NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, I'm firmly Atheist. There is no proof of god out there and never will be so theres really no point in believing in him. Co-workers of mine and friends constantly love tto debate this with me, and seeing as how im one of the only atheists that I'm good friends with, I always seem to "loose" the debate becuase one of the people Im talking to will bring up this point and everyone on his side will start laughing immaturely. So, I'll bring it to you guys: what do you think happened at the begginnig of time/universe/etc.

This is not a "how did the earth begin" thread, but a primary source thread. If the big bang is correct, where did the thing that "banged" come from? And that before it? And that?

Christians that I know constantly think this points the argument in their direction. But just because A =/= B, doesnt mean B=C. Its simply Transitive property high school geometry.

If there is a "god" and all that he's left non-scientifically explanable is the first moment of existance, then i say to him "what have you done for me lately?"

My personal belief is that science and history will repeat itself. Throughout histroy, science has consistently disproven the existence for a certain type of god (i.e. Appolo, Quetzcoatl), and has to this day proven beyond a reasonable doubt, only 2 occasions in time: the 1st cell on earth and the 1st moment in the universe. If science can explain everything in time except these 2 moments, why believe in anything else? As we grow in knowledge, science will eventually proove the reason for these 2 events and render god uselss. I cannot wait for this day.

It ain't worth discussing this seriously with your co-workers now and never will be. You'll always lose no matter how powerful your arguments. What you really want to do is come in one day with a bright smile on your face, announce you've finally found God then pull out a little rug and start praying towards Mecca. That'll scare 'em.

I believe in God because it's something I feel in my soul to be correct. That's not exactly something that I can debate on.

And in my opinion, science is constantly upholding the existance of God. Again, something deeply personal that I cannot convince you of and you cannot convince me out of.

One more thing before I go. Even if you're an aithiest, God is spelled with a capital G when using it as a name. When saying "gods," it's lower case, but in the context you used it, it's still a proper noun. Just because you don't belive God exists doesn't mean grammer doesn't still apply.

This is not a "how did the earth begin" thread, but a primary source thread. If the big bang is correct, where did the thing that "banged" come from? And that before it? And that?
By definition there can't be anything before the beginning of time, so there's no case to answer.

God is spelled with a capital G when using it as a name. When saying "gods," it's lower case, but in the context you used it, it's still a proper noun. Just because you don't belive God exists doesn't mean grammer doesn't still apply.

:headbang:

You idoit! There is no 'before the Big-Bang,' which is why it is so hard for most people to picture. The one dimensional speck that was sort of there, but not quite expanded just 'because.'

One more thing before I go. Even if you're an aithiest, God is spelled with a capital G when using it as a name. When saying "gods," it's lower case, but in the context you used it, it's still a proper noun. Just because you don't belive God exists doesn't mean grammer doesn't still apply.
If someone doesn't believe God exists, than they wouldn't consider 'God' to be a name, just a description, and therefore it wouldn't need a capital letter. I capitalise it anyway 'cause I have the unusual habit of capitalising nouns which (usually) refer to only a single 'object', unless they're only singular by virtue of being proceeded by 'the' (so: 'The house in the East is the home of Summer').

It ain't worth discussing this seriously with your co-workers now and never will be. You'll always lose no matter how powerful your arguments. What you really want to do is come in one day with a bright smile on your face, announce you've finally found God then pull out a little rug and start praying towards Mecca. That'll scare 'em.
hahahaha!

That would be awesome.

Either that or set up an altar with a couple pentagrams on it in your cubicle. And wish everybody a happy winter solstice.

You idoit! There is no 'before the Big-Bang,' which is why it is so hard for most people to picture. The one dimensional speck that was sort of there, but not quite expanded just 'because.'
The middle sentence was the only sensible sentence in your post. You point out that there is no 'before the Big-Bang', but then you say the one (which should be zero) dimensional speck was 'sort of there'.

If someone doesn't believe God exists, than they wouldn't consider 'God' to be a name, just a description, and therefore it wouldn't need a capital letter. I capitalise it anyway 'cause I have the unusual habit of capitalising nouns which (usually) refer to only a single 'object', unless they're only singular by virtue of being proceeded by 'the' (so: 'The house in the East is the home of Summer').

You capitalise the names of fictional characters in books. A name of an imaginary entity is still a name.

"I don't believe in a god" is using god as a descripter.

