I can easily prove that God does not exist, but...

[T.G.G. Moogly]

.......snip.........

A non corporeal existence is possible in principle IMO. In the quantum entanglement experiments two particles are created. Change the spin on one and the other changes at a distance with the linkage I believe is yet unexplained. It points to the possibility our understanding of reality and connectedness may be very shallow. It points to an undetected layer of reality that connects at the particle level..

....snip....

Nope... Changing the spin or any of the other quantum numbers in one particle of an entangled pair will break the state of entanglement. It will have no effect on other.

The "strangeness" is in the nature of QM where the Copenhagen interpretation is that the state of a particle is in superposition until it is observed. Seperate an entangled pair and each are still in a state of superposition until one is observed which establishes the quantum states of both.

I don't understand how this would imply a non corporeal existence.

Even energy is corporeal. How would something "non corporeal" even betray its existence?

There's obviously a human attraction to woo, it just feels good to pretend that magical things are real.

 

[bilby]

.......snip.........

A non corporeal existence is possible in principle IMO. In the quantum entanglement experiments two particles are created. Change the spin on one and the other changes at a distance with the linkage I believe is yet unexplained. It points to the possibility our understanding of reality and connectedness may be very shallow. It points to an undetected layer of reality that connects at the particle level..

....snip....

Nope... Changing the spin or any of the other quantum numbers in one particle of an entangled pair will break the state of entanglement. It will have no effect on other.

The "strangeness" is in the nature of QM where the Copenhagen interpretation is that the state of a particle is in superposition until it is observed. Seperate an entangled pair and each are still in a state of superposition until one is observed which establishes the quantum states of both.

I don't understand how this would imply a non corporeal existence.

Even energy is corporeal. How would something "non corporeal" even betray its existence?

Not only can we not think of a way for this to happen, we can show that it would be a contravention of our best tested knowledge of reality.

The equations that describe the relationship between matter and energy are commutative and reversible. E=mc², which implies that m=E/c² (and that c²=E/m).

That's not just playing around with algebra - it has real world consequences, demonstrated in particle accelerators, that wherever sufficient energy exists, particles with the equivalent mass are generated. Matter and energy are interchangeable. There is no such thing as 'non corporeal' energy; the very concept is incoherent.

And that c² term is a bitch. In order to influence a human being, using hitherto unknown particles, those particles must be more massive (and hence, more energetic) than the ones we currently know. Such energies are sufficient to atomize a person who is subjected to them, so communications from the gods are either going to be instantly fatal (and we rarely see spontaneous nuclear detonation of priests, sad to tell); Or are going to hove to use well known forces and particles - in which case, we should have detected them by now.

Or, the third alternative - everything we know about physics is completely and hugely wrong. In which case, why the fuck does any of it actually work? The existence of this post and your ability to read it is a clear demonstration that our understanding of physics is not as bad as it would need to be for us to have missed this 'non corporeal' stuff, if it were non imaginary.

There's obviously a human attraction to woo, it just feels good to pretend that magical things are real.

Indeed.

 

[Learner]

Invisible but not undetectable or immeasurable. We can certainly empirically make a case for it.

You certainly can make a case for it, but like the good manner of fair discussions for some proof: "Show us something convincing" is the usual thing i.e. what is it, what is it made of ?

Also, dark matter is not a disembodied spiritual agency. It is not a ghost. It is real enough to measure and be quantified. We can't see the wind either, but it isn't therefore a creature of woo.

You can see the atoms and molecules of gases (air and wind) which is NOT in the unseen realm of "Dark matter".

Dark matter is not a belief, nor a belief in a belief, such as would be a god or a ghost. And because ghosts and gods are so alike, perhaps we should combine them and call them ghods. The big kahuna could be Ghod.

Dark matter is supposedly a different substance or its not ... or a force , what is it actually?

Like gods and ghosts, disembodies spiritual entities are only beliefs. There is nothing more to the claim than just that. I could just as easily believe I am that world's first trillionaire. Believing in a god is just believing in a belief. That probably has psychological implications, perhaps advantageous to some, but it doesn't make anything real, certainly not gods, ghosts, etc.

But are there going to be thousands of people believing you're a trillionaire, like the many millions today believed Jesus existed 2,000 years ago?


