I think we can make the positive claim that nothing like 'gods' exist

[bilby]

I am bored. Cranks entertain me with more nonsense.

There's probably more than you want, and quite possibly an inexhaustible supply, right here.

 

[Kylie]

I think those categories are so vague and ill defined that they could cover anything.

They cover literally all the gods that people worship and build religions around.

It is ok if you cannot think of other classes of gods.

And in order to cover all of that in so few categories, they become incredibly vague.

It would be like if I was to categorize the items in my house as "Disposable" and "Permanent." Things that I use and then replace (toothbrush, soap, food, etc) would be in the "disposable" category. Things that I keep (bed, television, oven) are "permanent."

But if I tell you that a particular item is in the "permanent" category, it doesn't actually give you much more information about it than you had before. More specific categories like "Electronics," or "seating," or "storage" are far more useful because they are not so vague.

 

[Jarhyn]

I think those categories are so vague and ill defined that they could cover anything.

They cover literally all the gods that people worship and build religions around.

It is ok if you cannot think of other classes of gods.

And in order to cover all of that in so few categories, they become incredibly vague.

It would be like if I was to categorize the items in my house as "Disposable" and "Permanent." Things that I use and then replace (toothbrush, soap, food, etc) would be in the "disposable" category. Things that I keep (bed, television, oven) are "permanent."

But if I tell you that a particular item is in the "permanent" category, it doesn't actually give you much more information about it than you had before. More specific categories like "Electronics," or "seating," or "storage" are far more useful because they are not so vague.

Exactly right.

That's why I use such specifics as "god: creator and administrator of a simulation instance."

At that point, I have a very specific definition which has an immediately observable analog.

I can start making statements about such a thing, and those statements will have truth value.

"There are zero or more" ('zero' from observed lack of evidence; 'or more' from Godel's Incompleteness Theorem)

"They are under no obligation to be benevolent." (Proof by assuming and disproving inverse: I created a simulation instance and administrate it, and I AM AN ASSHOLE!)

"They do not have any impact on the derived rules of ethics from simulation mechanics"
(The game theory of existing as a denizen in a simulation has nothing to do with where the simulation came from; 'there is only the text')

So while I can't get to "zero" I CAN get to "why should I care?"

 

[Kylie]

I think those categories are so vague and ill defined that they could cover anything.

They cover literally all the gods that people worship and build religions around.

It is ok if you cannot think of other classes of gods.

And in order to cover all of that in so few categories, they become incredibly vague.

It would be like if I was to categorize the items in my house as "Disposable" and "Permanent." Things that I use and then replace (toothbrush, soap, food, etc) would be in the "disposable" category. Things that I keep (bed, television, oven) are "permanent."

But if I tell you that a particular item is in the "permanent" category, it doesn't actually give you much more information about it than you had before. More specific categories like "Electronics," or "seating," or "storage" are far more useful because they are not so vague.

Exactly right.

That's why I use such specifics as "god: creator and administrator of a simulation instance."

At that point, I have a very specific definition which has an immediately observable analog.

I can start making statements about such a thing, and those statements will have truth value.

"There are zero or more" ('zero' from observed lack of evidence; 'or more' from Godel's Incompleteness Theorem)

"They are under no obligation to be benevolent." (Proof by assuming and disproving inverse: I created a simulation instance and administrate it, and I AM AN ASSHOLE!)

"They do not have any impact on the derived rules of ethics from simulation mechanics"
(The game theory of existing as a denizen in a simulation has nothing to do with where the simulation came from; 'there is only the text')

So while I can't get to "zero" I CAN get to "why should I care?"

I don't know what added meaning comes from the word "instance" at the end there. Also, what does it mean to be the "administrator" in this context? Does the universe require God to do paperwork? It seems to me that the only useful information I can get about God from this definition is that a God is that which created the universe, but that doesn't even tell me if that creative force is self-aware or not.

 

[Jarhyn]

I think those categories are so vague and ill defined that they could cover anything.

They cover literally all the gods that people worship and build religions around.

It is ok if you cannot think of other classes of gods.

And in order to cover all of that in so few categories, they become incredibly vague.

It would be like if I was to categorize the items in my house as "Disposable" and "Permanent." Things that I use and then replace (toothbrush, soap, food, etc) would be in the "disposable" category. Things that I keep (bed, television, oven) are "permanent."

