Originally posted by FabianFnas
This makes it all clearer! 🙂
I say that god doesn't have to be proven scientifically. If he exists he exists. The very instant he actually is proven, he cease to be a god.
And the opposite: I say that god doesn't have to be disproven either. If he doesn't exist, he doesn't exist. Many people would be unhappy if he is proven scientifically to not to e ...[text shortened]... done because - Religion and science cannot ever be mixed! (I've said it before, I think...)
Yes, makes sense to me. My analogy was for a specific kind of God, which has a certain definition, characteristics, etc. Could be a Christian God, Allah, or whatever. Considering that a specific God has different definitions to different people, I decided to use Tinkerbell, which is fictional, but has a more agreeable definition based on the Peter Pan stories, hence why I used it (but turns out more confusing).
Replacing my above scenarios with Tinkerbell:
A. Proving that Tinkerbell does exist will require looking around until you find him, which might require looking everywhere, but not necessarily so.
B. Proving that Tinkerbell doesn't exist will definitely require looking everywhere (the whole universe and possibly infinite multiverses) to confirm that he doesn't exist.
I would say that the odds are that Tinkerbell doesn't exist anywhere but I cannot prove that he doesn't exist.
It becomes a different story when you are talking about proving a creator in general, as this will cover a much larger scope than any of the religions on Earth. The odds of a creator are higher than a god of a specific religion, but in my view still extremely small. Small to me, because a creator isn't needed for evolution to work, and therefore fits with Occam's Razor.
Often I have found that people make the leap of faith from the very small probability of a "creator" to their specific, and much less probable "God".