There is no empirical evidence for God, so there is no reason to believe one exists.


 * Basically, the Scientific Method says that science should be concerned with objective phenomena meeting at least two criteria: distinguishability, which means that they produce distinctive effects, and replicability, which means that they can be experimentally recreated and studied by multiple observers who compare their data and confirm each other’s findings.  Unfortunately, God nowhere fits into this scheme.  First, God is considered to be omnipresent even in monotheistic schemata, which means “distributed over reality as a whole” and therefore lacking any specific location at which to be “distinguished”.  Second, there is such a thing as being too replicable.  If something is distributed over reality, then it is present no matter where or when it is tested, and one cannot distinguish what is being “replicated”.  And then, of course, we have the “Creator” aspect of God; if God is indeed the Creator of reality, then He need not make His works replicable by mere scientists.  Thus, the God concept is unavoidably ambiguous in both spatial and temporal location, and no amount of scientific experimentation can overcome this logical difficulty.
 * In short, while the God concept may be amenable to empirical confirmation, e.g. through the discovery of vanishingly improbable leaps of biological evolution exceeding available genetic information, it is by definition resistant to scientific  verification .  God, like consciousness, is a predicate whose extended logical structure, including a supporting conceptual framework, exceeds what science is presently equipped to analyze.  This, of course, means that arguments for or against God cannot be decided on empirical grounds, all but precluding a working relationship between the scientific and religious communities.  Even the sincerest attempts to foster dialogue between the two camps are obstructed by the unrealistic expectations of each regarding the ability of the other to meet it on its own ground; whereas the obvious first step towards meaningful communication is a basis for mutual understanding, no amount of encouragement or monetary incentive can provide it for those whose languages stubbornly resist translation.  Since this describes the relationship between science and religion, the first step toward reconciliation must be to provide a logical bridge between their internal languages…a master language in which both languages are embedded.  The CTMU, conceived as the most general and comprehensive of logical languages, is designed to serve as that bridge.