Q: Can science disprove the concept of an undefinable god(s)?

[Alexander]

[SOLVED] Undefinable god(s).

Science have proven many times inexistence of concrete gods (like biblical god, or like Zeuses, Apollos, etc).

To avoid acknowledging inconsistency between observed facts and ANY definition of god(s), religion moved god(s) BEYOND any definition.

Q: Can undefinable object exist at all? (Note here: not undiscovered object but undefinable object).

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Alexander
Science have proven many times inexistence of concrete gods (like biblical god, or like Zeuses, Apollos, etc).

To avoid acknowledging inconsistency between observed facts and ANY definition of god(s), religion moved god(s) BEYOND any definition.

Q: Can undefinable object exist at all? (Note here: not undiscovered object but undefinable object).

Of course, and it doesn't have to be God. Whatever might exist without boundaries cannot be defined, although aspects of it might be described.

By the way, I'd like to see the proofs which have shown concrete gods do not exist.

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
By the way, I'd like to see the proofs which have shown concrete gods do not exist.

Recall Ra (Apollo) who used to push Sun across sky not so long ago - just a couple millenia back.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Alexander
Recall Ra (Apollo) who used to push Sun across sky not so long ago - just a couple millenia back.

True, and I mostly agree with you regarding mythological gods. The problem is that you lumped the biblical god in there, which may or may not be myth. The OT god, particularly before Moses, seems to have been pagan; but some believe that Moses and Jesus both experienced something else, which they called "God." Did they really experience God (whatever that is)? Well, you cannot prove or disprove that.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Alexander
Science have proven many times inexistence of concrete gods (like biblical god, or like Zeuses, Apollos, etc).

To avoid acknowledging inconsistency between observed facts and ANY definition of god(s), religion moved god(s) BEYOND any definition.

Q: Can undefinable object exist at all? (Note here: not undiscovered object but undefinable object).

Scientific Pantheists worship the universe itself as a non-anthropomorphic Divinity and closely follow scientific progress in order to better understand the object of their worship. Rather being an undefinable object of worship, it is a vaguely defined in the same sense as a heap or being bald are vague definitions. More common mainstream religions present even more vague definitions, but they are certainly not beyond any definition whatsoever. For example, God is overwhelmingly cited as the creator of the universe.

 

[wimms]

Originally posted by Alexander
To avoid acknowledging inconsistency between observed facts and ANY definition of god(s), religion moved god(s) BEYOND any definition.

Q: Can undefinable object exist at all? (Note here: not undiscovered object but undefinable object).

I think undefinable in principle is logically inconsistent. But actual problem is, that religion is unable to define it, and it makes a trick - it says that god is always that which science is unable to define. Easy escape - every time science disproves some aspect of god, new unknown becomes new placeholder of god automagically.

To argue with religion is like to argue with a child, it always ends with 'but still...', and in a sense, its a correct attitude.

There have been philosophies that go even further than that, claiming that god is inside universe, simply because you can talk about it, think about it. But there might be 'things', that are beyond logic, beyond definition, beyond comprehension to man, in principle. That you can't even talk about without resorting to logic that fails there. Typical religion will argue that that's talking about god, but its hard topic, other side would say you simply can't talk about uncomprehensible. I think possibility exists by our own logic, that there might be something uncomprehensible by logic. But I'd better stop here.

I'd only reason like this: 'Can undefinable object exist at all?' contains several components you can't use with 'undefinable' - to 'exist' means to us to be logically describable, same about 'object'. By merely using term 'undefinable' implies it being beyond logic, where terms 'exist', 'object' have no meaning. So, imo, by our logic such claim is nonsensical. But it doesn't end here. Claiming that nevertheless is to merely give intuitive 'feel' that there might be something that you can't think about, talk about, that's beyond our logic. You can't talk about undefinable, and that's the main difficulty. They say you can only experience it, without any ability to put that into words without sounding insane. People who can't grasp the subtle possibility of that 'feel', claim that it IS insane. And then there are people who ARE insane. Its a crazy world, y'now.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by Alexander
Q: Can undefinable object exist at all? (Note
here: not undiscovered object but undefinable
object).