(No need to answer , just jesting)

 

[bilby]

When you look at a distant spiral galaxy (or even at our own, which is harder because you can't see the galaxy for the stars), you can add up the masses of all the stuff you can see, and work out how the spirals should look, based on that much gravity. And when you do that, you find that the galaxies don't look like they should - at the speeds that they are spinning, they should have spread out a lot more than they have.

But if you increase your mass estimate, there's a point where the galaxies are the 'right' shape, based on the gravitation due to that increased mass holding the stars closer in to the galactic centre at their observed angular velocities.

So astronomers have concluded that there must be some heavy stuff in galaxies that we cannot see. Now, we can see most of the stuff that we know of that is heavy - even stuff like dust clouds and black holes that don't glow under their own power, are visible in the radio spectrum, or due to illumination from stars. So we think we have a pretty good idea how much mass is in a galaxy, from looking at the stuff we can see; But gravitational effects indicate that the actual mass is much larger.

This hypothetical stuff we can't see is called 'dark matter'. There are a number of ideas about what it might be - from simple stuff like clouds of dust that don't emit radio waves or reflect any nearby stars; through massive (star sized) objects that somehow support their own weight without undergoing nuclear fusion*; to high energy, high mass particles that interact weakly with ordinary matter**; and even to a difference between the way relativity says things move, and the way they actually move, on galactic scales.

Nobody really knows what this 'dark matter' is, or whether it is actually matter we can't detect other than through its gravitational influence; a new force that acts only at huge scales; or an error in our understanding of gravitation, that only becomes important at huge scales.

But we do know some things about it - and one of the things we know for certain is that it has no effects that are measurable at scales as small as solar systems.

The idea that it might influence individual humans is completely crazy. Just because we don't know everything about it, does NOT mean we don't know anything about it.

The physics of the everyday - of things larger than atomic nucleii, but smaller than our solar system - is completely understood. There are no phenomena that occur in that range of scales that we cannot now predict with accuracy greater than the precision of our measuring equipment. None.

Dark matter is fascinating - but no matter what we find out about it, it cannot possibly impact individual human beings. If it influences us at all, then its influence will be identical on every particle in our entire solar system - a hypothetical god who tries to steer the fate of one human using 'dark matter' will find himself steering us all - along with our planet, the sun, and all the other matter in our solar system.

Dark matter can no more influence you but not the person next to you, than gravity can. In fact, any differential due to dark matter must be many orders of magnitude smaller than the differential effect of the Earth's gravity.

Science. Ruining everything since 1543.






*known as Massive Compact Halo Objects, or MACHOs

**known as Weakly Interacting Massive Particles, or WIMPs

Astrophysicists like to think that they are funny.

 

[skepticalbip]

Nobody really knows what this 'dark matter' is, or whether it is actually matter, a force, or an error in our understanding of gravitation.

That seems to bring us to the old god of the gaps argument so often seen, "Science can't explain everything, therefore god."

 

[Learner]

You are wrong. While dark matter (DM) does not appear to interact with electromagnetic radiation (the light spectrum),it does interact with spacetime just like regular matter and energy, in that it distorts spacetime. These distortions, including effects like gravitational lensing and motion of nearby material objects can be detected and measured, and the quantity and distribution of DM can be estimated using general relativity.

Well I remember for example ; the concept (if it still remains)the large space between the (small) physical mass of stars so wide apart in galaxies that are too far apart in regards to gravity to hold its spiral form especially when : the outer stars are spinning as fast as the centre. Hence forth introducing one of THE concepts for dark matter.

It is absurd to claim that god could exist in a DM realm, because
(1) we know very little about DM at the present time, and trying to hide god in a DM-like realm would be speculation heaped upon speculation, considering theists can't define god's properties either,
and

(2) a god existing in a DM realm would not be able to interact with regular matter and energy. Which would mean this god could not possibly have created materiel objects like planets and humans.

1. Sort of similar to my point really. I have no idea what a dark matter realm is or what it consists of ... and as you're saying ; theists can't define God's properties , I was saying the same thing of atheists .

2. Like above in (1), I wouldn't know of the possibilities in your quote but ... you do have your own "definition" ,with a particular logic with possiblities and imposibilties for God in relation to darkmatter.

 

[skepticalbip]

2. Like above in (1), I wouldn't know of the possibilities in your quote but ... you do have your own "definition" ,with a particular logic with possiblities and imposibilties for God in relation to darkmatter.

You lost me.

