Technically speaking sciences will define and prove god well before any religion.
I agree. If there is a God or gods, then none of the current religions have any reliable information about them. The only way we will ever be able to come to know anything about these beings would be through scientific investigation. Religious tradition is a complete dead-end when it comes to forming any reliable knowledge about the world.
@TagliatelliMonster said "
..Something exists in "no place" and at "no time".... that's pretty consistent with something that doesn't exist.."
..but an alternative universe (as part of a multiverse) does
NOT share the same "time and space".
.so can it not exist?
On the off-chance that anyone else is following along with this thread, I think it's worth mentioning that this is an inaccurate description of the multiverse. The majority of the proposed multiverse theories (and there are more than one) do not propose that other universes would have separate dimensions from ours. In fact, they all propose that they share the same dimensions that we have, and rely heavily on our ability to observe their effects due to our shared spacetime.
Even in something like the MWI, parallel universes exist in a second time dimension that we also have. So they still exist in our same spacetime; they're stacked next to us in a similar manner to papers being stacked on top of one another. Even in M theory, universes which exist in higher dimensions are still composed of spatial and temporal dimensions that our universe itself exists in, too. It's just that M theory proposes that there are many more such dimensions than the 4 we're familiar with.
I'm pretty sure even the MCU figured this one out.
As I was reading this, I removed the word "God" and replaced it with some other abstract "made up" human notion that doesn't have any observable existence - morality.
Morality has no observable effect on the universe as morality is not a "thing" with dimensions in time or space. Can't even try to reduce it down to some dumb math equation either, as with gravity.
Thus, we should also reject the existence of morality, as it more or less follows the same pattern here. There's no measurable or observable proofs of anyone's claims about morality. There is overwhelming lack of evidence for morality. It's just made up nonsense.
I would agree that morality doesn't exist at a point in space or time, but most moral theories don't claim that it does, either. This isn't the gotcha that you think it is.
I don't think that morality is invented by humans at all. I think we discovered it the same way we discovered deductive logic, numbers, and circles, but I wouldn't say that numbers exist in this sense, either.
This is why I distinguish between what's "actual" and what "exists," which is a similar distinction made in modal logic. Numbers are actual, even if they don't exist. Morality is actual, even if it's not grounded in anything physical. God not only doesn't exist but isn't actual, in the same way that, say, Sir Lancelot both doesn't exist and isn't actual.
There have been attempts to logically prove God (in the same way we might logically prove a mathematical law) and Leibniz and Frege in particular tried to formalize these proofs, but all efforts to do this have failed rather spectacularly. I'm completely open to new proofs you might have, but I'm fairly confident that I've seen all of the best ones and none of them really come close. Importantly, this wouldn't be a God that interacts with the universe at all, and it would only exist in a formal sense, much like triangles or Fibonnaci numbers.
