Taking a second look at untestable gods.

[BillyJoe]

Trying not to derail but....

How do you exhaust all natural explanations or test all god possibilities either way? Aren't these presumed to be infinite and that is the problem "disproving" gods exist?

I think you may have misunderstood what I said, perhaps because I left out a bit. I left it out because I was following on from what gentlehorse said and therefore I thought it would be implied. Anyway here is what I said with the implied bit added in bold:

"The idea was that, if science in the far distant future ever ends up knowing all there is to know except for how something came from nothing, you will have exhausted all natural explanations, leaving only...um...non-natural explanations for how something came from nothing.
I dunno, I think deists would have a field day."

BJ

 

[rikzilla]

Odin is displeased with this thread.
Since that which can be either pleased or displeased exists....then
obviously Odin exists!

There! We're done! All hail Odin!
-z

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

How many fossils do you need to examine to decide they support evolution theory? How many genomes do you map to conclude they support evolution theory.

I have no problem calling it my, "All gods are myths" theory. The problem I am addressing is applying a double standard to the evidence for my theory over the evidence for other scientific theories. Do we typically discuss evolution theory with the caveat, but there could be some life on Earth that didn't evolve so the evidence doesn't "disprove" Creationism?

I will be happy to give you a definition of some organism that could exist but didn't evolve, analogous to the Deist definition of a god that could exist which isn't a myth.

Should we put that caveat definition of the life form which could exist but didn't evolve on science web sites and information pages describing how Creationists should not worry because the science of evolution theory doesn't address their Bible beliefs, science can't test Bible stories with any certainty worth offending their group by?

It's not that science claims evolution is proved or plate tectonics are proved yadda yadda. It's the other conclusion, the one that must not be mentioned, that is at issue. All the evidence supports the, All gods are myths' theory and no evidence supports the, 'All Gods are not myths' theory. All you are saying is well, there could be a god. That is not evidence. There could be an organism that didn't evolve. Why does that organism get so little air time in the science community?


As for showing a concept to be logically impossible: In science theories do not have absolute certainty. They don't need it. Why is the standard for the god concept to be certain no god exists by proving no god could exist, while this is not the standard for other scientific theories? How many Thors, Peles and Zeus's do you need to screw in a light bulb?

Science can tackle evolution because it's developed the tools to do the job. God theories are in a different category because they represent an area science is simply not equipped to enter (yet). Since the tools haven't been developed to address question, there is no double standard. God is not a rigorous scientific theory.

Science can discount specific God theories where they enter its working domain. And there's no reason to think a God actually needs to exist. Is that enough to kill the theory?

Let's go back to “Before the Big Bang.” It's not unreasonable to imagine a time when every such theory (and there are multitudes) is proven wrong, and there's still no evidence that there was -- or needs to be -- anything before the BB (there are “atheist” BtBB theories). If BtBB hasn't been scientifically disallowed, is it proper at that point to lay the question of BtBB to rest? I think the best we can say is, “Science cannot offer a definitive conclusion at this point.”

It seems to me that's exactly what science says of God -- and properly so.

 

[fls]

I think you may have misunderstood what I said, perhaps because I left out a bit. I left it out because I was following on from what gentlehorse said and therefore I thought it would be implied. Anyway here is what I said with the implied bit added in bold:

"The idea was that, if science in the far distant future ever ends up knowing all there is to know except for how something came from nothing, you will have exhausted all natural explanations, leaving only...um...non-natural explanations for how something came from nothing.
I dunno, I think deists would have a field day."

BJ

What has always been of more interest to me is how one knows that you have exhausted all natural explanations?

Linda

 

[ThatSoundAgain]

I think you may have misunderstood what I said, perhaps because I left out a bit. I left it out because I was following on from what gentlehorse said and therefore I thought it would be implied. Anyway here is what I said with the implied bit added in bold:

"The idea was that, if science in the far distant future ever ends up knowing all there is to know except for how something came from nothing, you will have exhausted all natural explanations, leaving only...um...non-natural explanations for how something came from nothing.
I dunno, I think deists would have a field day."

BJ

There are a couple of problems with tha scenario. One, you're assuming the conclusion, we know everything except that one thing because it cannot be known. Thus, the scenario only works if indeed the explanation cannot be known - which is what we're debating.

