# Why God almost certainly doesn't exist **URL:** \ **Category:** Philosophy of Religion\ **Created:** [August 21, 2026, 9:07pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/why-god-almost-certainly-doesnt-exist/2657 "2026-08-21T21:07:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![Dobbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c89c15/32.png) [@Dobbler](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Dobbler)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2026, 3:30pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/why-god-almost-certainly-doesnt-exist/2657/291 "2026-10-03T15:30:39Z")
> [@Punshhh](#): > > No, it was God, what is your response then? How would you determine if it were God, a deceiver, or my mind playing tricks on me? What do you mean? If you make an implausible claim and don’t present sufficient evidence, then I reject your claim. I don’t have to determine anything. I can do that and still sensibly remain agnostic about the plausible claims. > [@Punshhh](#): > > But my point is they are never ruled out, because we are taking the account determined by our interaction with the world we find ourselves in as the true version and explanation of reality. How is that different from saying that we are taking the universe to be a sensible, rule following place that can be in principle understood to some degree? Because I believe it is such a place, and more, if it is not, then there is literally no way of ever determining anything about the universe, because it makes induction impossible. > [@Punshhh](#): > > Whereas in reality, we only have a partial view, so are not equipped to make a judgement on the matter. We don’t know to what degree our view is partial, or that we are not in some way mistaken, or screwed in this view. This is something different. This is just saying we are uncertain, which is true. The existence of uncertainty doesn’t imply that every explanation is as good as every other one. This is just bed reasoning. > [@Punshhh](#): > > It was the idea that some kind of assessment of probability from a partial view, determines anything. The entire point of probability is to be able to assign likelihoods to things that we are uncertain of. If you don’t think that it’s more likely that the earth continues to orbit the sun than that it spontaneously morphs into a bran muffin, then you are insane. That’s because speaking about uncertainty in terms of probability makes sense. The earth spontaneously morphing into a bran muffin is vanishingly unlikely, but just because it’s never happened before, and just because there’s no mechanism in physics that we know of that could make that happen, it doesn’t mean it’s impossible. ---
**Author:** ![Drewpaul2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7feea3/32.png) [@Drewpaul2000](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Drewpaul2000)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2026, 4:22pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/why-god-almost-certainly-doesnt-exist/2657/292 "2026-10-03T16:22:30Z")
> I suppose it depends on how you mean this. In one sense, it’s a tautology, but philosophically uninteresting. The initial conditions, which were the laws of physics acting within the universe, led to the emergence of life. In any possible world where life occurred, this would be the case. Saying we could only find ourselves in universe that supports our existence sounds like its offering an explanation but it’s really hinting at multiverse which then becomes yet another necessary factor in our existence. Multiverse is predicated on the belief the universe was caused unintentionally by natural forces. Its not a coincidence that many of the scientists claiming we live in a multiverse are also atheists. Martin Rees is a highly acclaimed astronomer who wrote the book, ‘Just Six Numbers’ in which he concludes there are an unlimited number of variable universes. Here are some of the numbers. cosmological constant: tuned to 1 part in 10¹²⁰ initial entropy: tuned to 1 in 10^(10¹²³) strong nuclear force: tuned to ~1% electromagnetic force: tuned to ~1% proton/electron mass ratio: must be precise for chemistry density fluctuations: tuned to 10⁻⁵ dark matter ratio: must allow galaxy formation Those constants make a big splash because of how narrow they are however there are many brute factors which have to occur. The universe didn’t come with the ingredients necessary for life such as oxygen, nitrogen, carbon, sulfur, phosphorous or rocky planets. That is the result of nucleosynthesis in which simpler matter being blasted by a supernova turns into the complex matter necessary for life. This only occurs due to quantum tunneling which causes stars to ignite and all the laws of physics that causes stars to exist in the first place. Still that’s not good enough. If the new matter isn’t contained in a galaxy it drifts into interstellar space it won’t get swept up by a star like the sun. Galaxies should spin themselves apart but once again mother nature has our back and came with copious amounts of dark matter that holds galaxies together. Every conditions necessary for life obtained, every condition that would negate life was avoided. These are the kinds of things we look for if we suspect agency is involved. The claim we can only observe ourselves in a universe that causes our existence doesn’t explain why the conditions for our existence obtained. Its like saying of course you live on a planet with oxygen you wouldn’t be there otherwise. That’s true but doesn’t explain why oxygen exists. As a consequence given what we know now I see three possibilities. 