So, I suppose part of the irony is that I would decidedly agree with what I understand as at least part of LeaT's original premise, namely, that CD setup a false dichotomy in its reduction of 'be'-ing to the "cogito". CD effectively split the atom of holistic being, so to speak, and we've been reeling ever since, drunk on the power of sheer objectivity.

Anyway, hope y'all don't mind my putting in 2 cents on the subject.

Anyway, I will just say in conclusion that I would very much like to expand the article with the help of you if possible and other bright minds as well who know the topic fairly well, because indeed, if god is a supernatural force we cannot prove its existence unless god would do something which interferes with our own natural world. Then we are back at question 1) where we are either too stupid to understand or 2) god merely doesn't exist.

Maybe the whole problem rather lies in the concept of god being an omnipotent, benevolent, omniscient and omnipresent force (well, not so much benevolent in this case maybe), but does pantheism actually argue for god needing to have these properties more than sentience? Ok, omnipresence is required but the rest, I don't think so much. In pagan religions we often find personal gods being more limited in their behavior and they too are finite creatures that can be born and die. Why can't we apply this concept to god? It makes god far more tangible I'd say, although I know it contradicts the idea of the Abrahamic one, but let's just ignore that for a moment since it's not that relevant to this very question.

To be continued!

The problem first and foremost is that it is a forward problem. You have already set a goal: "Finding god". As such, you are already biased in the way you would interpret data or phenomena. One could attribute something to god without looking further into the matter and never finding out nothing special happened in the first place.

A second problem arises with the very nature of science: it tries to find answers that fit inside a naturalistic world view: a godless worldv iew. Even if some "miracle" would happen before our eyes, science is "biased" to finding a naturalistic explanation for this. I say "biased" because any explanation is of course better than 'goddidit'. If such a mentality prevailed in research, we would never discover anything, being content with an empty answer as 'goddidit'. Centuries of scientific research have given us enough reason to believe that a god is entirely unnecessary. It is this fact that forces me to conclude that IF a god exists, he is hiding and not showing himself.

If anything can be called "god" in science, it is something that obeys no natural laws, has no stationary properties, has ever-changing causal relationships. Anything other than that can be explained within the frame of the naturalistic world view. If "god" exists, he must exist outside the understanding of science, and hence outside of the universe, and is hence totally useless. If a god exists within the bounds of the universe, we can theoretically understand it through science. In that case, it is a god no more, but at most a complex riddle for us to solve.

If you are interested in it I would gladly try to see if there is a possible solution without making too much mental gymnastics that in the end mean nothing and doesn't prove anything. I don't say that this thesis would be the absolute word either, I know very little of basic philosophy in general and I am still learning so naturally I am probably more prone to errors than someone who has studied it for a while. Anyway, point being, I also do agree with Anath that it is an interesting idea and I would really like to see a possibility to expand it further because I hope there is some sort of potential in this argument, mostly about god's lack of actual intervention, the questions about free will and the Epicurean argument as well as why we cannot prove god's existence in science.

If there was ANY way we could prove that god is a casual force in the universe, then how come we haven't found it out by now in modern science? If the answer is negative and that we can't but such a force exists, then the conclusion can only be that we are too stupid to notice it or understand it, but this makes the idea of a god rather useless too, especially for a Christian which indeed believes in the personal relationship to god. If you cannot understand god because of stupidity, then what is the point even believing in the first place? Ahaha, thinking a little further, yes indeed, don't they blame the lack of human understanding in "god's ways are mysterious"?