But if I tell you that a particular item is in the "permanent" category, it doesn't actually give you much more information about it than you had before. More specific categories like "Electronics," or "seating," or "storage" are far more useful because they are not so vague.

Exactly right.

That's why I use such specifics as "god: creator and administrator of a simulation instance."

At that point, I have a very specific definition which has an immediately observable analog.

I can start making statements about such a thing, and those statements will have truth value.

"There are zero or more" ('zero' from observed lack of evidence; 'or more' from Godel's Incompleteness Theorem)

"They are under no obligation to be benevolent." (Proof by assuming and disproving inverse: I created a simulation instance and administrate it, and I AM AN ASSHOLE!)

"They do not have any impact on the derived rules of ethics from simulation mechanics"
(The game theory of existing as a denizen in a simulation has nothing to do with where the simulation came from; 'there is only the text')

So while I can't get to "zero" I CAN get to "why should I care?"

I don't know what added meaning comes from the word "instance" at the end there. Also, what does it mean to be the "administrator" in this context? Does the universe require God to do paperwork? It seems to me that the only useful information I can get about God from this definition is that a God is that which created the universe, but that doesn't even tell me if that creative force is self-aware or not.

An instance rather than a framework. I didn't invent the machine, I just turned it on, spin it up, generated an instance.

I administrate it insofar as there's a channel in which I can specify work I want the system to do within the system's state structure, and eventually something inside the simulation decides to do that thing. And while it's all in an interface, to be honest it IS a lot of paperwork. And if I don't do that work, at least at the beginning, they all starve to death because while they can handle their own day to day lives, decisions about what to build where and why are simply beyond their capabilities. The only reason the whole world doesn't starve is that, assuming I'm not there forcing the system out of an abstract state, the site unloads and goes to calculate events in abstract, so things like exact time and place are unimportant.

There is no intent to deliver that "there must be", however, as regards to "gods". This is more a statement that specifically is targeted at claims that such a thing must be a perfect moral agent; such claims are rendered necessarily false by this observable.

 

[Kylie]

I think those categories are so vague and ill defined that they could cover anything.

They cover literally all the gods that people worship and build religions around.

It is ok if you cannot think of other classes of gods.

And in order to cover all of that in so few categories, they become incredibly vague.

It would be like if I was to categorize the items in my house as "Disposable" and "Permanent." Things that I use and then replace (toothbrush, soap, food, etc) would be in the "disposable" category. Things that I keep (bed, television, oven) are "permanent."

But if I tell you that a particular item is in the "permanent" category, it doesn't actually give you much more information about it than you had before. More specific categories like "Electronics," or "seating," or "storage" are far more useful because they are not so vague.

Exactly right.

That's why I use such specifics as "god: creator and administrator of a simulation instance."

At that point, I have a very specific definition which has an immediately observable analog.

I can start making statements about such a thing, and those statements will have truth value.

"There are zero or more" ('zero' from observed lack of evidence; 'or more' from Godel's Incompleteness Theorem)

"They are under no obligation to be benevolent." (Proof by assuming and disproving inverse: I created a simulation instance and administrate it, and I AM AN ASSHOLE!)

"They do not have any impact on the derived rules of ethics from simulation mechanics"
(The game theory of existing as a denizen in a simulation has nothing to do with where the simulation came from; 'there is only the text')

So while I can't get to "zero" I CAN get to "why should I care?"

I don't know what added meaning comes from the word "instance" at the end there. Also, what does it mean to be the "administrator" in this context? Does the universe require God to do paperwork? It seems to me that the only useful information I can get about God from this definition is that a God is that which created the universe, but that doesn't even tell me if that creative force is self-aware or not.

An instance rather than a framework. I didn't invent the machine, I just turned it on, spin it up, generated an instance.

I administrate it insofar as there's a channel in which I can specify work I want the system to do within the system's state structure, and eventually something inside the simulation decides to do that thing. And while it's all in an interface, to be honest it IS a lot of paperwork. And if I don't do that work, at least at the beginning, they all starve to death because while they can handle their own day to day lives, decisions about what to build where and why are simply beyond their capabilities. The only reason the whole world doesn't starve is that, assuming I'm not there forcing the system out of an abstract state, the site unloads and goes to calculate events in abstract, so things like exact time and place are unimportant.

There is no intent to deliver that "there must be", however, as regards to "gods". This is more a statement that specifically is targeted at claims that such a thing must be a perfect moral agent; such claims are rendered necessarily false by this observable.

