It's probably due to artefacts and signal noise coming from the outer-system that contains our universe and/or the machine running our simulation, rather than God.

Combining this with an infinite universe theory, it could also just be random noise intentionally introduced to a specific "instance" of a universe.

To the best of our ability we haven't been able to detect any signs of any strings which might point to a puppet master or any mechanism by which anything as potentially informationally massive as randomness could be transferred to 'our' universe.

Not quite: there are millions of people who claim the existence of a God(s), or claim to have had "experiences" with the same. However, to those raised in secular environments, these claims "have" "no" validity, but this is actually just the model of reality built by the mind (what "is", in "reality"), which is heavily influenced by the metaphysical framework one was raised/trained on, or exists within.

Philosophy (logic, epistemology, etc) has more appropriate tools and techniques for dealing with such questions, but if one (one's mind) has been trained that only the scientific method can provide knowledge, they are kind of stuck at a local maxima (inside a "simulated reality dome") that they are unable to see out of, or typically even want to see out of.

I think people do not deny those religious experiences because there are experiments to trigger them and the experiences can be observed for instance using brain scans.

But what scientists deny is that we see any prove that these experiences have any supernatural cause.

> I think people do not deny those religious experiences because there are experiments to trigger them and the experiences can be observed for instance using brain scans.

Some people, sure....but many people deny the validity/genuineness of them, or the potential existence of the supernatural all the time - it's practically a sport on Reddit, not all that uncommon right here on HN, and something I have experienced many, many times with real scientists in zoom meetings. Let's not forget: scientists are first and foremost humans.

> But what scientists deny is that we see any prove that these experiences have any supernatural cause.

Some scientists practice strict/disciplined epistemology, and others do not (I have observed it with my own eyes) and go on to assert/imply that it is a fact that there is no God(s), and that these experiences are only [in fact] delusions, the drugs, social/psychological conditioning (ironically), etc.

And if one is to ask them some pointed questions, the response typically descends rapidly to rhetoric and personal attacks. You can even explicitly point out to people what they are doing, but they are not able to stop - often, they will act as if they did not even see the text pointing out their behavior, even if that phenomenon is pointed out in subsequent messages!

I truly believe that there are certain topics that throw even the most powerful minds into a state of disarray. Extra interesting: it seems like most can acknowledge that they are subject to bias, logical fallacies, etc if the topic of conversation is directly about these psychological phenomena....but if the topic is not that, but rather from a particular subset of special ideas (culture war topics, certain instances of the unknown), this knowledge and ability vanishes.

I think it would be rather hilarious if this phenomenon is actually a very big deal (with regard to affairs on Earth), but people are unable to address it (or even manifest curiosity) because of the phenomenon. Plausibly, ~success could be within reach, but we are unable to reach out and grab onto it.

Meanwhile: things like climate change "are" (so it is claimed/perceived) "a big deal". So much wasted potential.

I don't want to discount what you say as indeed I would have no way to disprove a metaphysical god. On the other hand given that no proof is provided the other way for the existence it seems wasteful to discuss.

Kind of like UFO sighting reports. Lots of people share their believe but no proof manifested and we don't have reason to believe any UFOs would evade detection if there were any. Same with a god.

Climate change on the other hand is undeniably affecting billions of people in ever increasing negative ways. Indeed a colossal waste that we destroy our planet just because we cannot unify our effort and invest in technologies which don't wreck our planet.

> I don't want to discount what you say as indeed I would have no way to disprove a metaphysical god.

Agreed, but I believe it can be reasonably ~proven that the question is fundamentally indeterminate....which is plausibly inconvenient/uncomfortable for people who run on certain metaphysical frameworks (say, scientific materialism), which tends to be the framework that moist western minds are trained on in the current era, and the training of a neural network tends to have substantial affects on their perceptions.

On top of it, it is also affected by whether an individual runs on binary (True/False) logic or more sophisticated forms like Ternary (True/False/Other) - binary logic does not support Unknown, so if the option is not available the "most likely" option appears to be necessarily/likely true (based on sub-perceptual heuristic cognition).

> On the other hand given that no proof is provided the other way for the existence it seems wasteful to discuss.

How things seem to be (are predicted by the mind to "be", which has a tendency to be translated into how things "are" "in fact") is a function of one's training.

This prediction of what is true may be correct, but it also may be incorrect. What it is in fact, currently, is unknown. However, the mind often seems to not tolerate a state of unknown, so it fills it with predictions about reality, which are often perceived as reality itself. I am quite certain that this is consistent both with scientific study of the mind, as well as "spiritual/mystic" takes on it (Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, and others).

> Kind of like UFO sighting reports.

I believe if one was to do an ontological & phenomenological decomposition of the two, there would be far more differences than similarities. But this is not the level of reality that our culture operates at, or is able to operate at, similar to how in historic times our culture operated more on religious narratives vs today's scientific narratives. Humans perceive & "understand" "reality" primarily through epistemically and logically unsound narratives - it is the form most of our communication takes place in, at least for now.

> Lots of people share their believe but no proof manifested and we don't have reason to believe any UFOs would evade detection if there were any.

Opinions vary on what constitutes proof, and double standards (logical inconsistency) abounds - take for example that personal testimony is admissible as evidence in a court of law, and most people have no big problem with it in that scenario, but in other scenarios it is often considered crazy/illogical/necessarily unsound.

> Same with a god.

It is not actually, but as the saying goes: Perception is Reality. It is easy to spot cognitive errors in the members of one's outgroup, but spotting it in oneself and one's ingroup members is far more difficult. Science has a fairly substantial amount of research into this and other aspects of perceptions in humans.

> Climate change on the other hand is undeniably affecting billions of people in ever increasing negative ways. Indeed a colossal waste that we destroy our planet just because we cannot unify our effort and invest in technologies which don't wreck our planet.

Perhaps we should consider developing the ability to not live in a dream world, if even for short bursts of time (1 to 5 minutes seems like a modest and realizable goal for starters). But unfortunately: this notion seems to be disliked by anyone I mention it to.