What would evidence of a God even look like?

[Arkilogue]

I know evidence should resemble evidence rather than conjecture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler_conjecture

Funny you mention "conjecture"! According to Kepler and other mathematicians, each sphere in a maximum density equal sized sphere pack takes up ~74 of the available space vs the space in between the spheres. I take this to be the maximum expansive constant (dark energy) on each of the identical universes in my model. After I unfold my total model you'll see it predicts 6 individual space-time bends within each single universe. This affects the ~74.05% maximum. 1/6 of 74 = ~12.34. 74.05-12.34 = 61.71. This is the minimum DE expansive constant (pull of the rest of the universe on our region of space-time)

The appearance of matter in this model is poly-local as white-hole spews of quark plasma erupt across all 6 space-time regions simultaneously and these are the nuclei of galaxies. More to the point, this is a limited spew like a pressure equalization event. Take a balloon and expand it until the membrane itself opens enough to let air out. Barring imperfections in the rubber, it will be random/uniform leak of air until the integrity of the membrane is re-established. Notice there would be a slight over pressure inside the balloon vs the outside. Not exactly equal.

Prediction: Back to the math, if the pressure equalization by matter spew in our region of the universe was exactly equal, I'd expect the DE value to be the exact mean between 74.05 and 61.71 which is 67.88.....less than half a percent under the current refined dark energy expansive value of 68.3%

Evidence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy
In physical cosmology and astronomy, dark energy is an unknown form of energy which is hypothesized to permeate all of space, tending to accelerate the expansion of the universe.[1] Dark energy is the most accepted hypothesis to explain the observations since the 1990s indicating that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.

Assuming that the standard model of cosmology is correct, the best current measurements indicate that dark energy contributes 68.3% of the total energy in the present-day observable universe. The mass–energy of dark matter and ordinary (baryonic) matter contribute 26.8% and 4.9%, respectively, and other components such as neutrinos and photons contribute a very small amount.[2][3][4][5] Again, on a mass–energy equivalence basis, the density of dark energy (~ 7 × 10−30 g/cm3) is very low, much less than the density of ordinary matter or dark matter within galaxies. However, it comes to dominate the mass–energy of the universe because it is uniform across space.[6][7][8]

---

It smells a little like Poe in here.

Like Edgar or the internet law?

[Angrboda]

Technically there is no center point because there is no boundary to the plenury.  Saying that all points are at the center is metaphorical, not literal, as being the center would imply a spherical boundary, or as you suggest, "a spherical wave-form."  I don't know quantum mechanics, so I couldn't quantify what the wave-form would be.  Again, I'll accept ex hypothesi that it quantizes as a sphere, and ask you to continue.



I think you're getting ahead of yourself.  It's definitely geometric, but biology, individuation, and consciousness have yet to make an appearance.  What makes you think this form of order are "the requirements for embodied individuation and experience of consciousness as a single being?"

That is why I say every where is a center and the IUS is omni-centric. There is no individual center point, every point is center in an extant, border-less infinite substance. It is very literal.

Yes, I am getting ahead of myself. The only intra-universal geometry I have established is the sphere/field/point "hologram" or holon.

Prediction: So each universe is a cavitational body or void space organized as a spherical outer membrane (with IUS matter in motion beyond), a central point/sphere (3d ball of matter) and a tensor field between them. If this is the "macro-container" that is the universe, I predict it's "micro-standing wave-form" to have self similar but inverse structure. Like how a round bucket full of water will create a round internal wave when vibrated vs a square bucket will produce a square internal wave.

Evidence:The hydrogen atom. Inverting this universal sphere/field/point holon gives me a large spherical component at the center with a smaller point-like component flying around it in a probability field, establishing a discrete border condition.

Atom's are spherical and stable because the universe is spherical and stable.

This is getting somewhat metaphorical. Why would the standing wave be "self similar but inverse" of the structure of the entire subuniverse? (We are talking about each sphere as a separate universe, are we not?) Regardless, this is a form of local hidden variable theory, with the local condition being the universe. Contemporary research tends to rule out local hidden variables. Secondly, how do you get from one standing waveform to a universe filled with hydrogen? Moreover, there is evidence for primordial deuterium, He3, and He4 in the current overall composition of matter in the universe. Why doesn't the standing wave reflect this?