1. They are brute facts. The universe for no reason has these laws and that were caused unintentionally and they just happen to be what was necessary for life. 2. We exist in one of an infinitude of variable universes and given the # of attempts a universe with the physics and conditions for life inevitably came to be. 3. The laws of physics, the properties of matter were intentionally caused for life to exist. I think #1 and #2 are chosen primarily as alternates to #3. If we’re seeking an explanation as to our existence #1 isn’t it. Its an assertion that things just happen to be as they are so forget about it and get on with your lives. Given all the things that have to go right and to the degree they have to go right I don’t discard #1 as possible just highly improbable. #2 is more plausible and has explanatory power. However it carries a lot of baggage. First it asserts yet another condition that has to occur for life to exist, the existence of infinitude of variable universes. This doesn’t make the existence of life simpler it makes it more complex. We have to invoke some unknown mechanism existing outside of our universe and laws of physics because those are the things it allegedly creates. To me multiverse is the ultimate time and chance, naturalism in the gaps of our understanding invoked as an alternative to #3. The explanation something was intentionally caused is a proven viable explanation. The best explanation for something as relatively simple (compared to the universe and life) as Stonehenge is that it was intentionally caused. Even if we couldn’t trace Stonehenge back to intelligent intervention we’d still see strong indications of design that would lead to the claim it was intentionally caused. Some argue the addition of an intelligent agent adds a greater level of complexity. I’m not sure about that. I think an infinitude of universes and the natural device that causes variable universe is more complex. ---
**Author:** ![Dobbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c89c15/32.png) [@Dobbler](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Dobbler)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2026, 4:41pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/why-god-almost-certainly-doesnt-exist/2657/293 "2026-10-03T16:41:20Z")
> [@Drewpaul2000](#): > > The claim we can only observe ourselves in a universe that causes our existence doesn’t explain why the conditions for our existence obtained. Agreed. It’s only to say it could not be otherwise. Regarding the rest, there is one, technical, arguable problem with your position, and there is one giant, gaping problem. The arguable problem? Parsimony. That the universe just happens to be the way it is, is the most parsimonious explanation. The glaring problem? You are approaching these questions as if whichever answer we choose, we should somehow commit to being obviously and uncontroversially correct, when in fact, we have so little information about the subject of the initial state of the universe… and even to the notion of what it would mean for something to be a “cause” to what might be the beginning of finite time, that it’s ludicrous to look at any option as something other than just open speculation. Even if I granted that the “creator” hypothesis was the strongest (which I don’t, for the record) of those you’ve presented, it fails to capture that. All of the hypotheses are wild speculation, and there’s no reason to think that some other hypotheses not yet imagined is actually the correct one. So for the sake of argument, let’s suppose I say that I am 99.9% agnostic about any of the explanations, but of the remaining .1%, I am slightly in favour of the intelligent design hypothesis. How do you get from that to the conclusion that there must be a God? ---
**Author:** ![Drewpaul2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7feea3/32.png) [@Drewpaul2000](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Drewpaul2000)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2026, 5:50pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/why-god-almost-certainly-doesnt-exist/2657/294 "2026-10-03T17:50:41Z")
> The arguable problem? Parsimony. That the universe just happens to be the way it is, **is the most parsimonious explanation**. Its the most parsimonious assertion…it explains nothing. When used as a scientific or philosophical term, parsimonious describes a theory, model, or explanation that uses the fewest possible assumptions, entities, or variables to adequately account for an observed phenomenon. I also deny it uses the fewest possible assumptions. Take something exponentially simpler like Stonehenge, on principal natural causes is the more parsimonious explanation than a creator of Stonehenge. Does it require fewer assumptions? As with the universe how many attempts would it take for natural forces to inadvertently cause Stonehenge to exist? Even if we conjure some confluence of events, earthquakes, tsunami’s wind and fire perhaps some meteorites randomly slamming into the earth and causing a crater like circle so that rocks fall in a circle with huge rocks balanced on top we still have one major problem. All the steps no matter how close would fail if it didn’t also by coincidence line up with the equinox. You’d wind up with gazillions of almost right Stonehenge’s. Instead the only contribution we see in nature is the slow destruction of Stonehenge. Of course if the universe required intelligent beings to exist we can’t say we have no evidence intelligent beings exist after all we exist. > All of the hypotheses are wild speculation, and there’s no reason to think that some other hypotheses not yet imagined is actually the correct one. You claim a God is almost certainly unnecessary based on the pie in the sky claim there might be some not yet imagined cause is what really happened? I thought folks who claim God doesn’t exist are the facts, evidence and data people? > How do you get from that to the conclusion that there must be a God? I don’t. I already detailed many hard cold scientifically established facts that make my claim more probable. But I don’t claim God must exist. My opponents seem to always make that claim on my behalf. I believe as a matter of a preponderance of evidence it was the result of an intentional cause. If we do discover some as yet unknown explanation of everything I would have to reconsider. If the existence of other universes is scientifically established I’d have to consider that a huge feather in the cap of naturalists. If someday scientists come out and say they made a huge blunder, the universe isn’t fine-tuned for life a wide range of properties and conditions would lead to life I’d have to consider that. ---
