Scientific proof that God exists?

[protokol]

I expected a response from YOU, protokol.

Since you did not reply then it is implied that you agree with me that Chopra is right to say that consciousness drives evolution.

Also don't get passive-aggressive with me, if I don't reply to you, you think that means I agree with you? Such an assumption is a sign of huge arrogance. Perhaps I just didn't log in for a few days, or maybe I just couldn't be fucked to talk to someone who doesn't recognise actual scientific evidence.

That's not how science works, sonny jim.

[qwik2learn]

Your quote about sea salt and oil, having an effect on our bodies can easily be considered an anecdotal quote caused by the placebo effect.

There is no evidence that ORMEs works as a placebo, that is just your assumption.
There IS evidence for wide-ranging application of ORMEs in their many forms.
The effects are fairly consistent, just like with any other substance.
I did my own experiments to come to my conclusions, you should do the same.

Chopra's idea about consciousness driving evolution could be true, but the evidence is lacking.

There is abundant evidence and you simply do not wish to discuss it with me.
Look through my posts and read the sources, then you can truly critique the evidence.
What is lacking is an adequate rebuttal to the ideas of Hameroff and Chopra.

Also like I said, he is considered a laughing stock in the science community, because he misunderstands actual quantum theories, that have been proven by actual quantum physicists.

If that were true then why exactly is Hameroff agreeing with Chopra? The explanatory power of Orch-OR is greater than any other theory of consciousness. Evidence is in favor of Orch-OR, and evidence is in favor of consciousness as a primary force in the world. You can read about the relationship between consciousness and the quantum world in "Lazy Layman's Guide to Quantum Mechanics" by Higgo.

Also don't get passive-aggressive with me, if I don't reply to you, you think that means I agree with you?

You claimed that I was wrong to believe Hameroff's Orch-OR, then you stopped posting.
It is true that you did not address the evidence I presented.
If you commit to a discussion and then stay silent then you are consenting to what is said by others.

Such an assumption is a sign of huge arrogance.

My character is not being debated, only the evidence is in question. I would like you to compose a rebuttal to my claims, so I am simply asking you to finish the debate.

Perhaps I just didn't log in for a few days,

I saw that you wrote replies to others. Please don't be facetious, let's just get on with evaluating the evidence.

or maybe I just couldn't be fucked to talk to someone who doesn't recognise actual scientific evidence.

What evidence did you post? Which evidence did I fail to recognize?

That's not how science works, sonny jim.

You did not make a claim on the basis of science, but I did, then when you refused to address my evidence, I told you that I am right and that you should prove me wrong. I am totally open to being proven wrong but the proof must be based either upon hard evidence or an adequate rebuttal of my claims.

I have identified your fallacious argument:

Argument By Dismissal:
an idea is rejected without saying why.

Dismissals usually have overtones. For example, "If you don't like it, leave the country" implies that your cause is hopeless, or that you are unpatriotic, or that your ideas are foreign, or maybe all three. "If you don't like it, live in a Communist country" adds an emotive element.

There is evidence to support Orch-OR and survival; whether you think it is "enough" evidence or not is just a matter of subjective opinion.
You never gave an objective scientific reason to doubt any of my claims.
You used a double standard explained here:
https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/skeptical_misdirection#skeptical_misdirection_double_standard

[qwik2learn]

I don't know why 'we' need to come out with any proof that god exists. An ommipotent and all knowing entity could have done a better job at spreading its knowledge and making its presence clear.

I believe that the knowledge in the Phoenix Journals makes the presence of GOD clear.

According to research by Cunningham, The communication of anomalous information is verifiable by anyone willing to consider the evidence. A truth-seeker or researcher must decide if the anomalous information is coming from a discarnate being or if another explanation is a better fit (this is called the "Content-Source Problem").

Some day the Phoenix Journals, CONTACT and The Word meeting tapes will be more widely recognized for what they are, direct communications from our Heavenly Father, providing His guidance, as promised.

God asks that you accept and take your POWER in HIS name that you can become one within His Grace and reclaimer of that which is your rightful heritage.

The choice is individual for force is not of God and you have free-will for all choices.