Are you suggesting that god should be defined as a dispersed halo mass around galaxies that only acts gravitationally?

 

[abaddon]

Bringing up dark matter is a bad analogy: "If you're willing to entertain that highly speculative thing, then why can't people do it also with this highly speculative thing?" Or IOW "You got that belief, we got this belief".

It's not the same or similar at all.

Learner's looking for the similarities between the 'atheist/science viewpoint' and the 'theist viewpoint'. But the difference is they're not both matters of belief.

The dark matter hypothesis will more completely explain the observations, or be replaced with a better.

Whereas, after a great many centuries, the 'God hypothesis' goes on and on being proposed; though more and more with lame "Why not be more openminded?" protestations against the clear fact it's failed to explain anything. It persists only because it's a heartfelt belief, as basically admitted in the argumentam ad populam crap about millions of believers being a matter of significance.

 

[bilby]

You are wrong. While dark matter (DM) does not appear to interact with electromagnetic radiation (the light spectrum),it does interact with spacetime just like regular matter and energy, in that it distorts spacetime. These distortions, including effects like gravitational lensing and motion of nearby material objects can be detected and measured, and the quantity and distribution of DM can be estimated using general relativity.

Well I remember for example ; the concept (if it still remains)the large space between the (small) physical mass of stars so wide apart in galaxies that are too far apart in regards to gravity to hold its spiral form especially when : the outer stars are spinning as fast as the centre. Hence forth introducing one of THE concepts for dark matter.

It is absurd to claim that god could exist in a DM realm, because
(1) we know very little about DM at the present time, and trying to hide god in a DM-like realm would be speculation heaped upon speculation, considering theists can't define god's properties either,
and

(2) a god existing in a DM realm would not be able to interact with regular matter and energy. Which would mean this god could not possibly have created materiel objects like planets and humans.

1. Sort of similar to my point really. I have no idea what a dark matter realm is or what it consists of ... and as you're saying ; theists can't define God's properties , I was saying the same thing of atheists .

Actually, it's nothing like you point, insofar as you are even making a coherent point.

Dark matter is defined (at this time) solely in terms of its properties. We don't know what it is, but we know what it does.

An entity with no defined properties is a nothing; a cipher; non-existent.

2. Like above in (1), I wouldn't know of the possibilities in your quote but ... you do have your own "definition" ,with a particular logic with possiblities and imposibilties for God in relation to darkmatter.

Theists define gods. There have been a huge number of such definitions, many contradictory to one another, throughout human history. Almost all of them are contradicted by modern science, as they describe entities which couldn't remain undetected by science, but which do nevertheless remain undetected. Such entities are demonstrably non-existent. The handful that are not contradicted by science are indistinguishable from non-existent - they are incapable of having any direct influence on the earth or its inhabitants in any controlled way.

For example, the deist god that set the 'laws of nature' at the beginning, and then disappeared, is possible, but pointless. Hypothesizing the existence of such a thing gives us no benefits; We cannot test the hypothesis, nor can it guide our decisions about anything. It is unworthy of worship or respect, unable to change our lives in any way, and incapable of providing for an afterlife, justice, morality, or meaning (all of which theists frequently claim are the things we need gods to do). Of course, the VAST majority of theists don't accept the existence of such a limited and pointless god; preferring instead to believe in one that is, in one or more ways, demonstrably impossible.

I can be very confident that, in the unlikely event that you were to give us a clear and unequivocal description of exactly what you mean by 'god', it would fall into at least one of three categories:

1) Impossible, as its claimed properties, abilities, or actions contradict observed reality and/or lead to logical contradictions (eg the Abrahamic god);
2) Pointless, as it has no influence on anything we can observe (eg the Deist god); or
3) Banal, as it is simply a well understood natural phenomenon onto which you are hanging the label 'god' (eg Lightning).

It is the ease with which any clear definition of god can be dismissed that leads theists to equivocate and avoid at all costs telling people exactly what they think the word 'god' actually means. They generally find it far better to say that god is 'unknowable' or 'beyond human understanding' - but if that's true, then how the FUCK could they possibly KNOW that? It's a self refuting argument.

 

[atrib]

You are wrong. While dark matter (DM) does not appear to interact with electromagnetic radiation (the light spectrum),it does interact with spacetime just like regular matter and energy, in that it distorts spacetime. These distortions, including effects like gravitational lensing and motion of nearby material objects can be detected and measured, and the quantity and distribution of DM can be estimated using general relativity.

