Probable existence of a natural God

I will start by answering your question, what is an atheistic assumption. The atheistic belief is that there is no God. If your looking for a scientific explanation, which often goes hand in hand with atheism, it is that the natural processes of the universe we know today are capable of, and almost certainly did, bring us into existence, rendering a theory of any sort of God beyond the natural workings of the universe null and void. Many scientists and atheists, including myself, refer to a God, but as a concept of the ways of the universe, not as an all-powerful entity. You also claim in your introduction that scientific theories start as wild ideas that are only supported later. Perhaps this was the way it worked in past centuries, but now their is a strict system of experiment, retrial, and publishing. Now, to be fair, many theories on the dimensions rather than the processes of the universe go more or less unsupported, which takes some of the backing out of your already lacking theory. A scientific theory is defined by dictionary.com as: "a theory that explains scientific observations; scientific theories must be falsifiable". Your theory is quite similar to a supernatural God because it cannot really be falsified. There will always be a way this master race could keep themselves hidden and control us, with some kind of technology, the same way a supernatural God could. Your theory, simply by definition, is already stretching the bounds of science. I will move on to refutations and questions, but first there is one point I would like you to specifically respond to, so I will number it. 1. Let's consider likelihood. Your theory simply diverts the question from 'what created us', to 'what created our creators'. Your conclusion, as you said in the last paragraph, is that the natural processes we have a scientific understanding of today probably created our creators. So my questions is: why is the master race creating us, having been created naturally themselves, more likely a theory than us being created naturally, and them never existing, especially since their is no evidence for the former. Question Response 1. "In order to create the same kind of conditions which they themselves had endured. Also, for entertainment." I suppose. But how do you know the conditions they endured are similar to us, and how do you know that they're similar in psyche to humans? 2. "Again, it's to create similar conditions that they endured. They themselves don't want to learn. They want us to learn. Have you ever watched "The Truman Show" a 1998 film by Peter Weir? If you try to understand the psyche of the "show's" director then you will understand the kind of mindset I am projecting onto these "God" creatures.(1)" I suppose. But again, your assuming other creatures in the universe would think like humans. And wouldn't their minds be too advanced to enjoy such menial entertainment, since apparently their bored of video games and TV? 3. "A universe in which there are 3 spatial dimensions and 1 time dimension. I guess I should have clarified by saying that we are part of a multiverse and we are but one universe in this multiverse. This is what I meant by "another dimension". I really should have said "parallel dimension"." This theory of multiple universes is interesting, and I found a good article on it. (1) However, the one thing all of the theories lack is support. We simply do not know, because we cannot perceive outside a certain area. The very theories for which your unsupported theory goes off of are unsupported. 4. "It depends on what things they wish to effect. Say that a meteor crashed into Earth and killed half of the population and that God did it. How? Well maybe they catapulted it from the other side of the universe with extreme precision using rockets or whatever type of propulsion technology they have. Hurricanes? While we have a basic understanding of weather patterns we still have anomalies. That is to say there are things that happen outside of our understanding. It doesn't mean they happened through supernatural means. I am assuming here that most intervention happened in the past and little to no intervention happens now. Again, this is an assumption, but most radical science findings started this way." Again, do you have any evidence of this? Lets take the meteor example. I assume you included this sample because you thought it was something we could not explain. However, we do have quite a capacity to trace asteroids back to their sources. (2) What I'm saying here is you are using this theory to explain what you think we don't know. You didn't say volcanoes are caused by this God race. Why not? Because you know we understand them. If you formulated this theory 500 years ago, you would include volcanoes as an example, because we didn't understand them then. This theory is just as much a "God of the Gaps" as any theological God. You concede it yourself by saying "The concise answer to number four is that they can because we don't understand all wordly functions and can't measure every factor that influences them." Refutations: 1. "I wouldn't say that parallel dimensions lacks scientific support. We have M-Theory, String Theory, and Quantum Theory that provide some support for parallel dimensions. We aren't sure if any of these theories are 100% correct but that doesn't mean we can't utilize them to make the next step. The whole of our science is built off of theories, if we just threw them away we wouldn't get anywhere." True, you can use those ideas to advance your case. However, you are stretching them to the point of breaking. The number of unlikely theories you use makes your case scientifically invalid. First, you assume there are multiple universes. Second, you assume there is a master race there, far older and more advanced then ours. Third, you assume it is possible to bridge between universes. Fourth, you assume they work similar to us in psyche. Fifth, you assume they had the means to create us. Sixth, you assume they created us and have kept hidden while still interfering in the world. 2. Lets drop this point, its a bit useless. Feel free though to continue it. 3. Also a bit pointless, but your right, humans will continue to advance in the foreseeable future, assuming we don't kill ourselves off. Response to Points Against: 1. I'm running out of characters, so I will no longer copy and paste your points. I made the point toward the beginning of this, which is that your theory explains how we were created, but not how they were, and if they were created naturally, as you suggest they were, then it is no more likely that your theory is true rather than us having been created, and the other race not existing. As for not knowing any better, your right we do not know the answer to many of these great questions, but we understand the processes by which we had to come about, so postulating a theory just as unlikely, when we already know the process, is a waste of time. 2. The question you referred to did not really answer my previous point. My point was that we know humans advance, but to pretend to be able to map the not just physical, but psychological path of an entire other race is rather silly. 3. Your right, I am unsure of evolution's capabilities, which is my point. You assume that evolution can continue to always take us to new levels. Evolution also has to stay within the bounds of science, and we do not know whether it is capable of making us or another race super-beings. Your theory is impossible to disprove, which is why this debate continues, but its existence is not on all fours with its non-existence. The burden of proof is on you, and I have not seen any convincing evidence, theoretical or physical, to suggest your theory is at all valid. (1). http://www.space.com... (2). http://www.redorbit.com...