The purpose of these writings and speakings is to allow the Truth to be put forth unto the masses who would wish to receive them.

God has no mysticism nor hidden agenda—God is open and the only “mystery” is that which you simply do not yet understand—that too, He gives unto you openly and freely.

The better part of wisdom is to look, discern and then act.  God never limits your investigation into all facets of the Truth.

[qwik2learn]

So why do you think that is the case? I think it's because the hypotheses are unrepeatable, and to be frank, woo.

You mean the experiments are not repeatable? You should try one and see for yourself, this experiment I posted is about as easy as it gets.

You cannot ingest qubits. They are a conceptual idea of information, not an actual physical thing. Like the classic "bit" they are just a form of information, not a physical, tangible piece of matter that you can hold or eat.

OK, I should have made this more clear: Since the ORMEs have quantum properties and ingesting them effects the mind, this implies that the ORMEs are interacting with the qubit state of tubulin.

 Specifically, Orch OR proposes that tubulin proteins comprising microtubule cylindrical lattices function as 'bits' -- switching between alternative states (e.g. of 1 or 0), as well as quantum bits or 'qubits' (existing transiently as quantum superposition of both 1 AND 0).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXFFbxoHp3s

[BADecker]

So why do you think that is the case? I think it's because the hypotheses are unrepeatable, and to be frank, woo.

You mean the experiments are not repeatable? You should try one and see for yourself, this experiment I posted is about as easy as it gets.

You cannot ingest qubits. They are a conceptual idea of information, not an actual physical thing. Like the classic "bit" they are just a form of information, not a physical, tangible piece of matter that you can hold or eat.

OK, I should have made this more clear: Since the ORMEs have quantum properties and ingesting them effects the mind, this implies that the ORMEs are interacting with the qubit state of tubulin.

 Specifically, Orch OR proposes that tubulin proteins comprising microtubule cylindrical lattices function as 'bits' -- switching between alternative states (e.g. of 1 or 0), as well as quantum bits or 'qubits' (existing transiently as quantum superposition of both 1 AND 0).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXFFbxoHp3s

Don't be upset with protokol's responses. The point he'll always get to is that nothing can be proven. What he really means is that he can't even prove to himself that he is posting anything at all.

[Astargath]

There's a gaping hole in your logic. With empty space, we can compare it to "non-empty space": We can see how photons, atoms or subatomic particles react in an environment of "empty space" and an environment containing matter. Therefore we can obtain actual data, and look at the differences between the two environments.

You simply don't understand what you are talking about. "Photons, atoms or subatomic particles" are an environment of matter as well as energy. No matter contains matter within the essence of itself. All matter shares empty space. Empty space contains matter. You really need to brush up on your basic science.

With a god, such a comparison is logically impossible. We can't compare an environment with, or without a god, because only one scenario is logically possible.

An atom resides within empty space. There is empty space within the atom, between the electrons, and between the electrons and the nucleus. Empty space is within, without, and "flowing" through all material and energy.

The only difference with God is, He even made the empty space. So, we absolutely can use the relationships between photons, atoms or subatomic particles in empty space to prove that God exists.

Therefore, scientific proof of a god cannot be compared to evidence, or proof, of "empty space".

Your move...

Therefore, scientific proof for God absolutely can be compared to evidence, or proof, for "empty space".

Too bad you dont even understand entropy and too bad your ''proof'' is self refuting (everything has a cause, yet god doesn't?)

You are missing the point. It isn't my proof. It is standard scientific proof that all scientists know about, if they think about it for a moment. But you haven't provided any proof for or against the existence of God. It's beginning to look like you don't really know anything scientific at all.

I sure have, first of all by proving that you don't even know the laws you are trying to use to prove god existence.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19455088#msg19455088

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19350390#msg19350390
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19357376#msg19357376

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19355289#msg19355289

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19666684#msg19666684

Links that you haven't been able to respond to a part from your simplistic ''circular argument'' bullshit because saying everything has a cause but god doesn't isn't stupid, right badecker?

[BADecker]

There's a gaping hole in your logic. With empty space, we can compare it to "non-empty space": We can see how photons, atoms or subatomic particles react in an environment of "empty space" and an environment containing matter. Therefore we can obtain actual data, and look at the differences between the two environments.