Two, there's no way to know for certain that you know everything. I'd further argue that even knowing everything is impossible from within this universe, because your knowledge of the universe would have to be as large as the universe itself. And that's just for the current state, no history included.

That last is a rather interesting problem. See Jorge Luis Borges' "On Rigor in Science", or Umberto Eco's "On the Impossibility of Drawing a Map of the Empire on a Scale of 1 to 1".

ETA: Thanks, Linda, for once again making the point more quickly and clearly.

 

[Piscivore]

What has always been of more interest to me is how one knows that you have exhausted all natural explanations?

None of the rest of the explanations are labeled "Organic"?

 

[fls]

Science can tackle evolution because it's developed the tools to do the job. God theories are in a different category because they represent an area science is simply not equipped to enter (yet).

This is the part I don't understand. Why not? Ideas about gods seem to be like any other ideas that we have - they can be addressed based on the source of the idea.

Since the tools haven't been developed to address question, there is no double standard. God is not a rigorous scientific theory.

I agree that God isn't a scientific theory, but how does that matter? Most of what science addresses isn't theory, but rather references to events/observations and the ideas that come from them.

Science can discount specific God theories where they enter its working domain. And there's no reason to think a God actually needs to exist. Is that enough to kill the theory?

Let's go back to “Before the Big Bang.” It's not unreasonable to imagine a time when every such theory (and there are multitudes) is proven wrong, and there's still no evidence that there was -- or needs to be -- anything before the BB (there are “atheist” BtBB theories). If BtBB hasn't been scientifically disallowed, is it proper at that point to lay the question of BtBB to rest? I think the best we can say is, “Science cannot offer a definitive conclusion at this point.”

I think science is interested in addressing/exploring the conditions around the BB and BtBB. I'm not sure science ever reaches a point where it declares that curiosity cannot be satisfied, though. What would stop people from continuing to try to understand? And even if that point were reached for some reason, why would it occur to anyone to arbitrarily insert Goddidit at that point? If Goddidit wasn't a reasonable answer before, why would it be a reasonable answer then? And if it was a reasonable answer before, why did we bother coming up with Gravity and Electromagnetism? We could have saved ourselves a lot of trouble.

Linda

 

[Piscivore]

This is the part I don't understand. Why not? Ideas about gods seem to be like any other ideas that we have - they can be addressed based on the source of the idea.

No, they can't- at least not rationally. It's a red herring fallacy, either ad hom, genetic, or association fallacy, depending on how it is presented.

Just because the Illiad is a myth does not mean it is rational to treat Troy as a myth, or dismiss Helen or Odysseus as fictional characters. We can dismiss some of the things that they are said to have done or experienced as impossible, but not their existence.

 

[fls]

No, they can't- at least not rationally. It's a red herring fallacy, either ad hom, genetic, or association fallacy, depending on how it is presented.

Just because the Illiad is a myth does not mean it is rational to treat Troy as a myth, or dismiss Helen or Odysseus as fictional characters. We can dismiss some of the things that they are said to have done or experienced as impossible, but not their existence.

But that's what I mean. The Illiad is a myth, but wouldn't we all consider it reasonable to look at the extent to which it represents real people, places and events, and to tease apart how and where it becomes fictional? And to study the process of myth-making, its function, as the consequence of other functional activities, etc.?

Linda

 

[Piscivore]

But that's what I mean. The Illiad is a myth, but wouldn't we all consider it reasonable to look at the extent to which it represents real people, places and events, and to tease apart how and where it becomes fictional?

Sure, but that's not what is going on here. It was presented that "the evidence actually does support the conclusion god beliefs originated as myths, not from interaction with real gods"

Now, first, the dichotomy presented (either "originated as myth" or "from interaction with real gods") is false. There is no evidence that the myths did not originate from interaction with real gods, and plenty of evidence -Troy included- that myths can be formed from and based on real events and real entities. People exaggerate real events and real entities all the time. Just because something is a myth does not mean it is wholly false. Certain properties or qualities of gods (or mythical characters) may be shown through evidence to be false, but that does not mean there is no such entity. Achilles probably wasn't invulnerable to harm from being dipped int he river Styx, but that doesn't mean he wasn't a real person.