**Author:** ![Dobbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c89c15/32.png) [@Dobbler](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Dobbler)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2026, 6:17pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/why-god-almost-certainly-doesnt-exist/2657/295 "2026-10-03T18:17:28Z")
There are plenty of things I take issue with concerning your conclusion, but they are mostly trivial compared to the big one. > [@Drewpaul2000](#): > > I believe as a matter of a preponderance of evidence it was the result of an intentional cause. Say I grant this. Is it still not the case that the endorsement of any of the possible hypotheses are wildly speculative? Even if your favoured hypothesis is preferable among all the speculative possibilities examined, doesn’t remaining mostly agnostic make the most sense in this? It seems pretty weak evidence to draw what seems like a very strong conclusion. Is the logical conclusion of your argument not “there is an extremely slightly higher chance that the universe was intentionally created than not, but there isn’t strong evidence to support any hypothesis at the moment”? More importantly to me, do you have any reason to think you can draw any strong conclusions about how a person should live their life, or what the will of such a creator might be? It really feels like you’re building a castle out of tissue paper and treating it like stone. ---
**Author:** ![Punshhh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/43a26b/32.png) [@Punshhh](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Punshhh)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2026, 6:49am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/why-god-almost-certainly-doesnt-exist/2657/296 "2026-10-04T06:49:04Z")
> [@Dobbler](#): > > What do you mean? If you make an implausible claim and don’t present sufficient evidence, then I reject your claim. I don’t have to determine anything. I can do that and still sensibly remain agnostic about the plausible claims. But what makes it an implausible claim? Anyway I was not making a claim about the existence of God, only that God came to me. There are many such claims throughout history, are they included in your summation? You haven’t answered my enquiry about what evidence would you require for you to conclude that God exists? Because I suggest that there isn’t any, it would always be, weird things that brains do. > [@Dobbler](#): > > How is that different from saying that we are taking the universe to be a sensible, rule following place that can be in principle understood to some degree? Yes, but we only have a partial view. There might be rules beyond what we find (as a result of our inherited sensory apparatus), which include Gods, angels, Nirvana etc. > [@Dobbler](#): > > I believe it is such a place, and more, if it is not, then there is literally no way of ever determining anything about the universe, because it makes induction impossible. It is the same, even if it is a rule based system. My position is that we are not in full possession of the facts, or to the degree that we are in possession of them. So our speculation can’t gain a purchase on either what else there is, what is the origin of us (and our world), or the involvement of such other things in our world. Essentially we are blind, blinded by the world we find ourselves in and our knowledge of it(when it comes to questions of what else there is). > [@Dobbler](#): > > The entire point of probability is to be able to assign likelihoods to things that we are uncertain of. So what is the certainty of whether we require a soul\* to function? \*a component from an ethereal plane ---
**Author:** ![Dobbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c89c15/32.png) [@Dobbler](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Dobbler)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2026, 1:50pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/why-god-almost-certainly-doesnt-exist/2657/297 "2026-10-04T13:50:28Z")
> [@Punshhh](#): > > But what makes it an implausible claim? Is that a serious question? That God physically spoke to you? > [@Punshhh](#): > > Anyway I was not making a claim about the existence of God, only that God came to me. You understand that included in the claim “God came to me” is the logical implication that God exists, right? I’m having a hard time taking this response seriously. > [@Punshhh](#): > > You haven’t answered my enquiry about what evidence would you require for you to conclude that God exists? Because I suggest that there isn’t any, it would always be, weird things that brains do. It would require a lot of evidence, and certainly wouldn’t be a single occurrence. I can’t tell you exactly what combination of things that would have to happen, but could you tell me the combination of events that would have to occur for you to believe that the Harry Potter books weren’t fiction? Of course there’s some amount of evidence. A person would have to be crazy not to accept a conclusion for which there is lots of obvious evidence. > [@Punshhh](#): > > Yes, but