If you didn't invent the machine, then already there's a big difference. God is supposed to have created everything. If God didn't invent his equivalent of the machine, then who did? And if God did invent it, why didn't he invent one that doesn't need to be administrated?

 

[Jarhyn]

I think those categories are so vague and ill defined that they could cover anything.

They cover literally all the gods that people worship and build religions around.

It is ok if you cannot think of other classes of gods.

And in order to cover all of that in so few categories, they become incredibly vague.

It would be like if I was to categorize the items in my house as "Disposable" and "Permanent." Things that I use and then replace (toothbrush, soap, food, etc) would be in the "disposable" category. Things that I keep (bed, television, oven) are "permanent."

But if I tell you that a particular item is in the "permanent" category, it doesn't actually give you much more information about it than you had before. More specific categories like "Electronics," or "seating," or "storage" are far more useful because they are not so vague.

Exactly right.

That's why I use such specifics as "god: creator and administrator of a simulation instance."

At that point, I have a very specific definition which has an immediately observable analog.

I can start making statements about such a thing, and those statements will have truth value.

"There are zero or more" ('zero' from observed lack of evidence; 'or more' from Godel's Incompleteness Theorem)

"They are under no obligation to be benevolent." (Proof by assuming and disproving inverse: I created a simulation instance and administrate it, and I AM AN ASSHOLE!)

"They do not have any impact on the derived rules of ethics from simulation mechanics"
(The game theory of existing as a denizen in a simulation has nothing to do with where the simulation came from; 'there is only the text')

So while I can't get to "zero" I CAN get to "why should I care?"

I don't know what added meaning comes from the word "instance" at the end there. Also, what does it mean to be the "administrator" in this context? Does the universe require God to do paperwork? It seems to me that the only useful information I can get about God from this definition is that a God is that which created the universe, but that doesn't even tell me if that creative force is self-aware or not.

An instance rather than a framework. I didn't invent the machine, I just turned it on, spin it up, generated an instance.

I administrate it insofar as there's a channel in which I can specify work I want the system to do within the system's state structure, and eventually something inside the simulation decides to do that thing. And while it's all in an interface, to be honest it IS a lot of paperwork. And if I don't do that work, at least at the beginning, they all starve to death because while they can handle their own day to day lives, decisions about what to build where and why are simply beyond their capabilities. The only reason the whole world doesn't starve is that, assuming I'm not there forcing the system out of an abstract state, the site unloads and goes to calculate events in abstract, so things like exact time and place are unimportant.

There is no intent to deliver that "there must be", however, as regards to "gods". This is more a statement that specifically is targeted at claims that such a thing must be a perfect moral agent; such claims are rendered necessarily false by this observable.

If you didn't invent the machine, then already there's a big difference. God is supposed to have created everything. If God didn't invent his equivalent of the machine, then who did? And if God did invent it, why didn't he invent one that doesn't need to be administrated?

Ok, so, my proposition is that NO idea of god is coherent outside of simulation/host mechanics: IF one believes that there is a god THEN they believe the universe is a simulation.

Who invented the simulation model, and wrote the words of creation?

Well for the simulation I am this thing in relation to, it was written by Tarn Adams.

The need for an administrator is twofold.

Firstly, it is because complex problem solving is simply not possible for the denizens of the universe and while the settlements that are generated outside of "an active site" are functional owing to the fact their operation is abstracted while not directly active, they wouldn't be functional as active sites themselves.

So while those sites don't need to be functionally designed, the active site does, and that requires an administrator capable of thinking on their feet.

We don't necessarily need that seeing as this universe allows denizens with the ability to do complex problem solving!

Second, it needs an administrator because otherwise it wouldn't be a very fun game and the whole thing is a toy.

It's interesting because most of the "powers of god" I reference are user modifications. In the original unmodified version, the creator of this universe only has the power to make decisions via maybe 2-3 dwarves' unconscious minds, perhaps only a single Dwarf, and that Dwarf doesn't even know it's happening. Oh, and he can lock/unlock doors.

This utterly ridiculous game of "I tell one dwarf what to want and then other dwarves want to do what this dwarf wants, so they pick up jobs when they want to do work, and the work they do is really the work I asked for" was the whole point here, and it didn't have to be more than that for the simulation to be born.

 

[Kylie]

I think those categories are so vague and ill defined that they could cover anything.

They cover literally all the gods that people worship and build religions around.

It is ok if you cannot think of other classes of gods.