Well I remember for example ; the concept (if it still remains)the large space between the (small) physical mass of stars so wide apart in galaxies that are too far apart in regards to gravity to hold its spiral form especially when : the outer stars are spinning as fast as the centre. Hence forth introducing one of THE concepts for dark matter.

The DM is inferred in the example you seem to be referring to; we can't see the DM because it does not interact with light, but its presence and distribution can be inferred from the motion of individual massive bodies and the galaxies they belong to. The galaxies are held together as a single somewhat cohesive unit by the gravitational influence of the DM. This is very similar to the way scientists have inferred the presence of a supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy. We can't see the black hole because light cannot escape from its gravitational field, but the motion of the stars closest to the black hole can be observed and recorded over extended periods of time, and the observed trajectories can then be used to estimate the size and diameter of the object using general relativity.

It is absurd to claim that god could exist in a DM realm, because
(1) we know very little about DM at the present time, and trying to hide god in a DM-like realm would be speculation heaped upon speculation, considering theists can't define god's properties either,
and

(2) a god existing in a DM realm would not be able to interact with regular matter and energy. Which would mean this god could not possibly have created materiel objects like planets and humans.

1. Sort of similar to my point really. I have no idea what a dark matter realm is or what it consists of ... and as you're saying ; theists can't define God's properties , I was saying the same thing of atheists .

2. Like above in (1), I wouldn't know of the possibilities in your quote but ... you do have your own "definition" ,with a particular logic with possiblities and imposibilties for God in relation to darkmatter.

1. Right. Nobody can define god's properties using the parameters we typically use to quantify matter/energy and objects that exist in the universe.

2. Since I am an atheist and don't believe that gods exist, I don't have a definition for god. I rely on my theist colleagues to define what their god is since it is they who believe in gods. However, if somebody defined god as an entity composed of DM, it would seem logical to believe that this god could not interact with humans in any meaningful way, based on what we do know about the properties of DM today.

Also, I am not saying this to put you down, but your statements are poorly/carelessly worded and are not up to the task of communicating your ideas effectively. I suggest taking a little more time to work on your posts so they are clear and legible, as it is hard to talk to people if you can't understand what they are saying.

 

[Learner]

You lost me.

Are you suggesting that god should be defined as a dispersed halo mass around galaxies that only acts gravitationally?

Not sure what made you think I could be suggesting the above.

 

[bilby]

Also, I am not saying this to put you down, but your statements are poorly/carelessly worded and are not up to the task of communicating your ideas effectively. I suggest taking a little more time to work on your posts so they are clear and legible, as it is hard to talk to people if you can't understand what they are saying.

You lost me.

Are you suggesting that god should be defined as a dispersed halo mass around galaxies that only acts gravitationally?

Not sure what made you think I could be suggesting the above.

The lack of clarity is not a bug; It's a feature.

Theists cannot clearly define their gods, for to do so would render them rapidly and comprehensively unbelievable. Most theists learn about god from other theists, who themselves never clearly define what they are discussing. Theists who genuinely believe, do so because they have been careful not to examine the concept too closely, and instead hide behind hand-waving, generalities, and nonsensical claims such as 'mystery' and 'ineffability' (which if true, would constitute an admission that gods are nothing more than an emotional state of believers).

Any serious attempt to eff the ineffable leads to atheism.

If you cannot and/or do not define what god actually IS, then nobody can ever show that your definition is a stinking pile of bullshit.

 

[Learner]

Bringing up dark matter is a bad analogy: "If you're willing to entertain that highly speculative thing, then why can't people do it also with this highly speculative thing?" Or IOW "You got that belief, we got this belief".

It's not the same or similar at all.

Invisible but believed to be there but of course not the same thing , imo , one is the Creator and the other is the creation in a manner of speaking.

Learner's looking for the similarities between the 'atheist/science viewpoint' and the 'theist viewpoint'. But the difference is they're not both matters of belief.

.

Of course I'd be looking for certain similarities, if there was something I thought to highlight not to win debating points.

The dark matter hypothesis will more completely explain the observations, or be replaced with a better

No argument there.