we only have a partial view. There might be rules beyond what we find (as a result of our inherited sensory apparatus), which include Gods, angels, Nirvana etc. So what? Does that mean that we don’t look at what we do have a view of and arrive at the most sensible conclusions based on that? This is an insane line of reasoning. “We don’t know for sure, so every crazy idea is a good as any other”. > [@Punshhh](#): > > It is the same, even if it is a rule based system. My position is that we are not in full possession of the facts, or to the degree that we are in possession of them. So our speculation can’t gain a purchase on either what else there is, what is the origin of us (and our world), or the involvement of such other things in our world. Essentially we are blind, blinded by the world we find ourselves in and our knowledge of it(when it comes to questions of what else there is). **Everyone’s** position is that we are not in full possession of the facts. No one disagrees with this point, and we are all aware. Please never mention it again. Your position is that it’s plausible that the things you saw in a vision give you insight into the nature of the universe. The fact that we don’t possess all the facts doesn’t in any way support to that conclusion. > [@Punshhh](#): > > Essentially we are blind, blinded by the world we find ourselves in and our knowledge of it(when it comes to questions of what else there is). This is a specious conclusion. We can’t see everything with perfect clarity, therefore we are completely blind? > [@Punshhh](#): > > So what is the certainty of whether we require a soul\* to function? > > \*a component from an ethereal plane So we can’t know anything, but you can know that there’s a soul that’s a component of the etherial plane? Look, I think I’m done discussing this with you. You’re not taking this seriously. ---
**Author:** ![prothero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e274bd/32.png) [@prothero](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/prothero)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2026, 2:21pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/why-god-almost-certainly-doesnt-exist/2657/298 "2026-10-04T14:21:56Z")
> [@Punshhh](#): > > Anyway I was not making a claim about the existence of God, only that God came to me. There are many such claims throughout history, are they included in your summation? > > You haven’t answered my enquiry about what evidence would you require for you to conclude that God exists? Because I suggest that there isn’t any, it would always be, weird things that brains do. Three of the longest threads on the forum involve the existence or non existence of God. Not that any of them define God in any uniform or particular way. Such discussions are as old as written history and no definitive argument has ever managed to dissuade “true believers” or convert skeptics to faith. Such discussions almost seem beyond the point since it would appear the majority of humans believe in one form of higher power or another. Faith is a major force in history, in society, in politics, in art, literature and music and so true or not faith is something we need to deal with on its own terms. I think the majority will always believe or wish or hope for one form of god or another. The fundamental reasons are twofold: one is the hope that there is larger meaning and purpose in the universe, the other is the hope that justice will prevail in the end and death is not the final chapter in our existence. Whether you believe in virgin births, angels, demons, resurrections or life after death or not: many of your fellow humans do and rational argumentation will never convince them otherwise. We would do well to promote the better parts of faith: empathy for our fellow man (the golden rules), feed, clothe and shelter the poor, heal the sick, comfort the afflicted for surely faith has inspired many to such altruistic actions. Many who lack faith participate in these actions as secular humanism as well. True or not, it is hard to deny there has been a persistence of spirit (even lacking bodily resurrection) which has changed the course of history and altered the world. It is hard to visit the grand cathedrals of Europe, visit the art museums, read famous literature or listen to inspiring religious music without being impressed by the degree to which faith motivated and inspired people to such creative activity. So rather than trying to destroy faith or belief better to direct it to its nobler impulses and accomplishments. ---
**Author:** ![Dobbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c89c15/32.png) [@Dobbler](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Dobbler)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2026, 3:03pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/why-god-almost-certainly-doesnt-exist/2657/299 "2026-10-04T15:03:58Z")
> [@prothero](#): > > Whether you believe in virgin births, angels, demons, resurrections or life after death or not: many of your fellow humans do and rational argumentation will never convince them otherwise. I think this is a bit of a beleaguered view of humanity. While rational argument won’t convince everyone all the time, I think it does move the needle, and is important. Obviously your larger point, that doing good things is good, is unassailable. ---
