At best our arguments should consider religion as pointless, being based on an unverifiable (and therefore worthless) premise. At worst, the sentence “god exists” proposes a such vague and indefinite concept, and has such conflicting properties, that it should not be considered a logical proposition, and therefore is not worth considering until logically defined (this position is typically known as “theological non-cognitivism,” with relation to relation to religion).

Unfortunately for Abrahamic religions, a definition of god has already been posited in their holy books and it is certainly not a logical proposition.

This in no way changes my opinion of the validity of your argument, but your reference to the Observer Principle bothers me.

As you said, “the Observer Principle is a shorthand way of referring to the fact that nothing can be perfectly observed, because the act of observation necessarily involves the observer acting on, and in some way changing, what is being observed.”

Basically, this is the standard convention of quantum physics, which I reject since it implies/imparts a power to humans that requires them to change from observer to operator/actor. Supposedly, nothing can occur without human intervention, and once that happens, it forever changes reality.

Frankly, this smacks far too much of religion to me to be an acceptable hypothesis.

In fact, discussions of this kind are detrimental, since they tend to bring out the worst in human nature.

What I will never understand is why people insist upon forcing their personal beliefs on others.

Since EVERYTHING is filtered through the human brain, we have NO idea what “objective reality” might be like.

We are like people who were born blind and are living in a cave arguing about light (i.e. whether it exists or not, and if so, what might it be like?)

Descartes arguably came the closest of anyone to defining the problem scientifically — I think, therefore, I am — just about sums up our total knowledge of the universe, but even the “fact” of self-awareness may not be true.

Consequently, I fail to understand how it can be a subject a reasonable subject for scientific inquiry either.

Otherwise, we are reduced to the level of Sunni Muslims whose only recourse is to kill those branded infidel. Even when the latter profess to follow essentially the same religion (e.g. Shia Islam, Sufism, etc.)

As for Dawkins, if one assumes the existence of God as typically postulated, that is, as an omnipotent, omnipresent and eternal being, there is no reason to suppose that there would be an opportunity to prove or disprove the existence of such a being from the point of view of natural science. For example, in natural science, the Observer Principle is a shorthand way of referring to the fact that nothing can be perfectly observed, because the act of observation necessarily involves the observer acting on, and in some way changing, what is being observed. A corollary to the Observer Principle may be that an omnipotent being cannot be observed since an omnipotent being cannot be acted upon or changed by the observer. An omnipotent being might act upon or change other beings in a manner that might lead them to infer the existence of the omnipotent being; however, they would not have direct evidence. Thus, the existence or nonexistence of an omnipotent being may not be be a reasonable subject for scientific inquiry.

I discuss Religion, not to convince, but to understand the “other side”. One had to understand the philosophy of the Thuggee of India before eradication became the sole possible “solution”.

It may yet come to such with regard to Islam if fanatics continue to be the public face of that faith, controlling their “moral majority” through fear and intimidation. The Nazis seized and steered Germany into and through World War II, and the followers of Islam stood with the Axis powers.