In your original article, you argue gods are not miracle machines that can be fact checked. Thats why science will never be able to test for gods as you are defining them. Its the definition of god that is the problem, not our understanding of science or logic (I’m in favour, for example, of exploring multi-valued logic but that’s not at issue here.) Definitions of god that wish-away the lack of evidence are tautological. If god is everything and therefore all our measurements of the universe are measuring the universe (and) god then our measurements of the universe with god are indistinguishable from our measurements of the universe without gods. All this is doing is taking the equation y+2=4 and turning it into y+2+x=4+x where x is god. Both equations resolve with y=2 but one is needlessly complicated. That the math still works with x doesn’t mean you should consider x in the equation. You can also add z where z is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You can also never isolate and solve for x.

If you can come up with a definition for gods that can be isolated, then yes, maybe we will be able to find evidence one day. So like I said in the comment above, what is god?

My own definition of god as an idea that lives in the minds of believers works quite well in this regard. You may take exception if I were to say “just” an idea but that is not denigrating ideas but acknowledging the grandeur of definitions of gods where they are supernatural. My definition also explains the religious experience as it explains the vision of Jesus I had in my youth.

I’m not saying it is impossible that gods are not something more than an idea that lives in the minds of believers. I’m saying there is nothing about god-belief or the religious experience that can’t be explained with the god-as-meme definition. It is conceivable that god exists outside of the mind in the same way it is conceivable basilisks exist outside the mind, or Hogwarts, or Celestial Teapots, or Invisible Pink Unicorns.

The only thing close to “evidence” we have is subjective or anecdotal and these testimonials are far more elegantly explained using terms related to psychology than the supernatural.

This strikes me as anecdotal as well, as subjective. It’s not like psychology is an exact science, and there is very much elegant writing on “science as the language of God.” That’s what keeps me going. I’ll admit it’s an endless path, but I can’t say it’s fruitless, even if unanswerable, as it’s increasing my knowledge of the universe and myself. It doesn’t seem very useful to deny anyone that experience.

But you seem content to claim to know what gods are. If they are truly beyond our understanding, how could anyone make any statement that begins with “God is…?” How can you make such a statement?

“To suggest that concept is not worth exploring – because it can’t be proven – is sort of a slap in the face of scientific inquiry.”

It’s not that it’s not worth exploring because it can’t be proven. It’s that it’s not worth exploring on your say-so. There is not one iota of objective evidence for the existence of gods. The only thing close to “evidence” we have is subjective or anecdotal and these testimonials are far more elegantly explained using terms related to psychology than the supernatural. Your definition of gods also makes it impossible for science to do anything at all with gods. This is not science’s fault.

I agree with you that anything we can imagine (and a lot that we can’t) has the potential to be real. Only I am not so arrogant as to assume that all I imagine is real. There is no reason at all why the existence of gods should be more likely than the existence of basilisks. There is no reason for the belief in gods to be more respected than belief in basilisks.

The real question for scientists and philosophers is not to determine whether or not there is a god. The real question to answer is, “what are gods?” That is the only truly open-minded question one could ask on the subject. The only objective, verifiable, falsifiable and useful answer is that gods are ideas that exist in the minds of believers. And yes, that is an idea definitely worth exploring.