**Author:** ![prothero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e274bd/32.png) [@prothero](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/prothero)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2026, 3:19pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/why-god-almost-certainly-doesnt-exist/2657/300 "2026-10-04T15:19:09Z")
> [@Dobbler](#): > > I think this is a bit of a beleaguered view of humanity. While rational argument won’t convince everyone all the time, I think it does move the needle, and is important. Maybe so, but I can’t think of a society that did not have one form of God (or Gods) as somewhat central to its view of itself. True we have through history moved from polytheism (the Gods of Olympus) to monotheism and the major faiths of at least in the Western world are all more or less monotheistic. Buddhism is often referred to as a philosophy (some consider it atheistic) and Hinduism has always struck me as the popular secular percussor to Buddhism. Still although the enlightenment ideal is the rational human being working to perfect society through reason, I see little evidence that “reason” is what rules the majority of human existence or belief. I hope you are right but I remain skeptical based on observation and history. ---
**Author:** ![Dobbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c89c15/32.png) [@Dobbler](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Dobbler)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2026, 3:59pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/why-god-almost-certainly-doesnt-exist/2657/301 "2026-10-04T15:59:34Z")
Reason is a tool, and like with any tool that proves useful, we can fetishize it sometimes. That’s not what I’m suggesting. I think we should use it when it’s the right tool for the job, as in when we are trying to coherently describe the world. You can hammer in a nail with a set of pliers, but it doesn’t do a good job and you are more likely to hurt yourself. Regarding humanity’s consistent history of god belief, I agree. It’s actually one of the premises of my argument here. It seems like you’re trying to suggest something that this fact implies that you’re not saying. Maybe you could make that inference explicit? ---
**Author:** ![Petrus\_Roma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/fbc32d/32.png) [@Petrus\_Roma](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Petrus_Roma)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2026, 4:29pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/why-god-almost-certainly-doesnt-exist/2657/302 "2026-10-04T16:29:48Z")
Yes, and from my understanding of the term, the correct application of it requires that it be coupled with an actual question. Just ask it. ---
**Author:** ![prothero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e274bd/32.png) [@prothero](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/prothero)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2026, 4:30pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/why-god-almost-certainly-doesnt-exist/2657/303 "2026-10-04T16:30:02Z")
> [@Dobbler](#): > > Regarding humanity’s consistent history of god belief, I agree. It’s actually one of the premises of my argument here. It seems like you’re trying to suggest something that this fact implies that you’re not saying. Maybe you could make that inference explicit? I personally do have a religious inclination but my religious beliefs are well outside the mainstream (process theology) and thus not relevant to the larger point I wish to make about religion being with us, like it or not, and probably will remain with us in one form or another. ---
**Author:** ![Dobbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c89c15/32.png) [@Dobbler](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Dobbler)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2026, 4:39pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/why-god-almost-certainly-doesnt-exist/2657/304 "2026-10-04T16:39:32Z")
That’s probably true, but again, I’m not sure why that matters. Superstition and bias are likely always going to be part of human cognition, but it’s still good to try to minimise and mitigate their effects, don’t you think? It seems like you’re suggesting that it is bad to have such debates because it is ultimately futile? Is this what you’re suggesting? ---
**Author:** ![prothero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e274bd/32.png) [@prothero](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/prothero)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2026, 5:17pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/why-god-almost-certainly-doesnt-exist/2657/305 "2026-10-04T17:17:57Z")
> [@Dobbler](#): > > It seems like you’re suggesting that it is bad to have such debates because it is ultimately futile? Is this what you’re suggesting? I think the generic question in this thread lacks enough definition to create meaningful debate. There is no agreement about what version of “god” does or does not “exist”. So no definition for “God” and actually very little agreement about what “exists” means in this context. Better to narrow the question: Does an “omnipotent God” exist? Meaning a God who could choose to contravene the laws of nature and perform “miracles” but chooses instead to let children die and suffer from leukemia or brain tumors or at the hands of homicidal pedophiles, etc. (suffering child of the Brothers Karamazov) Does an “omniscient God” exist? Meaning a God who stands outside of time and can see all events from the alpha (beginning) to the omega (end) and thus all the events of the world as well as human fate is predetermined, free will is an illusion and Calvin was right about the “elect”. Is the universe basically a mindless and thus purposeless, mechanistic, deterministic machine in which life and mine are just accidental happenings or is there some form of basic teleology (creative advance) self assembly and self organization at play. There are almost 2000 posts in three threads on the topic and mostly people just using different definitions and assumptions and talking over and past each other so yes, a certain sense of futility entails. You might ask then why I bother to post on the topic at all, good question, I don’t know, its Sunday and maybe just my day for religious comtemplation. ---
