The gap is closing on god

[Anomalocaris]

....

This argument aims to demonstrate the non-existence of god by showing that no valid, non-disprovable statement about god is possible.

That no valid, non-disprovable statement about god is possible does not demonstrate the non-existence of god. It simply demonstrates the invalidity of the assertion that god exists. That soemthing can not be validly demonsrated to exhibit any specific property, such as existence, does not necessarily indicate it does not exist.

Specifically, I propose that it is very likely that any possible statement about the nature of god in the context of knowable reality (especially in terms of a conscious intelligence at work in the course of the universe) can and will be proven false,

Disagree. One could easily contrive an internally consistent scenario that is also consist with observations yet made, but that can not be proven false.

and that any statement about the existence beyond reality is impossible by default, leaving no "ontological space" for god to exist in.

While credible knowledge of reality might be limited to what can be validly shown, reality itself is not. Here lies the ontological space

It is therefore not necessary to directly disprove god because to disprove anything, it would first be necessary to have a definition of what needs to be disproved.

Fine

Before we start any discussion about the existence of god we have to make some sensible assumptions. Importantly, from today’s point of view it is safe to say that the events within the universe follow a static set of rules,

No, it is not completely safe to say. A few cosmological models allow for such rules as currently govern applied sciences to have changed in the course of evolution of the universe. You might argue that any changes in the rules of the universe as we know them now reflect the behavior of a static set of deeper rules that is as yet not explored. But that begs the question.

that no form of intervention by a god is required to explain any of the events unfolding within the universe.

That no form of intervention is indisuptably required given present knowledge does not necessarily mean no form would be seen to be required given further knowledge.

Given the non-deterministic framework of quantum mechanics as we know it now, It seems probable that while how events within our universe specifically unfolded could be descibed by rules of physics, they could not be completely uniquely predicted by rules of physics. Therefore, in principle, the fact that no form of intervention was specifically required does not necessarily mean no form of intervention could have been actually applied.

That is, while we cannot be sure if and how the existence of the universe itself will be explained, everything that has happened and will happen within it can be explained by the rules inherent in its nature.

Our confidence in the power of our understanding of the rules of the universe has certainly been redoubled and redoubled again by the success of this understanding in describing and predicting the behavior of the universe. While our confidence in the biblical model has been diminished to the vanishing point by its total failure, repeated ad nauseum, in creditably predicting anything.

But again, that does not prove our understanding of the rules of universe iis complete, or that our preception of the nature of these rules will not be dramatically changed by outcomes of further investigations.

Even if god exists, he/she/it does not perform miracles that violate the rules physics, read human being’s minds and so on. This follows from the fact that no proof for any such intervention has ever been produced.

Again, the fact that something is not proven to exist does not prove it does not exist.

So what kind of god is even worth discussing about? In a universe that seems to be ruled by cause and effect (a notion that is disputed by some) it is highly counterintuitive to say that something may come into existence without a cause. Therefore it is natural to assume that some kind of consciousness and intention be involved.

Quantum mechanics shows indication of not being ruled by colloquial meaning of temperal cause and effect. So it seem possible that cause and effect is nothing more than an emergent property that only appears in aggregated observation on a certain scales, not a fundamental property of the universe applicable to all cases. So the intuition seems to be already contradicted by available observation. The very framework of the "uncaused cause" problem argued from intuition may be demonstratably jibberish.

In any case, the proposed "answer" of "god" to the said dubious question does not actually answer dubious question. It is merely offers special, and unjustified, pledging.

. ....Whatever the details of consciousness may be, it is safe to say that some specific kind of information processing is required for the functional aspects of consciousness we usually attribute to god.

Information processing however implies the existence of information, which is something inherent and intimately connected to the physical world. If we agree to the reasonable assumption that consciousness requires information processing, this would mean that consciousness is also tied to the physical universe. There is no basis, requirement or reason for conscious entities to exist in absence of information processing or even "outside" the the knowable reality of the universe.

Dubious assertion. One could perform the thought experiment where we contrive an artificial universe whose inhabitants are prevented at certain stages of its development from learning specific sets of information from outside of that universe, or from before certain point in the history of that universe. We as conscious beings who contrived that universe continues to exist, even if inhabitants of our universe do not see reasons why we should.

It is perfectly natural for people to ASSUME conscious processes as a cause or property of the universe.

Was never natural to me. Always seemed to be creaking under the strain of self-indulgent wish thinking to me.

of It is however not at all reasonable or necessary for conscious processes to actually EXIST in the absence of information processing and information itself.

Again, nothing requires that there be no information and information processing at all. The case being made is all that we know didn't exist. Nothing is said about there being nothing that we current don't known for the "god" to process.

It is very likely that it will be possible to disprove any particular definition of god within the context of knowable reality. In fact, the number of possible definitions of god within the context of knowable reality has been reduced significantly,

As we show with some rigor that some of previously circulated definitions of god to be impossible, others can also make up more definitions specifically calculated to be unfalsifiable within present knowledge. You should know that,

It is always easier and faster for wishthinking, deceit and sophistry to make shit up than for rigor and discipline to shoot them down.

....
We cannot produce a definition of ANYTHING outside knowable reality. Anything we would propose to exist outside knowable reality could not have any describable attributes at all.
...
The point is: It is impossible to say anything at all about an entity beyond the knowable universe because the perspective from which we form all and every statement about such an entity would have to be based on knowable reality. Such a god CANNOT have any of the properties we attribute to him,

Not valid. The fact that we can not credibly ascertain the attributes of an notional entity does not necessarily mean the entity does not exist, or that it indeed lack the specific features that we by chance attribute to it.

The final argument usually brought forward is that god simply is "beyond understanding" and that it is not possible to make any statement for or against his existence. This is maybe the most crucial point in the whole debate: We cannot disprove what is beyond our understanding. It is always possible to propose god as an unexplainable, mystical entity that is beyond words to describe and therefore impossible to disprove.

But in order to believe in any form of god we need to have SOME definition of god - otherwise there is nothing to believe in. In other words, if it is impossible to say anything about god, the denotation "god" for this object without properties is as good as any other. It is impossible to say that god is beyond understanding because an object beyond understanding does not have any properties, let alone those required for it to be named "god".

Fine. Agreed.