You simply don't understand what you are talking about. "Photons, atoms or subatomic particles" are an environment of matter as well as energy. No matter contains matter within the essence of itself. All matter shares empty space. Empty space contains matter. You really need to brush up on your basic science.

With a god, such a comparison is logically impossible. We can't compare an environment with, or without a god, because only one scenario is logically possible.

An atom resides within empty space. There is empty space within the atom, between the electrons, and between the electrons and the nucleus. Empty space is within, without, and "flowing" through all material and energy.

The only difference with God is, He even made the empty space. So, we absolutely can use the relationships between photons, atoms or subatomic particles in empty space to prove that God exists.

Therefore, scientific proof of a god cannot be compared to evidence, or proof, of "empty space".

Your move...

Therefore, scientific proof for God absolutely can be compared to evidence, or proof, for "empty space".

Too bad you dont even understand entropy and too bad your ''proof'' is self refuting (everything has a cause, yet god doesn't?)

You are missing the point. It isn't my proof. It is standard scientific proof that all scientists know about, if they think about it for a moment. But you haven't provided any proof for or against the existence of God. It's beginning to look like you don't really know anything scientific at all.

I sure have, first of all by proving that you don't even know the laws you are trying to use to prove god existence.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19455088#msg19455088

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19350390#msg19350390
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19357376#msg19357376

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19355289#msg19355289

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19666684#msg19666684

Links that you haven't been able to respond to a part from your simplistic ''circular argument'' bullshit because saying everything has a cause but god doesn't isn't stupid, right badecker?

I am not going to take the time to run down your links. Why not? Because anybody who is a true scientist knows that science theory is not fact, and that much of what you link to is science theory at best.

As I have told you, cause and effect are for this universe. God is from without. Things like cause and effect don't necessarily act on Him. But, even if C&E was a part of God, there is no way of knowing anything about it. After all, we can't even track an atom or molecule of the wind as it travels around the globe, or wherever. Since we are so remote, why would you even think that we can track even a little of the nature of God?

Except for you, that is. You understand that God exists, but you continue to deny Him. Kinda ignorant of you. I can understand how your lack of intelligence must continually ask questions about a God we will scientifically never know anything about.

So, it would only be by the sheerest C&E "accidents" if you happened to become the one who turned out to be the scientist who could track a specific molecule of the wind. LOL.

[ferrum83]

Unlikely facts. If we are all descendants from some men and women, then why are we not extinct ?

[BADecker]

Unlikely facts. If we are all descendants from some men and women, then why are we not extinct ?

What does extinct have to do with making more babies who grow up to have more babies?

God designed cause and effect to act this way.

[Astargath]

There's a gaping hole in your logic. With empty space, we can compare it to "non-empty space": We can see how photons, atoms or subatomic particles react in an environment of "empty space" and an environment containing matter. Therefore we can obtain actual data, and look at the differences between the two environments.

You simply don't understand what you are talking about. "Photons, atoms or subatomic particles" are an environment of matter as well as energy. No matter contains matter within the essence of itself. All matter shares empty space. Empty space contains matter. You really need to brush up on your basic science.

With a god, such a comparison is logically impossible. We can't compare an environment with, or without a god, because only one scenario is logically possible.

An atom resides within empty space. There is empty space within the atom, between the electrons, and between the electrons and the nucleus. Empty space is within, without, and "flowing" through all material and energy.

The only difference with God is, He even made the empty space. So, we absolutely can use the relationships between photons, atoms or subatomic particles in empty space to prove that God exists.

Therefore, scientific proof of a god cannot be compared to evidence, or proof, of "empty space".

Your move...

Therefore, scientific proof for God absolutely can be compared to evidence, or proof, for "empty space".

Too bad you dont even understand entropy and too bad your ''proof'' is self refuting (everything has a cause, yet god doesn't?)

You are missing the point. It isn't my proof. It is standard scientific proof that all scientists know about, if they think about it for a moment. But you haven't provided any proof for or against the existence of God. It's beginning to look like you don't really know anything scientific at all.