"I don't believe in God" is using it as a name.

You idoit! There is no 'before the Big-Bang,' which is why it is so hard for most people to picture. The one dimensional speck that was sort of there, but not quite expanded just 'because.'

..doesnt explain how that 1 dimensional speck got there = point of my topic

and by the way: science has a law: You need 3 dimensions (or however many there is on Earth) to sustain life. How can something be one dimensional? Even paper is 3-D

So far there is no GUT. The Big Bang Theory does have a singluarity, the mathmatical model breaks down as you near the moment of the bang. I belive that it will be explained, there will be a GUT, just not yet. Real progress is being made via antimatter research.

As for that other moment, the first cell? Again, RNA research is yeilding insight into how the first single celled organisms could have formed.

As far as my own belifs.... If any higher power was involved in either, I don't really care. All signs suggest that there is no higher power, or that a higher power created a rational system, governed by rules and set it into motion. Science is forever discovering more about these natural laws. Perhaps that getting us closer to understanding what a higher power created. Perhaps its just an understanding of our universe. Either way, I see nothing to suggest that any higher power takes an active role in the universe now. If God created the energy that the first matter came from and the universe has grown since by the laws of his creation... he's still not involved in our lives.

If someone belives god is involved in their life... let them belive it. Its not your job to strip away their belifs, just defend yourself if they try to impose thiers on you. :)

:headbang:

I see. It's easyer to respond with a pointless smiley then to give an answer because I'm right and you don't want to concide a simple point of grammer, for some reason.

One more thing before I go. Even if you're an aithiest, God is spelled with a capital G when using it as a name. When saying "gods," it's lower case, but in the context you used it, it's still a proper noun. Just because you don't belive God exists doesn't mean grammer doesn't still apply.

Not so:

If there is a "god" and all that he's left non-scientifically explanable is the first moment of existance, then i say to him "what have you done for me lately?"

What Jey is doing here is refering to a 'so-called deity', not the Christian 'God', who would require capitalisation.

I see. It's easyer to respond with a pointless smiley then to give an answer because I'm right and you don't want to concide a simple point of grammer, for some reason.

'grammar'.

This is not a "how did the earth begin" thread, but a primary source thread. If the big bang is correct, where did the thing that "banged" come from? And that before it? And that?
Time as we know it began at the big bang. There are a number of hypotheses as to how it started. Actually an interesting one that I heard in class was that there is this false vacuum that is expanding and occasionally little universe bubbles come into existence and they expand along with the false universe and we are in one of these universe bubbles.
The thing is though, that we can never really know what existed "before" the big bang, as we can't make observations outside of our own universe (hell, we can't even observe our entire universe...) so we can't even really make theories about it, just hypotheses and throw out some ideas that seem consistent with the universe as we know it.

You capitalise the names of fictional characters in books. A name of an imaginary entity is still a name.

Its name not being "God," but "Jehova" or "Jahve" or "YHWH" or whatever. Judeo-Christian usurpation of the noun "god" to become the pseudo-name of their jealous deity is nothing that need be respected.

and by the way: science has a law: You need 3 dimensions (or however many there is on Earth) to sustain life. How can something be one dimensional?

I suppose that evidence for this would be too much to ask?

You idoit! There is no 'before the Big-Bang,' which is why it is so hard for most people to picture. The one dimensional speck that was sort of there, but not quite expanded just 'because.'

Accully, the current scientific theory (as I understand it) is that the "Big Bang" is that it is a part a a cycle, that there have been many "Big Bangs" and the the universe it always expanding and collapsing on it's self and banging et cetera from the beginning of time off to infinity.

I see. It's easyer to respond with a pointless smiley then to give an answer because I'm right and you don't want to concide a simple point of grammer, for some reason.

Im not talking about an Incan god, or a Greek god, or a Roman god, but god in general, which isnt a person but a thing which doesnt need capitalization.

And by the way, if i dont need to capitalize "god" up there after Incan, Greek, and Roman, then why must i capitalize it after "Christian"? Hm....

..doesnt explain how that 1 dimensional speck got there = point of my topic

and by the way: science has a law: You need 3 dimensions (or however many there is on Earth) to sustain life. How can something be one dimensional? Even paper is 3-D
What one dimensional spec?

Something can be one dimensional if it is a line... it can be two dimensional if it's a surface.