Since probably nothing is absolute it seems
likely that there are no things that have no
explanation. And yet, the very likely fact of
everything being non-absolute hints at the
possibility of eventual lack lack of definition.
(Trying to make sense of a likely paradox is
probably useless. )

Live long and prosper.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

"Science have proven many times inexistence of concrete gods (like biblical god, or like Zeuses, Apollos, etc)."

Good to hear someone knows the evidence! Most people here still question "uh, how could this be proven?"

I say to them, they underestimate the power of the scientific method, and of general investigation!

 

[drag]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
I say to them, they underestimate the power of the
scientific method, and of general investigation!

I hope that's not all you say...

 

[Kerrie]

how about emotions? they are powerful like gods are suppossed to be...

 

[wuliheron]

Trying to make sense of a likely paradox is
probably useless.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL now yer finding the grove.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Alexander
Science have proven many times inexistence of concrete gods (like biblical god, or like Zeuses, Apollos, etc).

To avoid acknowledging inconsistency between observed facts and ANY definition of god(s), religion moved god(s) BEYOND any definition.

Q: Can undefinable object exist at all? (Note here: not undiscovered object but undefinable object).

Man by his very nature is a creature of belief ... Sorry, the gods have always been there and always will be.

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by wuliheron
... More common mainstream religions present even more vague definitions, but they are certainly not beyond any definition whatsoever. For example, God is overwhelmingly cited as the creator of the universe.

We recently (during last ~100 years) learned that Big Bang was (and still is) the creator of the universe. Then what?

 

[Iacchus32]

The Gift ...

Originally posted by Alexander
We recently (during last ~100 years) learned that Big Bang was (and still is) the creator of the universe. Then what?

But doesn't that imply God had a mistress? Hey maybe that's the problem? If we understood that God was sexual in nature, as the whole of nature might suggest, then maybe we wouldn't be so afraid of Him/Her? We might even learn to take it as a great gift.

And what did God say in the Garden of Eden? ... "Be fruitful, and multiply!"

 

[Royce]

Just a few points
Concrete gods do exist. I've seen a number of them myself in places that sell concrete copies of marble statues of Greek and Roman gods for people to put in their yards.
Science has never proved that God does not exist. They usually say that God is unproveable by physical science. Paradoxically there are a number of religious scientist though they are not in the majority.
The BIG BANG is a theory not proved and it too is improveable. There is evidence that supports it but it still has many problems left unsolved and unexplained. One example is what happened to all the anti-matter.
Logic is NOT REAL in your strict materialistic sense or are you backing down from that stance. Logic is no more or less real than mathematics. If Logic and Math are real then why isn't philosophy, music, art, beauty thought etc. real?

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Royce
Concrete gods do exist. I've seen a number of
them myself in places that sell concrete copies
of marble statues of Greek and Roman gods for
people to put in their yards.

That's a really good one !

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Scientific Pantheists worship the universe itself as a non-anthropomorphic Divinity and closely follow scientific progress in order to better understand the object of their worship. Rather being an undefinable object of worship, it is a vaguely defined in the same sense as a heap or being bald are vague definitions. More common mainstream religions present even more vague definitions, but they are certainly not beyond any definition whatsoever. For example, God is overwhelmingly cited as the creator of the universe.

It can be proved that such a God does not exist (the God defined as the creator of the universe).

First, why would such a God be needed in the first place, if the universe had existed for all time?
The argument they follow, is flawed, because the reasoning is as follows: the universe did not exist for all time, hence it must have had a begin, so it must have been 'created', and hence a 'creator' is necessary.
What does this solve? Well nothing, cause instead of to explain how the universe was created we now have to explain how God was created.
But then the argument is put in, God was not created, but existed for all time. But that is just wrong arguing, cause it could be said, the universe existed for all time in the first place. Hence no God needed, no creation, no creator.

Gods existence as creator of the universe is therefore based on flawed reasoning.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by heusdens
First, why would such a God be needed in the
first place, if the universe had existed for all time?

Well, for one thing, you could think that
God created an infinite time.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
It can be proved that such a God does not exist (the God defined as the creator of the universe).

First, why would such a God be needed in the first place, if the universe had existed for all time?
The argument they follow, is flawed, because the reasoning is as follows: the universe did not exist for all time, hence it must have had a begin, so it must have been 'created', and hence a 'creator' is necessary.
What does this solve? Well nothing, cause instead of to explain how the universe was created we now have to explain how God was created.
But then the argument is put in, God was not created, but existed for all time. But that is just wrong arguing, cause it could be said, the universe existed for all time in the first place. Hence no God needed, no creation, no creator.

