system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
I believe any argument for or against the existence of a god or deity based on scientific knowledge is irrelevant. CMV

My argument is as follows: a. The whole point of a God or Deity is that they are supernatural. b. Science deals with learning things about the natural world. c. Therefore, scientific knowledge of the natural world cannot be applied to argument in a debate.

Of course, my argument does not apply to any belief that relies on a God who, in order to exist or be consistent with itself, *must* have done something that has been proven wrong scientifically (for example, if the Christian god *must* have created the world in six literal days for him to exist (which I disagree with, although that's another CMV entirely), then the Christian god simply does not exist based on scientific knowledge).

I should make it clear, I'm not entirely sure of my own religious beliefs. I put myself around a 5 on Dawkin's scale from The God Delusion. However, the growing reliance on scientific knowledge from both sides of the debate is something I'm starting to get annoyed with. Many religious people (namely Christians Muslims and Jews) use creationist arguments to debunk evolution and therefore prove God real. On the other hand, we have a lot of arguments against religion that are based on scientific knowledge themselves. What I want, in the long run, is for everyone to just be objective and seek the truth, and that means stopping arguments based on false premises (from either side of the debate).
gpt
If God does not have a measurable effect on the world, then in what sense does He exist at all? If he does have an effect, why preclude efforts to measure and study that effect in order to understand Him better?