(August 14, 2016 at 10:07 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote:

(August 14, 2016 at 9:59 pm)Arkilogue Wrote: And you trust your eyes to tell you the truth?  Can they not be fooled?

I'd probably need some independent confirmation from someone else. Like I said, it's about the same standard of evidence that I have for the existence of deer or lizards or whatever.

But even if you ran into a being that had the power to actually do that, how do you conclude 1: That is a "god" (what is your definition?) and 2: That is "The God" which set the universe into motion?

THeist logic makes me throw up sometimes. oR maybe it's just the beer *raised eyebrows*

(August 14, 2016 at 10:09 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(August 14, 2016 at 9:29 pm)Arkilogue Wrote: The dominating aspect of universal existence is space itself, occupied by and extremely small amount of mass found in a regular basic pattern: The Atom.  Even that is mostly space.

"God" could be an extant infinite substance (absolute matter) that moved to make the space of the universe. Which in equal/opposite reaction flung an extremely small amount of itself into motion and form within the universe.

The consciousness of God would be the energetic movement that an extant infinite supports as a vibrational body with no border.

"God in the Highest" remains outside relative space time.

Matter, through vibration, creates space...what are you having trouble understanding?

Would you prefer word soup or word bread?

---

(August 14, 2016 at 10:13 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: THeist logic makes me throw up sometimes. oR maybe it's just the beer *raised eyebrows*

Try me! But give it a little time, you're ahead already.

(August 14, 2016 at 10:10 pm)Arkilogue Wrote:

(August 14, 2016 at 10:07 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: I'd probably need some independent confirmation from someone else. Like I said, it's about the same standard of evidence that I have for the existence of deer or lizards or whatever.

But even if you ran into a being that had the power to actually do that, how do you conclude 1: That is a "god" (what is your definition?) and 2: That is "The God" which set the universe into motion?

It would be close enough for me. No, I wouldn't have absolute proof that that exact being is the one that created the universe, but in that sense you don't have absolute proof of anything. That type of hyper-skepticism is as stupid as not having any skepticism at all. How do you know that deer or dogs are real? My burden of proof for them is satisfied and my burden of proof for God is not.

(August 14, 2016 at 10:18 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote:

(August 14, 2016 at 10:10 pm)Arkilogue Wrote: But even if you ran into a being that had the power to actually do that, how do you conclude 1: That is a "god" (what is your definition?) and 2: That is "The God" which set the universe into motion?

It would be close enough for me. No, I wouldn't have absolute proof that that exact being is the one that created the universe, but in that sense you don't have absolute proof of anything. That type of hyper-skepticism is as stupid as not having any skepticism at all. How do you know that deer or dogs are real? My burden of proof for them is satisfied and my burden of proof for God is not.

I'm just saying, sufficiently advanced technology could satisfy your request. Imho you should set the bar higher for proof of God.

The trouble is that God has certain attributes--omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence--which couldn't feasibly be tested. If you accept as God any seemingly very powerful being, then yes you might have evidence. But I don't see how you could have any real evidence of an omni-max god.

(August 14, 2016 at 10:26 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: The trouble is that God has certain attributes--omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence--which couldn't feasibly be tested.  If you accept as God any seemingly very powerful being, then yes you might have evidence.  But I don't see how you could have any real evidence of an omni-max god.

What if you could find a "footprint" in cosmological order?

What if you can't have evidence for God in a similar manner that the direct physical evidence for the existence of the sun (hydrogen fusion) is extremely lethal for human form?

We can't even see the actual sun with our physical eyes for all the blinding light it emits.

(August 14, 2016 at 10:31 pm)Arkilogue Wrote:

(August 14, 2016 at 10:26 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: The trouble is that God has certain attributes--omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence--which couldn't feasibly be tested.  If you accept as God any seemingly very powerful being, then yes you might have evidence.  But I don't see how you could have any real evidence of an omni-max god.

What if you could find a "footprint" in cosmological order?

How would that change anything? Less than omni beings could leave footprints, too. But a universal footprint would probably be the strongest evidence you might provide, assuming that 'footprint' were directly accessible and not the product of questionable interpretation.

(August 14, 2016 at 10:31 pm)Arkilogue Wrote: What if you can't have evidence for God in a similar manner that the direct physical evidence for the existence of the sun (hydrogen fusion) is extremely lethal for human form?

We can't even see the actual sun with our physical eyes for all the blinding light it emits.

What if? We're discussing the possibility of evidence; not its impossibility.

(August 14, 2016 at 10:37 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(August 14, 2016 at 10:31 pm)Arkilogue Wrote: What if you could find a "footprint" in cosmological order?

How would that change anything?  Less than omni beings could leave footprints, too.  But a universal footprint would probably be the strongest evidence you might provide, assuming that 'footprint' were directly accessible and not the product of questionable interpretation.

(August 14, 2016 at 10:31 pm)Arkilogue Wrote: What if you can't have evidence for God in a similar manner that the direct physical evidence for the existence of the sun (hydrogen fusion) is extremely lethal for human form?

We can't even see the actual sun with our physical eyes for all the blinding light it emits.

What if?  We're discussing the possibility of evidence; not its impossibility.

I found a foot print that predicts the structure/behavior of atoms and the dark energy constant for starters. Goes on to explain the matter/anti-matter asymmetry, and the 1 to 5 matter to dark matter influence....among many other things of universal nature. All things modern science has already found, things we could not find without.

(August 14, 2016 at 10:21 pm)Arkilogue Wrote:

(August 14, 2016 at 10:18 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: It would be close enough for me. No, I wouldn't have absolute proof that that exact being is the one that created the universe, but in that sense you don't have absolute proof of anything. That type of hyper-skepticism is as stupid as not having any skepticism at all. How do you know that deer or dogs are real? My burden of proof for them is satisfied and my burden of proof for God is not.

I'm just saying, sufficiently advanced technology could satisfy your request.  Imho you should set the bar higher for proof of God.

Meh, that's totally silly in my opinion. Sufficiently advanced technology could be simulating deer too, or could be simulating everything, could be simulating the sun yet we find cause to believe in all of that. There is no need for that kind of over skepticism and I think most people who claim they would be skeptical of good solid evidence of God are probably not being honest with themselves. The point is that there isn't that kind of evidence