I sure have, first of all by proving that you don't even know the laws you are trying to use to prove god existence.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19455088#msg19455088

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19350390#msg19350390
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19357376#msg19357376

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19355289#msg19355289

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19666684#msg19666684

Links that you haven't been able to respond to a part from your simplistic ''circular argument'' bullshit because saying everything has a cause but god doesn't isn't stupid, right badecker?

I am not going to take the time to run down your links. Why not? Because anybody who is a true scientist knows that science theory is not fact, and that much of what you link to is science theory at best.

As I have told you, cause and effect are for this universe. God is from without. Things like cause and effect don't necessarily act on Him. But, even if C&E was a part of God, there is no way of knowing anything about it. After all, we can't even track an atom or molecule of the wind as it travels around the globe, or wherever. Since we are so remote, why would you even think that we can track even a little of the nature of God?

Except for you, that is. You understand that God exists, but you continue to deny Him. Kinda ignorant of you. I can understand how your lack of intelligence must continually ask questions about a God we will scientifically never know anything about.

So, it would only be by the sheerest C&E "accidents" if you happened to become the one who turned out to be the scientist who could track a specific molecule of the wind. LOL.

''As I have told you, cause and effect are for this universe. God is from without.'' Prove it, you haven't proved that god is from outside the unvierse.
''Things like cause and effect don't necessarily act on Him.'' Why not
''a true scientist knows that science theory is not fact'' A true scientist knows that nothing is 100% a fact but a theory gets really damn close to it, you are not a real scientist, you are a buffoon who doesn't even understand his own arguments.

[Astargath]

So why do you think that is the case? I think it's because the hypotheses are unrepeatable, and to be frank, woo.

You mean the experiments are not repeatable? You should try one and see for yourself, this experiment I posted is about as easy as it gets.

You cannot ingest qubits. They are a conceptual idea of information, not an actual physical thing. Like the classic "bit" they are just a form of information, not a physical, tangible piece of matter that you can hold or eat.

OK, I should have made this more clear: Since the ORMEs have quantum properties and ingesting them effects the mind, this implies that the ORMEs are interacting with the qubit state of tubulin.

 Specifically, Orch OR proposes that tubulin proteins comprising microtubule cylindrical lattices function as 'bits' -- switching between alternative states (e.g. of 1 or 0), as well as quantum bits or 'qubits' (existing transiently as quantum superposition of both 1 AND 0).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXFFbxoHp3s

Which one is repeatable? You posted a bunch of personal experiences of some people that you can't even know if they are actually true or not, that's not repeatable. If telekinesis was real, for example, it would be so easy to prove, everyone would know by know it exists, you would see people do it all the time in real life, you wouldn't even need to really prove it.

[qwik2learn]

So why do you think that is the case? I think it's because the hypotheses are unrepeatable, and to be frank, woo.

You mean the experiments are not repeatable? You should try one and see for yourself, this experiment I posted is about as easy as it gets.

You cannot ingest qubits. They are a conceptual idea of information, not an actual physical thing. Like the classic "bit" they are just a form of information, not a physical, tangible piece of matter that you can hold or eat.

OK, I should have made this more clear: Since the ORMEs have quantum properties and ingesting them effects the mind, this implies that the ORMEs are interacting with the qubit state of tubulin.

 Specifically, Orch OR proposes that tubulin proteins comprising microtubule cylindrical lattices function as 'bits' -- switching between alternative states (e.g. of 1 or 0), as well as quantum bits or 'qubits' (existing transiently as quantum superposition of both 1 AND 0).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXFFbxoHp3s

Which one is repeatable? You posted a bunch of personal experiences of some people that you can't even know if they are actually true or not, that's not repeatable. If telekinesis was real, for example, it would be so easy to prove, everyone would know by know it exists, you would see people do it all the time in real life, you wouldn't even need to really prove it.

The experiment I just mentioned is about ingesting ORMEs, you can try it on yourself and repeat it on a daily basis until you are convinced that there is something inside the sea salt which affects the mind.