Accully, the current scientific theory (as I understand it) is that the "Big Bang" is that it is a part a a cycle, that there have been many "Big Bangs" and the the universe it always expanding and collapsing on it's self and banging et cetera from the beginning of time off to infinity.
Actually, it's unlikely that the current universe will contract. It is thought that it will expand indefinitely. Now it's just a matter of whether it will accelerate or not.

What one dimensional spec?

Something can be one dimensional if it is a line... it can be two dimensional if it's a surface.

Score one to Dakini. A speck has zero dimensions.

I see. It's easyer to respond with a pointless smiley then to give an answer because I'm right and you don't want to concide a simple point of grammer, for some reason.

http://img.stopklatka.pl/filmowcy/00100/00154/0.jpg
Grammer.

Orthography is an aspect of grammar.

What one dimensional spec?

Something can be one dimensional if it is a line... it can be two dimensional if it's a surface.

Straight from a Geometry textbook: "Points, lines, planes, are all undefinable becuase they technically dont exist"

Show me a 2 dimensional object, or a one. You cant, no matter how insignificant, everything has 3 dimensions, even paper, even cells, everything.

Straight from a Geometry textbook: "Points, lines, planes, are all undefinable becuase they technically dont exist"

Show me a 2 dimensional object, or a one. You cant, no matter how insignificant, everything has 3 dimensions, even paper, even cells, everything.

The location at zero longitude and zero latitude has zero dimensions.

The line joining the location at zero longitude and zero latitude to the location at one longitude and one latitude has one dimension.

The plane formed by the location at zero longitude and zero latitiude and the location at one longitude and one latitude and the location at one longitude and zero latitude has two dimensions.

Straight from a Geometry textbook: "Points, lines, planes, are all undefinable becuase they technically dont exist"

Show me a 2 dimensional object, or a one. You cant, no matter how insignificant, everything has 3 dimensions, even paper, even cells, everything.
A square has two dimensions. A line has one dimension.
Here are examples of each.

a line:
_________

a square:
__
| |
---

Note: ASCII sucks for drawing these things.

Also, what level was this geometry textbook?

Score one to Dakini. A speck has zero dimensions.
Well, I was actually asking where the hell this one-dimensional spec came from? It's certainly not in any version of the big bang theory I've heard of.

Ok, I'm firmly Atheist. There is no proof of god out there and never will be so theres really no point in believing in him. Co-workers of mine and friends constantly love tto debate this with me, and seeing as how im one of the only atheists that I'm good friends with, I always seem to "loose" the debate becuase one of the people Im talking to will bring up this point and everyone on his side will start laughing immaturely. So, I'll bring it to you guys: what do you think happened at the begginnig of time/universe/etc.

This is not a "how did the earth begin" thread, but a primary source thread. If the big bang is correct, where did the thing that "banged" come from? And that before it? And that?

Christians that I know constantly think this points the argument in their direction. But just because A =/= B, doesnt mean B=C. Its simply Transitive property high school geometry.

If there is a "god" and all that he's left non-scientifically explanable is the first moment of existance, then i say to him "what have you done for me lately?"

My personal belief is that science and history will repeat itself. Throughout histroy, science has consistently disproven the existence for a certain type of god (i.e. Appolo, Quetzcoatl), and has to this day proven beyond a reasonable doubt, only 2 occasions in time: the 1st cell on earth and the 1st moment in the universe. If science can explain everything in time except these 2 moments, why believe in anything else? As we grow in knowledge, science will eventually proove the reason for these 2 events and render god uselss. I cannot wait for this day.
I belive that even if your two questions are found out people will still belive there is a God. I belive there a scientific explanations for them both, however I do belive in God.

If there is a "god" and all that he's left non-scientifically explanable is the first moment of existance, then i say to him "what have you done for me lately?"


Jesus's death and your salvation. That lasts forever if you accept it.

Well, I was actually asking where the hell this one-dimensional spec came from? It's certainly not in any version of the big bang theory I've heard of.

I think it might be a reference to the ylem, which was part of early versions of the big bang theory.

Jesus's death and your salvation. That lasts forever if you accept it.

Bwahahahah.

Jesus's death and your salvation. That lasts forever if you accept it.
:rolleyes:

Jesus's death and your salvation. That lasts forever if you accept it.

I thought the whole point about the 'Jesus's death' malarky was that it didn't last forever, no?

