that god exists, but they are not sure that he does not.  This is the category that most atheists would fall under.

A gnostic atheist believes definitively that god does not exist.  Also known as an atheist.  This kind of atheist does have a burden of proof.

The problem that most "aethiests" have is that they do not understand theology -- they simply assume that god is a guy sitting on a throne in the sky (akin to most creation myths). Even the bible itself references god as being something incomprehensible and outside of anything the human brain can comprehend.  This falls inline with a higher dimensional "being". The big bang itself can even be considered "god".

So... if god is incomprehensible, how can I believe in him?  How can I believe in something I cannot comprehend?  I'm pretty sure that is literally impossible.

By making your null hypothesis you are by also assuming a paradox which just simply doesn't work in science.  The concept of reality is far too abstract for you to make a binary "This is" vs "This is not". My whole point is that your hypoethesis vs null hypothesis does not work on something that is NOT testable. You cannot prove, and you cannot disprove. This is why this is a theological/philosophical discussion rather than scientific.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan

"On atheism, Sagan commented in 1981:

An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed.[66]"

God is an abstract concept. I'm not asking you to believe.

That is not the argument occuring here. My point is that when it comes to defining the fundamentals of reality it is just as arrogant and niave to assume that someone has to prove to you something that is neither provable or disprovable.  You are claiming that x cannot be true because their is no evidence, even though the lack of x causes a paradox.



sabvre42 on 30 January 2016
VGPolyglot said:
sabvre42 said:

So its safe to assume that you do not believe you truly exist either right? It is not independently verifiable.

How can you be sure that everything around you is not a dillusion formed from your own psychosis?
How can you be sure that this universe is NOT the holographic universe -- aka a computer simulation with us simply being artificial intelligence.

I could see you point if you simply doubted the existence of the universe entirely.

Yes, I do often question whether I or what is around me actually exists. I do wonder whether I or the universe really does exist.

 

Then for you - being an aethiest falls in line with your entire philosophy :). For most though, this is not the case. 

My complaint with most aethiests is that they assume everything is black OR white; that it is true or false; that it is binary.

When it comes to the concept of "god" they turn it into a thiestic god (a micromanager) vs no god. They forget about the concept of deism: that there is a creator that created the universe and may or may not interact with it. They also try to to conceptualize god as a singluar being rather than an abstract concept that lies outside of our reality.

Interstallar makes a strong parallel to "god" when they reference "them". Anything 5 Dimensonal could be outside of time as it would be able to travel through it like we do a field of grass.

Personally, I've been toying with the concept of time being a 4th spacial dimension; that being the expansion of the universe.