Gods existence as creator of the universe is therefore based on flawed reasoning.

But what of the essence which gave rise to form? Did the material exist before the immaterial?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
True, and I mostly agree with you regarding mythological gods. The problem is that you lumped the biblical god in there, which may or may not be myth. The OT god, particularly before Moses, seems to have been pagan; but some believe that Moses and Jesus both experienced something else, which they called "God." Did they really experience God (whatever that is)? Well, you cannot prove or disprove that.

Ummmm...the Biblical god has no special claim on existence that the other gods don't. If you accept the possibility of one, you are sort of stuck with the rest of them.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by heusdens
It can be proved that such a God does not exist (the God defined as the creator of the universe).

First, why would such a God be needed in the first place, if the universe had existed for all time?
The argument they follow, is flawed, because the reasoning is as follows: the universe did not exist for all time, hence it must have had a begin, so it must have been 'created', and hence a 'creator' is necessary.
What does this solve? Well nothing, cause instead of to explain how the universe was created we now have to explain how God was created.
But then the argument is put in, God was not created, but existed for all time. But that is just wrong arguing, cause it could be said, the universe existed for all time in the first place. Hence no God needed, no creation, no creator.

Gods existence as creator of the universe is therefore based on flawed reasoning.

Using Reductio ad Absurdum your assertion here is no less absurd than the Pantheist assertion that the universe itself Is God. Once you start bring up unproven and vaguely defined terms like infinity, anything goes just as it does for the assertion that the universe was created out of nothing. Bottom line, we can no more disprove the existence of God than we can disprove that each of us has an invisible little green elf on our shoulder compelling all of our actions. All we can do is show that such assertions unnecessarilly complicate our descriptions of reality.

 

[Les Sleeth]

gods, God and religion

Originally posted by Zero
Ummmm...the Biblical god has no special claim on existence that the other gods don't. If you accept the possibility of one, you are sort of stuck with the rest of them.

Just so you know where I am NOT coming from . . . I am not religious. In fact, to put it politely, I have a strong "non-attraction" to it. However, for many years I have been extensively involved in studying the source of religion, as well as both belief and non-belief in God. Let me offer a little story to illustrate one theory of mine.

Say 2000 years ago the cultures around the Mediterranean all believed in a magical island they called Oz which was supposedly in a far away, unknown eastern ocean. No one had ever been to Oz, but there was a profusion of stories about the people who lived there, their culture, their adventures, their wealth, their supernatural powers, etc. The stories about Oz and its people are handed down from generation to generation, and so children growing up just accept the myth without question. And clearly, the stories of Oz really are nothing but myth because no one has ever personally experienced it; that doesn’t mean Oz doesn’t exist, but it does mean those who believe without experience don’t know if it does.

One day an adventurous young man named Dortheus decides to look for Oz. He goes to the Phoenicians to learn sailing and boat-building skills, builds himself a strong boat, heads south so he can follow the coast of Africa, and at the tip of Africa he heads east as the Oz legend indicates he should.

Months of sailing go by without sighting land and Dortheus, who can’t take the cold seas any longer, decides to head north. He manages to pass between Australia and New Zealand without seeing them, as well as a number of other islands until suddenly one morning he looks out to see a beautiful island. After landing, he discovers the most wonderful people who call themselves Samoans [okay, if it is 2000 BC, it’s likely 1000 years too soon for the Polynesians to be there]. The people treat Dortheus graciously, attending to his every need.

All this is nice, but one thing in particular intrigues Dortheus. After he is there awhile he finds out some of the men have developed a special diving skill that allows them to go to great depths on a single breath. Dortheus asks if they will teach him, but they say it takes years of practice and won’t agree to teach unless he commits himself to finishing the training. He agrees and spends seventeen years learning the skill.

By now he is pretty homesick and decides to return home. Months later he finally makes back, where he is greeted with much excitement. Throngs of people gather to hear the story of Oz, which Dortheus eventually allows them to call it since nobody seems able to accept that the island is really called Samoa. When Dortheus tells them about the wonderful diving skill, they all want to see it. They are amazed to see him dive deep into the Mediterranean to find fish for dinner.