One more thing before I go. Even if you're an aithiest, God is spelled with a capital G when using it as a name. When saying "gods," it's lower case, but in the context you used it, it's still a proper noun. Just because you don't belive God exists doesn't mean grammer doesn't still apply.
Aithiest? Grammer?

In Communist Romania, it was the rule to spell God as god. Just a bit of trivia.

Simply, if they assume that everything must have an origin, then so must God. Who "created" him? If they can use the "He's always existed" excuse, there's no reason why they can't expect the same from the singularity.

Simply, if they assume that everything must have an origin, then so must God. Who "created" him? If they can use the "He's always existed" excuse, there's no reason why they can't expect the same from the singularity.

Eichen wins the thread. The logical rebuttal to their argument would be "Where did God come from?"

Ok, I'm firmly Atheist. There is no proof of god out there and never will be so theres really no point in believing in him. Co-workers of mine and friends constantly love tto debate this with me, and seeing as how im one of the only atheists that I'm good friends with, I always seem to "loose" the debate becuase one of the people Im talking to will bring up this point and everyone on his side will start laughing immaturely. So, I'll bring it to you guys: what do you think happened at the begginnig of time/universe/etc.

This is not a "how did the earth begin" thread, but a primary source thread. If the big bang is correct, where did the thing that "banged" come from? And that before it? And that?

Christians that I know constantly think this points the argument in their direction. But just because A =/= B, doesnt mean B=C. Its simply Transitive property high school geometry.

If there is a "god" and all that he's left non-scientifically explanable is the first moment of existance, then i say to him "what have you done for me lately?"

My personal belief is that science and history will repeat itself. Throughout histroy, science has consistently disproven the existence for a certain type of god (i.e. Appolo, Quetzcoatl), and has to this day proven beyond a reasonable doubt, only 2 occasions in time: the 1st cell on earth and the 1st moment in the universe. If science can explain everything in time except these 2 moments, why believe in anything else? As we grow in knowledge, science will eventually proove the reason for these 2 events and render god uselss. I cannot wait for this day.

There is no Before before the big bang. The same way that time slows down as movement approaches the speed of light, there was not time passing before the big bang. The big bang was not just the begining of stuff, it was the begining of time. Not merely the first time in which there was anything to pay attention to, but the begining of the passage of time itself. Just tell them that if they want to debate the point any further that they have to go and learn the basics of special relativity.

Jesus's death and your salvation. That lasts forever if you accept it.


It's funny because believers don't actually believe that his death lasts forever, they think he's coming back and if they had made a movie of the Left Behind series back in the 80's Christ would be played by Ahnold.

It's also funny because Christ's forgiveness only seems to last as long as the priests and Pat Robertson aren't mad at you for your political beliefs or your opposition to boy buggery.

Eichen wins the thread. The logical rebuttal to their argument would be "Where did God come from?"
Where did everything come from then if not from God?

I say that God set the Big Bang into motion. And I say he's a kickass scientist who created the universe within the laws of physics that he decided to create.

Ok, I'm firmly Atheist. There is no proof of god out there and never will be so theres really no point in believing in him.

Yes, we currently lack definitive proof of the existance of a diety. However, the absense of proof does not demonstrate an absense of existance. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance) As such, so long as we lack a genuinely scientific conclusion on the subject, the only reasonable answer to "does God exist?" is "Insufficient data." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism)

Those who answer "no" are making as much a leap of faith as those who answer "yes." As such, I would like to know how you came to the conclusion that there "never will be" any proof of the existance of a diety. I suspect that the statement was made only because the possibility of the opposite being true creates negative implications for your choice of faith. :)

I believe in God because it's something I feel in my soul to be correct. That's not exactly something that I can debate on.

Fideist! Yay!

And in my opinion, science is constantly upholding the existance of God.

Oh noes! Just after confessing fideism, which is the right way to go!

Ladies and gents supporting the "What Caused The Big Bang? Must Be God" position, I point you to David Hume's Dialogues on Natural Religion, in which he asks, quite rightly, why an explanation is needed for the nature of the Universe but none is needed for the existence of God: why, he asks, is it not possible that the Universe just needs no explanation?

Or, to put it another way, what Eichen said.

For the record, there is no way of inferring anything a posteriori about God. You can't validly infer anything reliable about anything outside a closed information-system such as our Universe from inside it, because there's no way of telling how meaning is lost as it's translated between the rules-of-behaviour of the external system and the internal one.