Further, if the entirety of "the evidence" that god beliefs originated as myths is that we know of gods from mythical stories, that's a genetic fallacy. As much as saying "the reason we know Troy originated as myth is that we know the Illiad is a myth" is fallacious.

And to study the process of myth-making, its function, as the consequence of other functional activities, etc.?

That's a discipline wholly unrelated to the existence of gods. And the fact that people make up stories does not mean that things in a made up story are false. That's genetic fallacy again.

 

[fls]

Sure, but that's not what is going on here. It was presented that "the evidence actually does support the conclusion god beliefs originated as myths, not from interaction with real gods"

Now, first, the dichotomy presented (either "originated as myth" or "from interaction with real gods") is false. There is no evidence that the myths did not originate from interaction with real gods, and plenty of evidence -Troy included- that myths can be formed from and based on real events and real entities. People exaggerate real events and real entities all the time. Just because something is a myth does not mean it is wholly false. Certain properties or qualities of gods (or mythical characters) may be shown through evidence to be false, but that does not mean there is no such entity. Achilles probably wasn't invulnerable to harm from being dipped int he river Styx, but that doesn't mean he wasn't a real person.

It's my impression that that's what is going on, though - that these stories are studied much as we study many other myths - by considering what sorts of interactions can lead to these stories and what sorts of properties get attributed to these characters. A story about someone can indicate that that someone was real, but we look for independent information about that person. And it is one thing to propose that the person is real and quite another to propose that their magical qualities were real, when we have independent confirmation that people exist, but not of the magical qualities. And even now we see how magical qualities are mistakenly attributed.

Further, if the entirety of "the evidence" that god beliefs originated as myths is that we know of gods from mythical stories, that's a genetic fallacy. As much as saying "the reason we know Troy originated as myth is that we know the Illiad is a myth" is fallacious.

I agree, but I don't think that is what is being said. It's certainly not what I'm saying and it isn't the impression that I get from scholars, either.

That's a discipline wholly unrelated to the existence of gods. And the fact that people make up stories does not mean that things in a made up story are false. That's genetic fallacy again.

Much of our history is tied up in story-telling. We study the process when it comes to the veracity of other stories. I simply don't understand why that same study cannot be applied to god-stories. Again, I'm not saying that because some stories contain fictional elements to various degrees that anyone is saying that all stories are pure fiction.

Linda

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

This is the part I don't understand. Why not? Ideas about gods seem to be like any other ideas that we have - they can be addressed based on the source of the idea.

…

I agree that God isn't a scientific theory, but how does that matter? Most of what science addresses isn't theory, but rather references to events/observations and the ideas that come from them.

Piscivore has done some of my responding for me. I'll just add that whereas specific God stories can be analyzed as you suggest, one cannot necessarily generalize from them to the overarching God Theory. Part of the reason -- and one of the ways we know the God theory is not a proper scientific theory -- is that the minimum requirements are lacking: there's no well-defined set of terms.

In other words, we have no agreed upon definition of God, of his attributes, of his testable qualities. Specific God myths are often sufficiently defined to dismiss. Not so the vague, generic Deist God skeptigirl wishes to drop into the Atlantic with concrete shoes.

I think science is interested in addressing/exploring the conditions around the BB and BtBB. I'm not sure science ever reaches a point where it declares that curiosity cannot be satisfied, though. What would stop people from continuing to try to understand? And even if that point were reached for some reason, why would it occur to anyone to arbitrarily insert Goddidit at that point? If Goddidit wasn't a reasonable answer before, why would it be a reasonable answer then? And if it was a reasonable answer before, why did we bother coming up with Gravity and Electromagnetism? We could have saved ourselves a lot of trouble.

Linda

I didn't mean to suggest that science ever does or should give up on a question. My point was that there are times and questions where the best it can do is to say, “this is not presently amenable to scientific inquiry.” Which I believe is the case with the theory of God.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think you may have misunderstood what I said, perhaps because I left out a bit. I left it out because I was following on from what gentlehorse said and therefore I thought it would be implied. Anyway here is what I said with the implied bit added in bold:

"The idea was that, if science in the far distant future ever ends up knowing all there is to know except for how something came from nothing, you will have exhausted all natural explanations, leaving only...um...non-natural explanations for how something came from nothing.
I dunno, I think deists would have a field day."