Regarding TK, the evidence goes back to the 19th century, many eminent researchers have conducted their own tests:
https://www.quora.com/Is-telekinesis-scientifically-true/answers/17777933
Another good link mentioned in another answer to that question:
http://www.thiaoouba.com/kir.htm

[Astargath]

So why do you think that is the case? I think it's because the hypotheses are unrepeatable, and to be frank, woo.

You mean the experiments are not repeatable? You should try one and see for yourself, this experiment I posted is about as easy as it gets.

You cannot ingest qubits. They are a conceptual idea of information, not an actual physical thing. Like the classic "bit" they are just a form of information, not a physical, tangible piece of matter that you can hold or eat.

OK, I should have made this more clear: Since the ORMEs have quantum properties and ingesting them effects the mind, this implies that the ORMEs are interacting with the qubit state of tubulin.

 Specifically, Orch OR proposes that tubulin proteins comprising microtubule cylindrical lattices function as 'bits' -- switching between alternative states (e.g. of 1 or 0), as well as quantum bits or 'qubits' (existing transiently as quantum superposition of both 1 AND 0).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXFFbxoHp3s

Which one is repeatable? You posted a bunch of personal experiences of some people that you can't even know if they are actually true or not, that's not repeatable. If telekinesis was real, for example, it would be so easy to prove, everyone would know by know it exists, you would see people do it all the time in real life, you wouldn't even need to really prove it.

The experiment I just mentioned is about ingesting ORMEs, you can try it on yourself and repeat it on a daily basis until you are convinced that there is something inside the sea salt which affects the mind.

Regarding TK, the evidence goes back to the 19th century, many eminent researchers have conducted their own tests:
https://www.quora.com/Is-telekinesis-scientifically-true/answers/17777933
Another good link mentioned in another answer to that question:
http://www.thiaoouba.com/kir.htm

Another good link : https://www.quora.com/Is-telekinesis-scientifically-true

There is no evidence, get over it, if scientists have really been conducting successful experiments til now then we wouldn't need to believe in it or not, it would be proven and it would be used, telekinesis would have enormous applications that I have yet not seen and you neither.

[qwik2learn]

So why do you think that is the case? I think it's because the hypotheses are unrepeatable, and to be frank, woo.

You mean the experiments are not repeatable? You should try one and see for yourself, this experiment I posted is about as easy as it gets.

You cannot ingest qubits. They are a conceptual idea of information, not an actual physical thing. Like the classic "bit" they are just a form of information, not a physical, tangible piece of matter that you can hold or eat.

OK, I should have made this more clear: Since the ORMEs have quantum properties and ingesting them effects the mind, this implies that the ORMEs are interacting with the qubit state of tubulin.

 Specifically, Orch OR proposes that tubulin proteins comprising microtubule cylindrical lattices function as 'bits' -- switching between alternative states (e.g. of 1 or 0), as well as quantum bits or 'qubits' (existing transiently as quantum superposition of both 1 AND 0).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXFFbxoHp3s

Which one is repeatable? You posted a bunch of personal experiences of some people that you can't even know if they are actually true or not, that's not repeatable. If telekinesis was real, for example, it would be so easy to prove, everyone would know by know it exists, you would see people do it all the time in real life, you wouldn't even need to really prove it.

The experiment I just mentioned is about ingesting ORMEs, you can try it on yourself and repeat it on a daily basis until you are convinced that there is something inside the sea salt which affects the mind.

Regarding TK, the evidence goes back to the 19th century, many eminent researchers have conducted their own tests:
https://www.quora.com/Is-telekinesis-scientifically-true/answers/17777933
Another good link mentioned in another answer to that question:
http://www.thiaoouba.com/kir.htm

Another good link : https://www.quora.com/Is-telekinesis-scientifically-true

There is no evidence, get over it, if  scientists have really been conducting successful experiments til now then we wouldn't need to believe in it or not, it would be proven and it would be used, telekinesis would have enormous applications that I have yet not seen and you neither.

You chose to ignore the evidence in the links I posted. I cannot help that.

Eminent and capable scientists have really been conducting successful experiments from the 19th century til now. I sourced my claim by pointing to many important tests. What have you done about it? You just literally said "I don't care about the evidence, I will not believe any of it until there are widespread applications". That is not how science works.