"There's no evidence for God so I don't believe in Him" is a leap of faith just like "We don't need evidence for God so I believe in Him." Which is why fideism is the way forward for belief.

Where did everything come from then if not from God?

Again, where did this deity come from? Does the deity have a deity?

I say that God set the Big Bang into motion. And I say he's a kickass scientist who created the universe within the laws of physics that he decided to create.

Why this need for a deity to do it?

Where did everything come from then if not from God?

I say that God set the Big Bang into motion. And I say he's a kickass scientist who created the universe within the laws of physics that he decided to create.

I don't claim to know where everything came from. But if someone is going to bring up the argument that science can't explain what was around before the Big Bang, then it's equally valid to point to the same glaring hole in their logic. If there had to be something before the beginning, then the same holds true for God. Like Eichen said, if everything needs to have an origin, then so does God.

I say that God set the Big Bang into motion. And I say he's a kickass scientist who created the universe within the laws of physics that he decided to create.
I say that it's more likely that God "banged", and the universe is his debris.
It's our job to put it back together again and reassemble into another, more spiritually advanced singularity. How else would God evolve? ;)

Yes, we currently lack definitive proof of the existance of a diety. However, the absense of proof does not demonstrate an absense of existance. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance) As such, so long as we lack a genuinely scientific conclusion on the subject, the only reasonable answer to "does God exist?" is "Insufficient data." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism)

As the theory that God exists is not falsifiable, it is not a scientific theory and hence the only scientific response is to say the question is not scientific.

As the theory that God exists is not falsifiable, it is not a scientific theory and hence the only scientific response is to say the question is not scientific.

Yeah, but "science" isn't the only way by which a question can be answered. The only scientific response is to disown the question, yes, as you've stated, but that doesn't answer whether God exists or doesn't. To which the answer remains, "No evidence available." Schrödinger's God.

Where did everything come from then if not from God?

I say that God set the Big Bang into motion. And I say he's a kickass scientist who created the universe within the laws of physics that he decided to create.
i say "god" is a mediocre science student at some interdimensional university somewhere who accidentally set off the big bang which naturally created its own laws of physics

god got a D in this class.

Yeah, but "science" isn't the only way by which a question can be answered. The only scientific response is to disown the question, yes, as you've stated, but that doesn't answer whether God exists or doesn't. To which the answer remains, "No evidence available." Schrödinger's God.
Dissonant Cognition was talking about a 'scientific conclusion' on the subject, and I was explaining why that the theory wasn't scientific. To address your response, the only ways I can see to answer a question are through science or through logic, so if the question is answerable at all it needs to be answered through pure logic.

Dissonant Cognition was talking about a 'scientific conclusion' on the subject, and I was explaining why that the theory wasn't scientific. To address your response, the only ways I can see to answer a question are through science or through logic, so if the question is answerable at all it needs to be answered through pure logic.

Ah, fair enough; I'm just on a bit of a bender against science-fundies right now for being as stupidly blind (in some cases) as God-fundies; I may have misread.

And actually, as it happens, can't infer anything outside the Universe from information acquired within it. So while you're right about the methods we could use to infer the existence (or not) of God, the fact is that we literally cannot.

Dissonant Cognition was talking about a 'scientific conclusion' on the subject, and I was explaining why that the theory wasn't scientific.


What about the theory that a diety does not exist?


To address your response, the only ways I can see to answer a question are through science or through logic, so if the question is answerable at all it needs to be answered through pure logic.

In otherwords, the best we can achieve is a bunch of people yelling at each other.

Where did everything come from then if not from God?

I say that God set the Big Bang into motion. And I say he's a kickass scientist who created the universe within the laws of physics that he decided to create.
Everything could have just happened on its own, it doesn't need a creator.

And any beliefs about this god or any creator are personal beliefs, subject to one's own faith and not provable. While you're free to let people know about these beliefs, you're not free to try to convince everyone else they must share them.

What about the theory that a diety does not exist?
Hmm... I'll have to think about that.

In otherwords, the best we can achieve is a bunch of people yelling at each other.
We seem to be pretty good at that.

What about the theory that a diety does not exist?

Logically isometric with the theory that a deity does exist.

No evidence either way.