Of the many people who listen, a few want to learn the diving skill, but the vast majority only want to hear the stories about Oz. Those few who want to learn the diving skill, Dortheus agrees to teach if, as was required of him, they will commit to practicing it as long as it takes to learn.

After Dortheus dies people begin to spread stories about him. They embellish descriptions of the diving skill to where Dortheus could actually live underwater, swim at an infinite speed, and pass through a shortcut at the bottom of the sea through the center of the Earth right to Oz. Oz too took on epic proportions, now described as made of solid gold, and populated by winged beings. Meanwhile, those few people who’d committed to practicing the diving skill kept at it. They found it was best to do it privately to help them stay focused, and also because some of those who were spreading the grand stories about Dortheus and Oz resented and even oppressed them.

Now jump ahead 3000 years. Historians trying to sort out what happened back then mostly have the reports of the story tellers because they had been in power, and so had dominated information flow. Of the diving skill practitioners, less than 1% of their stories and writings are preserved, and few people really think that was what Dortheus was about anyway. They think it was magic and the land of Oz. Also, those pretty smart people who recognize that the story teller stuff is nonsense, think everything associated with it is too, even Dortheus. They also look back and see the mythical stories of Oz by the populations of the Mediterranean before Dortheus in the same light as those by people who derived their stories from Dortheus himself, which isn’t exactly correct to do.


Relating all this to gods, God and religion, people have had “religion” for a long time. It has indeed often included beliefs in various supernatural beings and/or spirits (i.e., gods), and it has also had human intermediaries, such as priests, shamans, witchdoctors, etc. who supposedly acted as liaisons and interpreters for the general population. For the most part, I don’t believe any of these religious types knew what they were talking about. It was made up, a priori as we say, without benefit of any guiding experience to indicate the veracity or fallacy of it. That doesn’t mean this sort of “religion” might not be useful to society in certain ways, but that usefulness also doesn’t tell us anything about the accuracy of the beliefs associated with it.

Today, ironically, many people are atheists precisely because of religion, because it doesn’t make sense. Unfortunately, they don’t know about the divers. My studies have almost exclusively centered around searching out people who have pursued, and had some degree of success with, what is often called “enlightenment.” These “divers” are in a completely different class than normal religion because they may spend their entire lives practicing diving within. Occasionally someone like Jesus or the Buddha actually attains it completely, and then they are able to help others who are interested in doing it.

Almost no one knows about this dedicated, very small group of people who have taken the inner path. All you hear about is the 99%+ propaganda of the story tellers, and you therefore conclude there is nothing to it all but delusion. But if you really want to know what Jesus was about, study some of the monastics beginning with the so-called “desert fathers” living as hermits in caves around Palestine and Egypt not long after Jesus’ death. The writings of such people are profoundly different than religion.

What does this have to do with God? Well, after someone has acquired skill turning inward, they begin to notice something powerful and bright is there. In fact, they report actually “merging” with it, which is why this inner practice has been called union prayer, or in India samadhi (which means union). In the West people have interpreted this as the “God” which so many have believed in; with the Buddha at least, he discouraged any sort of interpretation of it, but instead recommended just letting the experience itself teach one what it is.

My point is that this subject of gods, God and religion is no simple matter to sort out. There actually may be something to some reports of “God” when it stems from people actively practicing the inner thing. That doesn’t mean all the qualities religion want to attach to “God” are true. I mean, how do they know since they haven’t experienced it? Maybe God is just some organizing force that subtly resides behind things, maybe not.

So my reason for separating the God of the Bible from pagan gods is because at least some of the description is derived from two people who I suspect had had a direct experience of this force referred to as “God,” and they would be Moses and Jesus.

 

[Zero]

LW Sleeth, you are still claiming that one experience of gods is more valid than another, with no real objective proof. Instead, you resort to s a summery of mystical thinking in order to back up your claim.

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Kerrie
how about emotions? they are powerful like gods are suppossed to be...

Emotions are selected by evolution because they are just survival traits (by other words, because they help individual to survive, they survived with individual too).

Most of homos emotions are common for other primates too.