Whereas, after a great many centuries, the 'God hypothesis' goes on and on being proposed; though more and more with lame "Why not be more openminded?" protestations against the clear fact it's failed to explain anything. It persists only because it's a heartfelt belief, as basically admitted in the argumentam ad populam crap about millions of believers being a matter of significance.

Yes there are a lot of believers although not all become Christian in the same way. I haven't heard any voices or seen any angels myself but I'm a believer (too much to post now but a lot of various elements as well as researching, ironically... especially to argue against the biblical God).

 

[Learner]

Not sure what made you think I could be suggesting the above.

The lack of clarity is not a bug; It's a feature.

Theists cannot clearly define their gods, for to do so would render them rapidly and comprehensively unbelievable. Most theists learn about god from other theists, who themselves never clearly define what they are discussing. Theists who genuinely believe, do so because they have been careful not to examine the concept too closely, and instead hide behind hand-waving, generalities, and nonsensical claims such as 'mystery' and 'ineffability' (which if true, would constitute an admission that gods are nothing more than an emotional state of believers).

Any serious attempt to eff the ineffable leads to atheism.

If you cannot and/or do not define what god actually IS, then nobody can ever show that your definition is a stinking pile of bullshit.

We can define God simply as THE Creator of life *which should be sufficient for most discussion regarding the bible but one or two possibly somewhere want much more than that, in a somewhat Dawkins-like manner to be successful.


(its a jest and Im tired now)

 

[bilby]

Not sure what made you think I could be suggesting the above.

The lack of clarity is not a bug; It's a feature.

Theists cannot clearly define their gods, for to do so would render them rapidly and comprehensively unbelievable. Most theists learn about god from other theists, who themselves never clearly define what they are discussing. Theists who genuinely believe, do so because they have been careful not to examine the concept too closely, and instead hide behind hand-waving, generalities, and nonsensical claims such as 'mystery' and 'ineffability' (which if true, would constitute an admission that gods are nothing more than an emotional state of believers).

Any serious attempt to eff the ineffable leads to atheism.

If you cannot and/or do not define what god actually IS, then nobody can ever show that your definition is a stinking pile of bullshit.

We can define God simply as THE Creator of life *which should be sufficient for most discussion regarding the bible but one or two possibly somewhere want much more than that, in a somewhat Dawkins-like manner to be successful.


(its a jest and Im tired now)

That's lovely. Now, all we need is a clear definition of what you actually mean by 'life'

Seriously, 'life' is one of those things that people just assume they know the meaning of, but which is remarkably poorly defined in the edge cases. Doctors have real problems determining when a patient is or is not alive. Biologists don't agree on what is or is not 'life' either. There is a spectrum of complexity of chemical reactions, somewhere on which we may arbitrarily draw a line and say "everything more complex is 'life'". But at the end of the day, there's no good reason to draw that line in any particular location. 'Life' simply isn't particularly 'special', and it certainly isn't easy to tell the difference between complex non-living chemistry and 'life'. Are prions 'life'? Are viruses? Are bacteria? According to the Bible, anything that doesn't breathe air is not alive, which will come as something of a surprise to Marine Biologists.

Expecting the 'creation of life' to require a god is rather like looking at a rainbow and saying 'Blue and green are just natural colours, but reds and oranges probably need a creator' - and then trying to determine exactly which shade of yellow is the point where special creation is required. Everyone can see that Red is nothing much like Blue. But that doesn't mean that either is 'special', or that there is a step transition between the two, with reds on one side, and blues on the other. 'Life' is nothing much like 'non-life' - but there's no step transition between the two that requires a god (or anything particularly significant or unusual) in order to make that step.

Defining 'god' simply as 'that which caused life to begin' gives us a category 3 god - Banal, as it is simply a well understood natural phenomenon onto which you are hanging the label 'god'

It also requires that god itself is not an example of 'life' - which further confuses the question of exactly what 'life' is. If god is alive, then clearly it couldn't create life, because god needed to be there before life was, in order to create life. If god is not alive, then (presumably complex) tasks such as creating life must be possible for non-living things, which contradicts most of the accepted definitions of 'life' or 'living'.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

We can define God simply as THE Creator of life *which should be sufficient for most discussion regarding the bible but one or two possibly somewhere want much more than that, in a somewhat Dawkins-like manner to be successful.

The moon goes through phases because it is in the nature of the moon to go through phases. That is how some people used to explain the phases of the moon.