And in order to cover all of that in so few categories, they become incredibly vague.

It would be like if I was to categorize the items in my house as "Disposable" and "Permanent." Things that I use and then replace (toothbrush, soap, food, etc) would be in the "disposable" category. Things that I keep (bed, television, oven) are "permanent."

But if I tell you that a particular item is in the "permanent" category, it doesn't actually give you much more information about it than you had before. More specific categories like "Electronics," or "seating," or "storage" are far more useful because they are not so vague.

Exactly right.

That's why I use such specifics as "god: creator and administrator of a simulation instance."

At that point, I have a very specific definition which has an immediately observable analog.

I can start making statements about such a thing, and those statements will have truth value.

"There are zero or more" ('zero' from observed lack of evidence; 'or more' from Godel's Incompleteness Theorem)

"They are under no obligation to be benevolent." (Proof by assuming and disproving inverse: I created a simulation instance and administrate it, and I AM AN ASSHOLE!)

"They do not have any impact on the derived rules of ethics from simulation mechanics"
(The game theory of existing as a denizen in a simulation has nothing to do with where the simulation came from; 'there is only the text')

So while I can't get to "zero" I CAN get to "why should I care?"

I don't know what added meaning comes from the word "instance" at the end there. Also, what does it mean to be the "administrator" in this context? Does the universe require God to do paperwork? It seems to me that the only useful information I can get about God from this definition is that a God is that which created the universe, but that doesn't even tell me if that creative force is self-aware or not.

An instance rather than a framework. I didn't invent the machine, I just turned it on, spin it up, generated an instance.

I administrate it insofar as there's a channel in which I can specify work I want the system to do within the system's state structure, and eventually something inside the simulation decides to do that thing. And while it's all in an interface, to be honest it IS a lot of paperwork. And if I don't do that work, at least at the beginning, they all starve to death because while they can handle their own day to day lives, decisions about what to build where and why are simply beyond their capabilities. The only reason the whole world doesn't starve is that, assuming I'm not there forcing the system out of an abstract state, the site unloads and goes to calculate events in abstract, so things like exact time and place are unimportant.

There is no intent to deliver that "there must be", however, as regards to "gods". This is more a statement that specifically is targeted at claims that such a thing must be a perfect moral agent; such claims are rendered necessarily false by this observable.

If you didn't invent the machine, then already there's a big difference. God is supposed to have created everything. If God didn't invent his equivalent of the machine, then who did? And if God did invent it, why didn't he invent one that doesn't need to be administrated?

Ok, so, my proposition is that NO idea of god is coherent outside of simulation/host mechanics: IF one believes that there is a god THEN they believe the universe is a simulation.

Who invented the simulation model, and wrote the words of creation?

Well for the simulation I am this thing in relation to, it was written by Tarn Adams.

The need for an administrator is twofold.

Firstly, it is because complex problem solving is simply not possible for the denizens of the universe and while the settlements that are generated outside of "an active site" are functional owing to the fact their operation is abstracted while not directly active, they wouldn't be functional as active sites themselves.

So while those sites don't need to be functionally designed, the active site does, and that requires an administrator capable of thinking on their feet.

We don't necessarily need that seeing as this universe allows denizens with the ability to do complex problem solving!

Second, it needs an administrator because otherwise it wouldn't be a very fun game and the whole thing is a toy.

It's interesting because most of the "powers of god" I reference are user modifications. In the original unmodified version, the creator of this universe only has the power to make decisions via maybe 2-3 dwarves' unconscious minds, perhaps only a single Dwarf, and that Dwarf doesn't even know it's happening. Oh, and he can lock/unlock doors.

This utterly ridiculous game of "I tell one dwarf what to want and then other dwarves want to do what this dwarf wants, so they pick up jobs when they want to do work, and the work they do is really the work I asked for" was the whole point here, and it didn't have to be more than that for the simulation to be born.

Why does it need to be a simulation?

If I invent a car, does that mean the car is a simulation?

 

[AdamWho]

I think those categories are so vague and ill defined that they could cover anything.

They cover literally all the gods that people worship and build religions around.

It is ok if you cannot think of other classes of gods.

And in order to cover all of that in so few categories, they become incredibly vague.

It would be like if I was to categorize the items in my house as "Disposable" and "Permanent." Things that I use and then replace (toothbrush, soap, food, etc) would be in the "disposable" category. Things that I keep (bed, television, oven) are "permanent."