Primitive emotions (anger, love, joy) are common among almost all animals.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Zero
LW Sleeth, you are still claiming that one experience of gods is more valid than another, with no real objective proof. Instead, you resort to s a summery of mystical thinking in order to back up your claim.

No, I am saying they are different sorts of experiences. The experience of one's own imagination, where stories are made up about gods and goddesses out of thin air is one type of experience. The person who meditates and experiences "union," then reports some power is present there is having another kind.

I make no claims about God other than to say all reports of it are not based on the same experience, as you are doing. I am not arguing there is a God, and I would never attempt an objective proof of that. I can offer objective proof that people have and do experience union/samadhi (or claim to). What that experience is cannot be objectively proven obviously since it is purely subjective.

I am just trying to be somewhat of a scholar here, attempting to sort out all the concepts about gods, God, religion and inner experience which people tend to mush together into one big messy heap.

 

[Zero]

I still don't get how you say that somehow older religions are made up, and newer ones aren't. Couldn't teh supposed Jesus experience be a made up story too?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Zero
I still don't get how you say that somehow older religions are made up, and newer ones aren't. Couldn't the supposed Jesus experience be a made up story too?

Being "older" isn't the criteria for the categorization I've been suggesting. It is what experience supports the god claims. Neither did I say that all religions aren't made up. I simply pointed out that some reports of God have come from a class of inner practitioners, of which I believe Jesus is among, which were actually pursuing a very specific inner experience. Most of the rest of God claims are derived from imagination and theological reasoning.

Yes, the Jesus experience (do you mean his enlightenment?) could be made up. However, few scholars doubt that he existed. I personally think every bit of the miracle stuff was made up by followers trying to impress the pagan populations. And most Christians would not agree with me that what made Jesus special was "enlightenment." They think he is God.

This is why I say too many people are under-informed about this god stuff, believers and non-belivers alike. I mean, how does one come to a sound opinion without all the relevant information?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Using Reductio ad Absurdum your assertion here is no less absurd than the Pantheist assertion that the universe itself Is God. Once you start bring up unproven and vaguely defined terms like infinity, anything goes just as it does for the assertion that the universe was created out of nothing. Bottom line, we can no more disprove the existence of God than we can disprove that each of us has an invisible little green elf on our shoulder compelling all of our actions. All we can do is show that such assertions unnecessarilly complicate our descriptions of reality.

I would not call infinity a vague term, it just describes what we know is true about the material world, that matter itself is infinite.

There is but one way of 'escaping' this, which is and always has been to suppose a 'God' existed, from which the universe originated.
The flaw of that reasoning is that one cannot assume this 'God' concept to be any less infinite, and definitely more vague as any material description of the universe/material world.
I just showed that the reasons for introducing such a concept of 'God' is flawed.
If introducing the concept of 'God' does not solve any problem we might have in describing the material universe, then we should go without such a concept.

I did not 'disproof' of any God (for that 'God' is a too vague term to be able to disproof!) I just showed that one reason for introducing the concept of God is simply inadequate, and therefore unnecessary.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by drag
Well, for one thing, you could think that
God created an infinite time.

In other words, 'God' would have done that outside of time, or in other words, could not have done that, cause there was no time.

Time, neither as matter or space, were 'created'. That is a fundamental wrong assumption. The only things that get 'created' are specific material forms (like the sun, the galaxy, earth, specific life forms, etc.), which always comes down to transformation of one form of matter, into another one, in a finite time and spatial form.
But all material forms are 'shaped' out of preexisting material forms, and will always be followed by other material forms, in a proces that goes on without begin or end.
There is not much sense in providing 'actors' outside of time and space to 'cause' or 'initiate' the material world.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by heusdens

I did not 'disproof' of any God (for that 'God' is a too vague term to be able to disproof!) I just showed that one reason for introducing the concept of God is simply inadequate, and therefore unnecessary.

Yes, I understand what you are talking about, but it seems you may not understand Pantheism's focus on the Divine. A Pantheist need not view their God as being in any sense human or conscious. For them, the universe is considered to be as mysterious, powerful, nurturing, and beautiful as any Theistic God. Rather than preying to the Divine, a Pantheist may strive to simply listen to the Divine, and this listening can include worshiping through the practice of science. In other words, science does not rule out the possibility of the universe being Divine, nor does it say anything about our personal feelings of gratitude we might feel for our existence.