**Author:** ![Dobbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c89c15/32.png) [@Dobbler](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Dobbler)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2026, 5:29pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/why-god-almost-certainly-doesnt-exist/2657/306 "2026-10-04T17:29:18Z")
I thought I presented a pretty specific notion of god. An empirical god. One that can be observed, not just inferred. > [@prothero](#): > > There are almost 2000 posts in three threads on the topic and mostly people just using different definitions and assumptions and talking over and past each other so yes, a certain sense of futility entails. You might ask then why I bother to post on the topic at all, good question, I don’t know, its Sunday and maybe just my day for religious comtemplation. If you want to engage for epistemic reasons, you’re not really doing it. To do that, you need to actually engage. Give your thoughts beyond “what’s the point of talking about it, people will never agree”. I mean, you don’t need anyone else to contemplate, right? So you must keep posting for some other reason. Maybe you want to suggest that succumbing to futility is what we all _should_ do? (kinda feels like this) Or maybe you hope you’ll be convinced of the inverse. Gotta say though, the constant beating on the futility drum doesn’t work for me. It seems like a cop out from my POV, and not grounded in very clear thinking. ---
**Author:** ![Cetus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c2a13f/32.png) [@Cetus](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Cetus)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2026, 5:32pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/why-god-almost-certainly-doesnt-exist/2657/307 "2026-10-04T17:32:58Z")
**Someone might have highlighted this already as it is a long thread, but I would like to argue that just because we in this moment cannot scientifically prove that a god exists, does not mean it doesn’t exist. For example, William Gilbert made humans aware(discovered) of electricity in the 1600 hundreds. However, this does not mean that electricity did not exist before we discovered it. Magnetic fields existed before we discovered it. To certainly rule out that something does not exist, just because we currently cannot scientifically prove it today, does not mean that it is non-existent.** ---
**Author:** ![prothero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e274bd/32.png) [@prothero](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/prothero)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2026, 5:41pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/why-god-almost-certainly-doesnt-exist/2657/308 "2026-10-04T17:41:28Z")
> [@Dobbler](#): > > I thought I presented a pretty specific notion of god. An empirical god. One that can be observed, not just inferred. And your saying you don’t “observe” God so he must not or “almost certainly” does not exist? I and others might say we observe God in nature and in the direction and evolution of the universe and cosmos. That we are surrounded by miracles ( a seed becomes a flower, a single cell becomes a human being). The universe tends towards self assembly, self organization and the development of humans (the universe becoming aware of itself). We observe teleology were others observe random chance and accident. This is certainly not the God of supernatural theism and Medieval Christian Theology? Let’s try to be polite and respectful. ---
**Author:** ![Dobbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c89c15/32.png) [@Dobbler](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Dobbler)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2026, 5:51pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/why-god-almost-certainly-doesnt-exist/2657/309 "2026-10-04T17:51:42Z")
> [@prothero](#): > > And your saying you don’t “observe” God so he must not or “almost certainly” does not exist? No, I’m saying what the argument in my OP says. Please at least put in the effort to read that. > [@prothero](#): > > I and others might say we observe God in nature and in the direction and evolution of the universe and cosmos. That we are surrounded by miracles ( a seed becomes a flower, a single cell becomes a human being). The universe tends towards self assembly, self organization and the development of humans (the universe becoming aware of itself). We observe teleology were others observe random chance and accident. We can analyse these claims individually, but again, my assertion isn’t that “I can’t see any gods so they don’t exist”. Please refer to my original post. > [@prothero](#): > > Let’s try to be polite and respectful. Do you think I wasn’t being? ---
**Author:** ![Dobbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c89c15/32.png) [@Dobbler](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Dobbler)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2026, 5:53pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/why-god-almost-certainly-doesnt-exist/2657/310 "2026-10-04T17:53:57Z")
> [@Cetus](#): > > Someone might have highlighted this already as it is a long thread, but I would like to argue that just because we in this moment cannot scientifically prove that a god exists, does not mean it doesn’t exist. Okay, but that’s not my argument. My argument is laid out in the opening post of this thread. I don’t expect you read every post in this thread, but I do expect you read that one. [Previous page](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/why-god-almost-certainly-doesnt-exist/2657.md?page=14) [Next page](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/why-god-almost-certainly-doesnt-exist/2657.md?page=16)