BJ

Which goes back to my answer, adding a "God did it" layer only begs the same question, where did this god come from. In other words, "god did it", answers nothing. It merely gives a false impression it answers the question. I commented in the future this would be obvious even to a fool, but subsequently apologized to all the people today who currently think "god did it" actually answers something.

"God did it" is one of the biggest nonsensical answers theists give.

"God made the Universe."
"Who made God?"
[fill in any answer dodge here you want]

 

[Malerin]

First, I do not dispute they are having an experience, but yes, I do dispute there is any evidence these folks are having a real god experience. And that is the issue, scientific evidence. The issue is not the long thread we've already hashed over this supposed "not convincing, not scientific quality, not up to scientific standards" evidence. The issue here is about the 'science of gods are a myth' evidence. The issue is not about the theist communities' claims of what constitutes evidence.

If someone you trust calls and tells you your house is on fire, do you wait for them to bring you a smoldering chunk of wood you can test in the lab before you believe them? As others have told you, you're just not going to get that kind of evidence investigating theism. It's in a whole nother realm. That doesn't mean it's not true. (I think the whole notion of "scientific evidence" breaks down when examined closely, but that's for a radicical skeptic's thread).

Yes, I'm sure I want to go there. The scientific process is not about majority rule.

I agree. I'm glad to see you backing away from your claim that

Other people must look at the same evidence and come to the same conclusions

The conclusions that other people come to are irrelevant.

It is about reproducible, evidence supported conclusions.

Is a one-time message that SETI picks up reproducible? Would it still confirm the hypothesis "aliens exist"?

Again, the scientific process and what qualifies as evidence is well established. It is not majority rules. I have no problem deferring to the scientific consensus based on the consensus of what constitutes scientific evidence. I do have a problem with double standard applications of what constitutes scientific evidence.

You brought up "other people" into this. Regardless, you may not think anecdotal accounts are scientific evidence, yet certain areas of science depend on anecdotal accounts and subjective experience.

We have waaaaaay more than 100 mythical gods in a row.

But the question is of the generic form "Does God exist?" We can posit 100 different aliens, consider them all ridiculous and still not have made a dent in the hypothesis "Does alien life exist?".

Your personal experience is only valid evidence if it can be confirmed.

And it can be. Millions and millions of people have reported the same experience. Do you think I'm the only person in the world who's ever claimed to have a spiritual experience? Now, if you want to confirm the reported spiritual account is an actual spiritual account, that's a lot more metaphysical.

Put your brain scan/PET/eeg/MRI or similar evidence forward that supports your claim it is evidence gods are communicating with people and let's evaluate it. Until then, there is no scientific evidence of gods existing.

Nor did I claim there was "scientific evidence". I claimed there was evidence God exists.

The evidence of ETs would need peer review, it would need to be credible, and if there was only a single incident it would likely be considered inconclusive.

A message beamed directly at SETI, obviously non-random, but indecphirable would be "inconclusive"? Think a message consisting of radio waves coming in binary form 134267 134267 134267. We might not know what it means, but it would be very good evidence that alien intelligence exists.

I have no problem applying the scientific process to any evidence you wish to propose. But you must present the evidence, not the conclusion as if that were the evidence.

I am presenting the evidence. NDE's and cross-cultural subjective spiritual accounts are a real phenemenon. "God exists" explains why this phenemena exists.

I'm confident "god did it" is not a viable hypothesis. I have no problem you disagree. I welcome this discussion within the scientific community using the accepted standards of the scientific process.

As others have pointed out, "God exists" is not something you're going to find out in a lab (probably).

The issue here is that such dialog is ignored. Gods are claimed by many in the scientific community to be outside the realm of science for the simple reason you can define an untestable god. Never mind only Deists define such a god and the scientific community makes no claim it only accepts a Deist god.

Defining God to be untestable does not mean there is no God.

I can define an organism that did not evolve. Does that mean we need a caveat every time we mention evolution theory?

If you're unsure whether that organism exists or not, yes, you would need a caveat.

If you are proposing to address the existence of gods based on scientific standards of inquiry and evidence, go for it. The objection I have here is claiming science has nothing to say about the existence or not of gods because they are outside the realm of science.

What do you think science should say then?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Science can tackle evolution because it's developed the tools to do the job. God theories are in a different category because they represent an area science is simply not equipped to enter (yet). Since the tools haven't been developed to address question, there is no double standard. God is not a rigorous scientific theory.

