Do Buddhists believe in a god?

Answer:
No, we do not. There are several reasons for this. The Buddha, like modern sociologists and psychologists, believed that religious ideas and especially the god idea have their origins in fear. The Buddha says:

Gripped by fear people go to sacred mountains, sacred groves, sacred trees and shrines.
Dp. 188

Primitive humans found selves in a dangerous and hostile world, the fear of wild animals, of not being able to find enough food, of injury or disease, and of natural phenomena like thunder, lightning and volcanoes were constantly with them. Finding no security, they created the idea of gods in order to give them comfort in good times, courage in times of danger and consolation when things went wrong. To this day, you will notice that people become more religious at times of crises, you will hear them say that the belief in a god or gods gives them the strength they need to deal with life. You will hear them explain that they believe in a particular god because they prayed in time of need and their prayer was answered. All this seems to support the Buddha’s teaching that the god-idea is a response to fear and frustration.

God is evil bastard even asked Abraham to sacrifice his own son what type of god would ever do this. bible god is messed up in the head.

And whenever that sort of stuff is conveniently marketed as solutions, you know it’s the opposite. Monoclonals happen to be some of the most expensive drugs on the planet, and some of the most worthless, and damaging (imo).

Casirivimab and Imdevimab along with Remdesivir is supposedly what Trump took (but remember, Trump was peddling, unless you haven’t seen his glowing support for Fauci, Birx and Gilead) for his “miraculous” recovery. I am certain he didn’t, though.

But anyway, that page I linked to gives an idea of the sort of effects you get from those treatments.

Your point about the electron microscope causing damage is a perfect example, which I’ll elaborate on.

Remember firstly, fundamentally, observation changes things. Observational tools, are always flawed. Entropy is introduced. Additionally, they might be based on incorrect principles (such as PCR)…

So I’ll mention an example of a PARTICULARLY damaging “observational” method.

Here’s how it works:
I inject you with incredibly toxic, volatile AND radioactive fluorine to populate your glucose channels (that’s pretty much your whole body).

Then, I put you in a chamber. I then shoot you with ionizing radiation. That ionizing radiation “excites” (rather explodes) the radioactive fluorine, which causes significant intracellular damage, of course.

The result from that is then used to produce an image of that.

That then, is called a PET scan. It’s a pretty picture, isn’t it? I use it to assure and guarantee that you have cancer, particularly leukemia, if you know what I mean.