[Astargath]

So why do you think that is the case? I think it's because the hypotheses are unrepeatable, and to be frank, woo.

You mean the experiments are not repeatable? You should try one and see for yourself, this experiment I posted is about as easy as it gets.

You cannot ingest qubits. They are a conceptual idea of information, not an actual physical thing. Like the classic "bit" they are just a form of information, not a physical, tangible piece of matter that you can hold or eat.

OK, I should have made this more clear: Since the ORMEs have quantum properties and ingesting them effects the mind, this implies that the ORMEs are interacting with the qubit state of tubulin.

 Specifically, Orch OR proposes that tubulin proteins comprising microtubule cylindrical lattices function as 'bits' -- switching between alternative states (e.g. of 1 or 0), as well as quantum bits or 'qubits' (existing transiently as quantum superposition of both 1 AND 0).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXFFbxoHp3s

Which one is repeatable? You posted a bunch of personal experiences of some people that you can't even know if they are actually true or not, that's not repeatable. If telekinesis was real, for example, it would be so easy to prove, everyone would know by know it exists, you would see people do it all the time in real life, you wouldn't even need to really prove it.

The experiment I just mentioned is about ingesting ORMEs, you can try it on yourself and repeat it on a daily basis until you are convinced that there is something inside the sea salt which affects the mind.

Regarding TK, the evidence goes back to the 19th century, many eminent researchers have conducted their own tests:
https://www.quora.com/Is-telekinesis-scientifically-true/answers/17777933
Another good link mentioned in another answer to that question:
http://www.thiaoouba.com/kir.htm

Another good link : https://www.quora.com/Is-telekinesis-scientifically-true

There is no evidence, get over it, if  scientists have really been conducting successful experiments til now then we wouldn't need to believe in it or not, it would be proven and it would be used, telekinesis would have enormous applications that I have yet not seen and you neither.

You chose to ignore the evidence in the links I posted. I cannot help that.

Eminent and capable scientists have really been conducting successful experiments from the 19th century til now. I sourced my claim by pointing to many important tests. What have you done about it? You just literally said "I don't care about the evidence, I will not believe any of it until there are widespread applications". That is not how science works.

Where are the applications.

[qwik2learn]

Where are the applications.

Science is not about applications. It is about evaluating evidence and making observations. I showed you the tests, now you must evaluate the evidence and come to a conclusion. There is no logical reason to reject the wealth of evidence I have presented.

In fact I already showed some applications in this link: http://www.thiaoouba.com/kir.htm

Before arguing the point, try reading the evidence.

[Astargath]

Where are the applications.

Science is not about applications. It is about evaluating evidence and making observations. I showed you the tests, now you must evaluate the evidence and come to a conclusion. There is no logical reason to reject the wealth of evidence I have presented.

In fact I already showed some applications in this link: http://www.thiaoouba.com/kir.htm

Before arguing the point, try reading the evidence.

An obscure webpage about magic, go figure. One day you will learn the fact that magic is not real, maybe it takes you 20 years but I guarantee you, you will never see someone perform telekinesis stop being ridiculous, real scientists have stopped looking into it decades ago.

[masonnick32]

The very concept of God is something that can't be proven. And this to me it's something that is only possible in the world of fantasy.

[qwik2learn]

Where are the applications.

Science is not about applications. It is about evaluating evidence and making observations. I showed you the tests, now you must evaluate the evidence and come to a conclusion. There is no logical reason to reject the wealth of evidence I have presented.

In fact I already showed some applications in this link: http://www.thiaoouba.com/kir.htm

Before arguing the point, try reading the evidence.

An obscure webpage about magic, go figure. One day you will learn the fact that magic is not real, maybe it takes you 20 years but I guarantee you, you will never see someone perform telekinesis stop being ridiculous, real scientists have stopped looking into it decades ago.

Real scientists like Crookes have been conducting tests since the 19th century. These Russian researchers are using Kirlian photography, not magic... Why do you reject the evidence without examining it?

[Florg]

The very concept of God is something that can't be proven. And this to me it's something that is only possible in the world of fantasy.

  Exactly.  If a god does exist, it must exist outside of the universe that it created.