Saying a god is the creator of life is like saying the moon is something that goes through phases. But there really is a physical moon that we can see, measure, observe, quantify, etc. A god isn't even that. So saying a god is the creator of life isn't saying anything about the god.

 

[Lion IRC]

Not sure what made you think I could be suggesting the above.

The lack of clarity is not a bug; It's a feature.

Theists cannot clearly define their gods, for to do so would render them rapidly and comprehensively unbelievable. Most theists learn about god from other theists, who themselves never clearly define what they are discussing. Theists who genuinely believe, do so because they have been careful not to examine the concept too closely, and instead hide behind hand-waving, generalities, and nonsensical claims such as 'mystery' and 'ineffability' (which if true, would constitute an admission that gods are nothing more than an emotional state of believers).

Any serious attempt to eff the ineffable leads to atheism.

If you cannot and/or do not define what god actually IS, then nobody can ever show that your definition is a stinking pile of bullshit.

We can define God simply as THE Creator of life *which should be sufficient for most discussion regarding the bible but one or two possibly somewhere want much more than that, in a somewhat Dawkins-like manner to be successful.


(its a jest and Im tired now)

I get tired too.
Tired of atheists who are adamant that something doesn't exist - they just can't say what it is they don't believe in.

 

[bilby]

We can define God simply as THE Creator of life *which should be sufficient for most discussion regarding the bible but one or two possibly somewhere want much more than that, in a somewhat Dawkins-like manner to be successful.


(its a jest and Im tired now)

I get tired too.
Tired of atheists who are adamant that something doesn't exist - they just can't say what it is they don't believe in.

Not one of the millions of contradictory things that people have described with the word 'god' both exists, and is worthy of the name.

Define it however you like; ALL clear and unequivocal god definitions I have ever encountered fall into at least one of my three categories.

If you seriously think that yours doesn't, then feel free to either present it for testing, or to be revealed as yet another boring troll who is all mouth, and no substance.

I can be very confident that, in the unlikely event that you were to give us a clear and unequivocal description of exactly what you mean by 'god', it would fall into at least one of three categories:

1) Impossible, as its claimed properties, abilities, or actions contradict observed reality and/or lead to logical contradictions (eg the Abrahamic god);
2) Pointless, as it has no influence on anything we can observe (eg the Deist god); or
3) Banal, as it is simply a well understood natural phenomenon onto which you are hanging the label 'god' (eg Lightning).

It is the ease with which any clear definition of god can be dismissed that leads theists to equivocate and avoid at all costs telling people exactly what they think the word 'god' actually means. They generally find it far better to say that god is 'unknowable' or 'beyond human understanding' - but if that's true, then how the FUCK could they possibly KNOW that? It's a self refuting argument.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

We can define God simply as THE Creator of life *which should be sufficient for most discussion regarding the bible but one or two possibly somewhere want much more than that, in a somewhat Dawkins-like manner to be successful.


(its a jest and Im tired now)

I get tired too.
Tired of atheists who are adamant that something doesn't exist - they just can't say what it is they don't believe in.

Strawman! There are lots of definitions for God. None work. But most atheists are arguing about the omni-everything creator gods of the usual suspect religions who define God as omni-everything creator gods. Yes, there are variations upon that God. Some theologians think God is outside of time, some deny this. Some think the simplicity of God is not coherent as a doctrine. It matters not to the critical atheist. These controversies among the theologians simply highlights how hopeless defining God based on evidence is as exercise.

 

[atrib]

We can define God simply as THE Creator of life *which should be sufficient for most discussion regarding the bible but one or two possibly somewhere want much more than that, in a somewhat Dawkins-like manner to be successful.


(its a jest and Im tired now)

I get tired too.
Tired of atheists who are adamant that something doesn't exist - they just can't say what it is they don't believe in.

This is untrue, like many of the other things you say. I can explicitly tell you what I don't believe in. I don't believe that the supernatural skycreature described in the Bible exists, assuming that is the god you are talking about. And I don't believe it exists because nobody has been able to show me evidence of its existence, and the description of this creature is not compatible with our reality that is the universe.

Instead of playing the "god is mysterious and lets hide god in this secret place for now and you guess what and where my god is" game, why the fuck don't you tell us what your god is, what its properties are, and how I can go about verifying its existence? After all, you are the one who believes in this creature. You won't do that because everything you know about your god would fit on the head of a pin, with room left over.