But if I tell you that a particular item is in the "permanent" category, it doesn't actually give you much more information about it than you had before. More specific categories like "Electronics," or "seating," or "storage" are far more useful because they are not so vague.

You comment doesn't seem to have anything to do with the subject at hand.

 

[Kylie]

I think those categories are so vague and ill defined that they could cover anything.

They cover literally all the gods that people worship and build religions around.

It is ok if you cannot think of other classes of gods.

And in order to cover all of that in so few categories, they become incredibly vague.

It would be like if I was to categorize the items in my house as "Disposable" and "Permanent." Things that I use and then replace (toothbrush, soap, food, etc) would be in the "disposable" category. Things that I keep (bed, television, oven) are "permanent."

But if I tell you that a particular item is in the "permanent" category, it doesn't actually give you much more information about it than you had before. More specific categories like "Electronics," or "seating," or "storage" are far more useful because they are not so vague.

You comment doesn't seem to have anything to do with the subject at hand.

How so? I'm pointing out that the categories for gods you are proposing are very vague, and thus of little use. They tell us virtually nothing about what they contain.

 

[AdamWho]

You comment doesn't seem to have anything to do with the subject at hand.

How so? I'm pointing out that the categories for gods you are proposing are very vague, and thus of little use. They tell us virtually nothing about what they contain.

You haven't offered anything new.

The categories for gods that don't exist

1. incoherently defined or have contradictory characteristics (Abrahamic gods)

2. Gods which are just a redefinition of words. (God is love/nature/cosmos)

3. Gods which indistinguishable from non-existence (deistic gods)

Can you think of another category of god which doesn't exist?

 

[Jarhyn]

The point that I think a lot of us are making metaphysically: there are gods that cannot possibly exist, and so absolutely do not, and so are automatically discounted... But...

Then, there are gods that may exist but probably don't. These may be discounted on account of their lack of apparent usefulness or observability.

Then there are the things which have been called "gods" in the past and are more "large scale systems not subject to death which operate by dominant principles of large scale human activity".

Then there are things which are more explicit groupings of people to common goals which while not traditionally thought of as gods are much like the above category.

Then you have the large pantheon of Neurological Phenomena that exist parallel to our experience in our own minds, because they are merely other regions of our own vast neurological landscape within our own brains, which many people have also called "gods" and "angels" and "demons" and all sorts of other things they have been called besides.

 

[steve_bank]

The point that I think a lot of us are making metaphysically: there are gods that cannot possibly exist, and so absolutely do not, and so are automatically discounted... But...

But...that is the flip side of the Christian teleological argument. Something like the universe can not possibly exist without a god therefore god exists.

The argument that a god can not exist therfore a god does not exist is no more provable than the Chrtian argument.

 

[Jarhyn]

The point that I think a lot of us are making metaphysically: there are gods that cannot possibly exist, and so absolutely do not, and so are automatically discounted... But...

But...that is the flip side of the Christian teleological argument. Something like the universe can not possibly exist without a god therefore god exists.

The argument that a god can not exist therfore a god does not exist is no more provable than the Chrtian argument.

I don't make Christian teleological arguments, though, so that thankfully I don't have to worry about that.

We can easily prove certain kinds of gods cannot possibly exist, and the problem of evil is an exercise thusly, on account of rejecting contradictions in metaphysics.

We can't prove that we aren't in a simulation, but we can prove that certain things are nonsense and impossible, like omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient gods with infinite intelligence and no limits on their capabilities, on account of the fact that we still have an "evil problem".

We can clearly reject some things as "not consistent with reality".

 

[steve_bank]

I declare god can not possibly exist therefore god does not exist.(Jaryn)

I declare god must exist therefore god exists.(Christian)


In terms of logic and proof six of one half a dozen the other. Same old same old. Flip sides of the same coin. The pot calling he skillet balck.

 

[Jarhyn]

I declare god can not possibly exist therefore god does not exist.(Jaryn)

I declare god must exist therefore god exists.(Christian)


In terms of logic and proof six of one half a dozen the other. Same old same old. Flip sides of the same coin. The pot calling he skillet balck.

I declare particular described forms meeting particular definitions of god impossible under the definition of "this thing is a description of pure nonsense".

The problem of evil has its way with such entities.

It also tends to be the way with beings with minds but no material by which they may exist to operate and cogitate upon.