You are repeating the thing I am arguing against as if that changes anything. It doesn't.

All the evidence, lots and lots of it, supports the conclusion people make up god myths.
No scientific evidence supports the conclusion that any gods are the source of any god myths.

How many god myths does it take to recognize a pattern? How many trees do you need to see to recognize a new tree is a tree when you see one? How many alien abductions do you need to investigate to recognize the next alien abduction fits the same pattern?

Claiming we don't have the tools to recognize the pattern of god myths is not a scientifically sound statement.

Science can discount specific God theories where they enter its working domain. And there's no reason to think a God actually needs to exist. Is that enough to kill the theory?

What theory? "Gods exist" is a conclusion. A theory is an overall framework explaining evidence. "Gods exist" is not evidence.

The evidence we have is 'god beliefs'. If you take the hypothesis, real gods explain god beliefs, it fails because there is no supporting evidence. You can take the usual cop out and say you couldn't think of any way to test that hypothesis because it is possible to define an untestable god.

But if you take the hypothesis, human imagination explains god beliefs, now you actually find supporting evidence for that hypothesis.

So here are some in the scientific community saying we can't test the god hypothesis. But that ignores the fact we have a viable hypothesis with supporting evidence that does answer the god question. The evidence supports the conclusion that "god beliefs" originate from imagination. Period, the end. No unexplained evidence is left over to require further hypotheses or theories.

You tell me, what evidence is left that needs explaining?

Let's go back to “Before the Big Bang.” It's not unreasonable to imagine a time when every such theory (and there are multitudes) is proven wrong, and there's still no evidence that there was -- or needs to be -- anything before the BB (there are “atheist” BtBB theories). If BtBB hasn't been scientifically disallowed, is it proper at that point to lay the question of BtBB to rest? I think the best we can say is, “Science cannot offer a definitive conclusion at this point.”

It seems to me that's exactly what science says of God -- and properly so.

Pondering the possibility that something could have existed before the Big Bang is reasonable based on the fact everything else we see in the Universe appears to have had something before its beginning.

It is not reasonable on scientific grounds to ponder the existence of anything a person could possibly imagine. Thus on what basis does one ponder the possibility actual flying spaghetti monsters, invisible pink unicorns or invisible garage dragons exist? There is none.

The fact lots of people believe in gods has been explained by following the evidence which supports the conclusion those gods are myths. There is no reasonable scientific grounds to ponder the existence of real gods except as human fantasies like FSMs, IPUs and IGDs.

Remember, I am not arguing there are no political issues here regarding god beliefs. I am arguing the scientific case for claiming science doesn't go there is full of holes.



-

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, they can't- at least not rationally. It's a red herring fallacy, either ad hom, genetic, or association fallacy, depending on how it is presented.

Just because the Illiad is a myth does not mean it is rational to treat Troy as a myth, or dismiss Helen or Odysseus as fictional characters. We can dismiss some of the things that they are said to have done or experienced as impossible, but not their existence.

You've provided an example of a myth based on some real thing. I'm saying the same thing. God myths are explained on the basis of natural contributions to their origination. No evidence suggests real gods contributed to any god myth.

The idea we might look for the real Troy behind the story is reasonable. It is reasonable to look for the real stories behind god myths. There are plenty. Floods for example are common in god myths. Floods are real things. We understand how real flood stories become flood myths. The theory god myths are based on human imagination is supported by the evidence. What contributes to those myths makes up the bulk of that evidence. Observing new god myths form like the Cargo Cults even tests and confirms the theory.

 

[Piscivore]

It's my impression that that's what is going on, though - that these stories are studied much as we study many other myths - by considering what sorts of interactions can lead to these stories and what sorts of properties get attributed to these characters.

Agreed. Which is why if there is a god there is very good reason to think that it bears little to no relation to anything a current religion follows, or what any theist currently espouse.

This says nothing about the existence of such an entity, however.

A story about someone can indicate that that someone was real, but we look for independent information about that person.

Agreed. Which is why the variable, clearly accretionary, and obviously mythical properties and identities assigned to specific gods are less interesting to me than the fact that every single culture of which I am aware has had a god concept of some kind.