Logically isometric with the theory that a deity does exist.
I think you mean 'isomorphic'. Falsifiability is asymmetric, though - a theory only has to be falsifiable to be scientific, so a theory and its opposite are not necessarily both scientific or both unscientific.

Ok, I'm firmly Atheist. There is no proof of god out there and never will be so theres really no point in believing in him. Co-workers of mine and friends constantly love tto debate this with me, and seeing as how im one of the only atheists that I'm good friends with, I always seem to "loose" the debate becuase one of the people Im talking to will bring up this point and everyone on his side will start laughing immaturely. So, I'll bring it to you guys: what do you think happened at the begginnig of time/universe/etc.

This is not a "how did the earth begin" thread, but a primary source thread. If the big bang is correct, where did the thing that "banged" come from? And that before it? And that?

Christians that I know constantly think this points the argument in their direction. But just because A =/= B, doesnt mean B=C. Its simply Transitive property high school geometry.

If there is a "god" and all that he's left non-scientifically explanable is the first moment of existance, then i say to him "what have you done for me lately?"

My personal belief is that science and history will repeat itself. Throughout histroy, science has consistently disproven the existence for a certain type of god (i.e. Appolo, Quetzcoatl), and has to this day proven beyond a reasonable doubt, only 2 occasions in time: the 1st cell on earth and the 1st moment in the universe. If science can explain everything in time except these 2 moments, why believe in anything else? As we grow in knowledge, science will eventually proove the reason for these 2 events and render god uselss. I cannot wait for this day.

When'd science disprove Quetzalcoatl. If you think about it, Cortes fufilled the prophecy of his return. I'm nt saying I worship the Aztec deties, but most people don't think about that.

As to the big bang, I've heard theories saying i occured from the compression of a previous universe into an infinite space, causing the energy sustained within to explode. Those who say the universe is starting to shrink think this, as for me, well...not too sure. For me, I've never seen a scientific disprovement (is that a word?) for God. I for one think that the conditions needed to create life are too astronomical to think that some foreign influence wasn't needed. Wether you say that's God or not is up to you.

Peace be with you!

I think you mean 'isomorphic'.

Bugger. Stop correcting me, I only got an hour's sleep last night :p

Falsifiability is asymmetric, though - a theory only has to be falsifiable to be scientific, so a theory and its opposite are not necessarily both scientific or both unscientific.

True, but in this case, with no available evidence, posits for God or against God are both equally conjecture.

Peace be with you.

And also with you.

Ah, I remember Mass...

As to the big bang, I've heard theories saying i occured from the compression of a previous universe into an infinite space, causing the energy sustained within to explode. Those who say the universe is starting to shrink think this, as for me, well...not too sure.
Based on current theory, it is likely that the universe will expand indefinitely.

For me, I've never seen a scientific disprovement (is that a word?) for God.
God isn't a scientific concept.

I for one think that the conditions needed to create life are too astronomical to think that some foreign influence wasn't needed. Wether you say that's God or not is up to you.
Yeah, and if you didn't notice, the universe is pretty astronomical, it's unlikely that life would never arise on any planet at any time.

Those who answer "no" are making as much a leap of faith as those who answer "yes." As such, I would like to know how you came to the conclusion that there "never will be" any proof of the existance of a diety. I suspect that the statement was made only because the possibility of the opposite being true creates negative implications for your choice of faith. :)

ok..so whats to stop me from believing that everyone in the world are really hippos and i just have a messed up eye sight? Why should i believe ANYTHING without proof? Oh yeah! I dont.

Eichen wins the thread. The logical rebuttal to their argument would be "Where did God come from?"

but they use the "omipresent and omnipotent excuse" for that and that the very term "god" makes him surpass time and not need to follow certain scientific rules. They have the upper hand on that one...those silly non-atheists :p

Yeah, but "science" isn't the only way by which a question can be answered. The only scientific response is to disown the question, yes, as you've stated, but that doesn't answer whether God exists or doesn't. To which the answer remains, "No evidence available." Schrödinger's God.

As in 'the God is simultaneously both dead and alive'?

However, the absense of proof does not demonstrate an absense of existance. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance) As such, so long as we lack a genuinely scientific conclusion on the subject, the only reasonable answer to "does God exist?" is "Insufficient data." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism)

Similarly for the question "do unicorns exist?"... unless, of course, the concept of God is logically impossible.