For many Theists the idea of such an abstract vision of worship may seem strange, but what remains the same is the feelings of worship they share. One of the more poinent images of Pantheism is the Japanese Shinto shrines. These were tiny huts with perhaps a few scrolls, a spiral carved in the wall, and a mirror on the ceiling. The mirror was there so that if the person looked up to prey to an anthropomorphic God, they would see themselves. This was, among other things, a subtle reminder there ain't nobody home but us chickens.

Modern science has discovered that the human brain is geared towards religious experience, and this adds further weight towards the validity of Pantheist feelings. Whether these peoples' feelings are inappropriate or misguided is something only they can know currently. Science it seems may sometime in the next century or so find other corroborating evidence to either support or refute Pantheist claims. Unlike the infinities of classic Theistic religions, Pantheist claims are apparently more capable of being scrutinized by modern science.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Yes, I understand what you are talking about, but it seems you may not understand Pantheism's focus on the Divine. A Pantheist need not view their God as being in any sense human or conscious. For them, the universe is considered to be as mysterious, powerful, nurturing, and beautiful as any Theistic God. Rather than preying to the Divine, a Pantheist may strive to simply listen to the Divine, and this listening can include worshiping through the practice of science. In other words, science does not rule out the possibility of the universe being Divine, nor does it say anything about our personal feelings of gratitude we might feel for our existence.

For many Theists the idea of such an abstract vision of worship may seem strange, but what remains the same is the feelings of worship they share. One of the more poinent images of Pantheism is the Japanese Shinto shrines. These were tiny huts with perhaps a few scrolls, a spiral carved in the wall, and a mirror on the ceiling. The mirror was there so that if the person looked up to prey to an anthropomorphic God, they would see themselves. This was, among other things, a subtle reminder there ain't nobody home but us chickens.

Modern science has discovered that the human brain is geared towards religious experience, and this adds further weight towards the validity of Pantheist feelings. Whether these peoples' feelings are inappropriate or misguided is something only they can know currently. Science it seems may sometime in the next century or so find other corroborating evidence to either support or refute Pantheist claims. Unlike the infinities of classic Theistic religions, Pantheist claims are apparently more capable of being scrutinized by modern science.

What do you want to say with this?

I just showed that amongst many definitions of God, the definition of God as creator of the universe is a flawed concept, cause the only way one can arrive at the conclusion that this God need to exist, is to claim that the universe/material world is somehow finite, and hence needs an act of 'creation' to actually exist. Introducing that concept of God, then effectively 'undoes' this wrong assumption, cause it then is stated this God was not created itself, but existed for all of eternity. Hence, our conclusion of this is, that the initial assumption, that it would be possible for the world in total, to be finite (have a beginning), was a wrong assumption, and urges us to consider the world to be infinite (no begin).

Not a disproof of God, cause the concept of God is such a vague concept with concurring and even contradictionary definitions, that such a thing can not be disproven. But from the fact that the vaguge concept cannnot be properly defined, one can just conclude that there is a total inability to proof this in the real world. Which just shows the very concept of such an entity is not meaningfull to the world.

Your claim is then, but if we do assume the pantheist assumption about God, then this may be a proper definition of such an enitity/deity, that can be called 'real'.

You forget however that an intrinsic property of God is that it does not have but ONE definition, but MANY, and some of them are too vague to even call it a definition. You can not just 'pick one' and see if that fits reality, but you have either to accept God 'as it is', or reject it in total. This very construct of human mind, to built a concept that can be attributed existence, purely based on reasoning and without any observable propertie, has be shown throughout history to serve no real purpose, and just obfuscates our ability to know about the real world.

We have a better concept of what reality is, which is matter in eternal motion. We do not need the concept of God, the material world is open for inspection, it means the same to everyone, is objective and independend of one's mind. 'Matter' just denotes the philosophical categorie of 'things' that exist outside of one's mind, and independend of it, and form an objective world. That is the concept science has sucessfully explored and investigated.

To say that we - apart from such a concept - need any vague creator/deity thing, is clearly nonsense. We only need one concept to denote the things that exist outside of one's mind. The concept of matter, is the most clear to anyone.

All other concepts, lend from objective idealism and religion, are nothing but vague concepts, and are unhandable for science.