Once this layer of mythologization is stripped away, we seem to have much more corroborating literary reference for this mysterious entity at the core of these stories than we do Achilles, yeah?

And it is one thing to propose that the person is real and quite another to propose that their magical qualities were real, when we have independent confirmation that people exist, but not of the magical qualities.

Quite so. In fact, I'd go so far to say that we know enough about how the universe operates to flat out state that many of these magical qualities are indeed impossible.

That says that the mythologised, accretionary qualities are false, and any entity that must have these qualities does not exist- but it does not rule out the possibility that there is an entity to whom these qualities are mistakenly assigned due to the mythologising process we know exists.

And even now we see how magical qualities are mistakenly attributed.

Quite so- which rules "magical qualities" out as a test for esistence of an entity in mythology.

I agree, but I don't think that is what is being said. It's certainly not what I'm saying and it isn't the impression that I get from scholars, either.

I'm not talking about your argument or the scholars', I'm talking about the one in the OP which I've heard proffered many times already. If there is something more subtle than "god stories are myths => gods are myths" is meant it is not coming across to me.

Much of our history is tied up in story-telling. We study the process when it comes to the veracity of other stories. I simply don't understand why that same study cannot be applied to god-stories. Again, I'm not saying that because some stories contain fictional elements to various degrees that anyone is saying that all stories are pure fiction.

Exactly, which is why a story being fiction cannot be used to test for the veracity of any element of the story.

 

[Piscivore]

You've provided an example of a myth based on some real thing. I'm saying the same thing. God myths are explained on the basis of natural contributions to their origination. No evidence suggests real gods contributed to any god myth.

What is a "real god"?

The idea we might look for the real Troy behind the story is reasonable. It is reasonable to look for the real stories behind god myths. There are plenty. Floods for example are common in god myths. Floods are real things. We understand how real flood stories become flood myths. The theory god myths are based on human imagination is supported by the evidence. What contributes to those myths makes up the bulk of that evidence. Observing new god myths form like the Cargo Cults even tests and confirms the theory.

How are you certain that no "real thing" we do not know about or recognise yet isn't behind the god myths just as much as Troy or a C-47?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Now, first, the dichotomy presented (either "originated as myth" or "from interaction with real gods") is false.

Is the dichotomy false because there is a third option?

There is no evidence that the myths did not originate from interaction with real gods, and plenty of evidence -Troy included- that myths can be formed from and based on real events and real entities. People exaggerate real events and real entities all the time. Just because something is a myth does not mean it is wholly false. Certain properties or qualities of gods (or mythical characters) may be shown through evidence to be false, but that does not mean there is no such entity. Achilles probably wasn't invulnerable to harm from being dipped int he river Styx, but that doesn't mean he wasn't a real person.

Further, if the entirety of "the evidence" that god beliefs originated as myths is that we know of gods from mythical stories, that's a genetic fallacy. As much as saying "the reason we know Troy originated as myth is that we know the Illiad is a myth" is fallacious.

That's a discipline wholly unrelated to the existence of gods. And the fact that people make up stories does not mean that things in a made up story are false. That's genetic fallacy again.

I'll take this as a, "no", to the question I just asked. The choices are two, imaginary gods or real gods.

Moving on to your second objection. If you think you have some convincing evidence that real gods contributed to any god myths, present it.

There is another more logical way to look at your analogy. The myth in your example originated from observations of the natural world, as do many myths according to what the evidence shows.

Do we have evidence myths contain bits of truth? Yes. The bits of truth, however, turn out not to be the fantastic magical parts of the myths, the bits of truth turn out consistently to be natural real things.

I understand your argument, but it fails to support the claim any of the true bits in myths are the magical fantastic bits. The pattern is consistent, not that everything in a myth is false. I have not drawn that conclusion. The pattern is that everything in the myth which is true, is also not supernatural. That is the conclusion I have drawn. Any evidence you have which contradicts that conclusion is invited.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What is a "real god"?


How are you certain that no "real thing" we do not know about or recognise yet isn't behind the god myths just as much as Troy or a C-47?

I'm certain there is no evidence that any of the magical parts of myths are real. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

What myth can you cite in which the real bits were the supernatural magical bits?

A "real god" is a being with magical, supernatural abilities like all the other magical beings with supernatural abilities we have yet to find evidence supporting the existence of.