 

[steve_bank]

I declare god can not possibly exist therefore god does not exist.(Jaryn)

I declare god must exist therefore god exists.(Christian)


In terms of logic and proof six of one half a dozen the other. Same old same old. Flip sides of the same coin. The pot calling he skillet balck.

I declare particular described forms meeting particular definitions of god impossible under the definition of "this thing is a description of pure nonsense".

The problem of evil has its way with such entities.

It also tends to be the way with beings with minds but no material by which they may exist to operate and cogitate upon.

In a convoluted way using pseudo-philosophy I declare god can not exist. (Jaryn)

In a convoluted way using theology and pseudoscience I declare god must exist. (Christian)


In a complex theology like the RCC one gets lost in the metaphysics of the theology which tries to mask a basic fact, god is not provable. Complex reasoning gives the appearance of validity.

For me philosophy can do the same thing. Hide inside convoluted terms.


I still not have seen any science cited that precludes the existence of a god or super being.

 

[Jarhyn]

I declare god can not possibly exist therefore god does not exist.(Jaryn)

I declare god must exist therefore god exists.(Christian)


In terms of logic and proof six of one half a dozen the other. Same old same old. Flip sides of the same coin. The pot calling he skillet balck.

I declare particular described forms meeting particular definitions of god impossible under the definition of "this thing is a description of pure nonsense".

The problem of evil has its way with such entities.

It also tends to be the way with beings with minds but no material by which they may exist to operate and cogitate upon.

In a convoluted way using pseudo-philosophy I declare god can not exist. (Jaryn)

In a convoluted way using theology and pseudoscience I declare god must exist. (Christian)


In a complex theology like the RCC one gets lost in the metaphysics of the theology which tries to mask a basic fact, god is not provable. Complex reasoning gives the appearance of validity.

For me philosophy can do the same thing. Hide inside convoluted terms.


I still not have seen any science cited that precludes the existence of a god or super being.

There's nothing convoluted about declaring that a white hole cannot exist inside the center of the earth, waiting lurking. Such is not consistent with the laws of physics.

No god in their definition lacks the will or process to create this universe is the god of this universe; such would be a contradiction.

It is simply not possible given the laws of physics for the former to happen, and it's a logical contradiction in the latter.

Those sorts of things can already be ruled out.

The problem of evil fundamentally rules out any omnibenevolent entity.

Likewise there are all sorts of other things that just can't exist, like invisible pink unicorns made of matter and conjoined particles of our own reality, also on account of invisibility and pinkness not being capable of existing in the same frame at all.

We can likewise eliminate every such nonsensical proposition.

We can discount nonsense, I think, from any definition which we propose "may" exist. It's one of the very important points a number of posters have made in this thread about gods not possibly existing, and is part of why I assume it contains a positive claim. I see it as just a step too far in the use of "like" and the failure to call out a specific thing that does not exist.

"Like" in the language considers gods that almost certainly don't exist, but for which this nonexistence is not necessary in the same breath as those gods which cannot exist owing to nonsense.

Again, it goes back to the difference between "absurd" and "nonsense".

 

[AdamWho]

I still not have seen any science cited that precludes the existence of a god or super being.

Why do you keep asking for something which was never claimed?

Try answer this:

Do you think the sentence "Things which have mutually exclusive contradictory properties cannot exist" is a scientific sentence?

Do you believe that "Things which have mutually exclusive contradictory properties cannot exist" is True?

 

[steve_bank]

There's nothing convoluted about declaring that a white hole cannot exist inside the center of the earth, waiting lurking. Such is not consistent with the laws of physics.

More philosophizing and evasion. False equivalency.

What science precludes the existence of Yahweh or any god?

Without objective science to call on logic alone can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a god.

From the OP.

Sean Carrol notes "The laws of physics for everyday life are completely understood". This statement is while shocking is not controversial to people who understand physics. And there simply is no room within the gaps of our knowledge for any god-like thing to exist.

Another logical atrgument based on an assumption not provable. The statement is patently false.

p1 All science is known
P2 Al known secience precludes gods
C Therefore gods do not exist.

The last 200 years in physics clearly says we can never know if we know everything. There is no possible reference point for us to know if we know everything.

To say we know all possible science is to imbue science and us humans with god like powers.

Same kind of a respnse I give to theists. Specically what scintic theory precludes existence of any god?

The short answer is none. Science can not and does not address any religious beliefs. Science can be used to refute specific religious claims like Young Earth Creationism.