Who supports and understands the following sacrilegious theory?

Agreed, refuting it is silly, as it is meant to be a glurge parable, not a scientific treatise.

However, some of your statements are going to get you into trouble if you keep repeating them, because they don’t hold a lot of water, like:

‘’to see all, he would have to be in all places, thus he would have to be a gas, thus he would be unable to hold any form of intelligence, thus would be unable to see.’’

As much as I enjoy the idea of God as a cloud of intelligent gas, your viewpoint is extremely narrow in focus. Who said that a gas is the only thing that can be everywhere? God could be electromagnetism. God could be a a 10th-dimensional creature that can look at every possible timeline of every possible universe all at once, as easily as you look at a newspaper, and we would never be able to detect his existence.

Personally, I don’t think any creature would have to be any more complex than 5th-dimensional in order to give the appearance of godhood, but why not go all out?

But why couldn’t a gas be intelligent anyway? What is intelligence but the ability to reason, and what is reasoning but the retrieving and analyze information you already have based on your current situation? As far as that goes, we can already store information in many more ways than inside brains. Hell, light can transmit information, so imagine a Universe where God is a Universe-spanning cloud of sapient laser beams.

As one atheist to another, I can understand your frustrations in being a young person trying to navigate a society where religion is thrust into your face at every turn, but as one atheist to another, your imagination could use some exercise.

I conclude from the experiment that 5% of proposed gods must exist…either that or the ‘experiment’ is really pretty darn silly and gods either exist or don’t independent of it.

…and surely this is just one of those spam email stories based on no real events.

I think you’re getting part of that backwards.

Regardless, though, it’s a silly, trite tale told by those of a religious persuasion who want to mock atheists but don’t have any legitimate material, so they have to make it up. You really don’t have to refute it.

His theory proves nothing. Why would God want to keep watch over a piece of chalk? He wouldn’t need to be a gas though. That part makes no sense in religion. Scientifically maybe but as for religion he is just everywhere and not made of anything but still somehow all powerful. So I don’t get it either but I am posting this at 3AM my time so what I’m saying here is probably really messed up. Anyways it’s your right to have freedom of speech, freedom of religion and so on. But while using this site those freedoms vanish and you are acting under the terms of use but that’s beside the point. Anyways I have a feeling that by the time I wake up at noon tomorrow a lot of angry people may have posted here about what you said. That’s just a guess. I really need to get some sleep.

dude shut up.

No need to get defensive! Unless you feel as though arachnid made a good point and you have no other way to refute it.

mabey

You mean maybe? I’m usually the last person to critique spelling, but when you’re trying to be a smart alec, you deserve to be corrected.

maybe if you had a T.V and watched the discovery channel you would know

You do realize that you have totally discredited yourself by basing your ‘scientific information’ on a television show right? Do some actual research WITHOUT the television’s help and then maybe people will take you more seriously.

I have had more atheists try to disprove God to me, than visa versa.