[Angrboda]

I know evidence should resemble evidence rather than conjecture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler_conjecture

Funny you mention "conjecture"!  According to Kepler and other mathematicians, each sphere in a maximum density equal sized sphere pack takes up ~74 of the available space vs the space in between the spheres. I take this to be the maximum expansive constant (dark energy) on each of the identical universes in my model. After I unfold my total model you'll see it predicts 6 individual space-time bends within each single universe.  This affects the ~74.05% maximum. 1/6 of 74 = ~12.34. 74.05-12.34 = 61.71. This is the minimum DE expansive constant (pull of the rest of the universe on our region of space-time)

The appearance of matter in this model is poly-local as white-hole spews of quark plasma erupt across all 6 space-time regions simultaneously and these are the nuclei of galaxies. More to the point, this is a limited spew like a pressure equalization event.  Take a balloon and expand it until the membrane itself opens enough to let air out. Barring imperfections in the rubber, it will be random/uniform leak of air until the integrity of the membrane is re-established. Notice there would be a slight over pressure inside the balloon vs the outside. Not exactly equal.

Prediction: Back to the math, if the pressure equalization by matter spew in our region of the universe was exactly equal, I'd expect the DE value to be the exact mean between 74.05 and 61.71 which is 67.88.....less than half a percent under the current refined dark energy expansive value of 68.3%

This is verging on numerology. Unless you can show that these six folds give rise to these proportions, then these numbers are just coincidental. Where do the six folds come from? The tetrahedron?

Evidence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy
In physical cosmology and astronomy, dark energy is an unknown form of energy which is hypothesized to permeate all of space, tending to accelerate the expansion of the universe.[1] Dark energy is the most accepted hypothesis to explain the observations since the 1990s indicating that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.

Assuming that the standard model of cosmology is correct, the best current measurements indicate that dark energy contributes 68.3% of the total energy in the present-day observable universe. The mass–energy of dark matter and ordinary (baryonic) matter contribute 26.8% and 4.9%, respectively, and other components such as neutrinos and photons contribute a very small amount.[2][3][4][5] Again, on a mass–energy equivalence basis, the density of dark energy (~ 7 × 10−30 g/cm3) is very low, much less than the density of ordinary matter or dark matter within galaxies. However, it comes to dominate the mass–energy of the universe because it is uniform across space.[6][7][8]

[Losty]

I think the first ever skype update that actually improves skype might be evidence of a god.

[Arkilogue]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler_conjecture

Funny you mention "conjecture"!  According to Kepler and other mathematicians, each sphere in a maximum density equal sized sphere pack takes up ~74 of the available space vs the space in between the spheres. I take this to be the maximum expansive constant (dark energy) on each of the identical universes in my model. After I unfold my total model you'll see it predicts 6 individual space-time bends within each single universe.  This affects the ~74.05% maximum. 1/6 of 74 = ~12.34. 74.05-12.34 = 61.71. This is the minimum DE expansive constant (pull of the rest of the universe on our region of space-time)

The appearance of matter in this model is poly-local as white-hole spews of quark plasma erupt across all 6 space-time regions simultaneously and these are the nuclei of galaxies. More to the point, this is a limited spew like a pressure equalization event.  Take a balloon and expand it until the membrane itself opens enough to let air out. Barring imperfections in the rubber, it will be random/uniform leak of air until the integrity of the membrane is re-established. Notice there would be a slight over pressure inside the balloon vs the outside. Not exactly equal.

Prediction: Back to the math, if the pressure equalization by matter spew in our region of the universe was exactly equal, I'd expect the DE value to be the exact mean between 74.05 and 61.71 which is 67.88.....less than half a percent under the current refined dark energy expansive value of 68.3%

This is verging on numerology.  Unless you can show that these six folds give rise to these proportions, then these numbers are just coincidental.  Where do the six folds come from?  The tetrahedron?

Evidence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy
In physical cosmology and astronomy, dark energy is an unknown form of energy which is hypothesized to permeate all of space, tending to accelerate the expansion of the universe.[1] Dark energy is the most accepted hypothesis to explain the observations since the 1990s indicating that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.

Assuming that the standard model of cosmology is correct, the best current measurements indicate that dark energy contributes 68.3% of the total energy in the present-day observable universe. The mass–energy of dark matter and ordinary (baryonic) matter contribute 26.8% and 4.9%, respectively, and other components such as neutrinos and photons contribute a very small amount.[2][3][4][5] Again, on a mass–energy equivalence basis, the density of dark energy (~ 7 × 10−30 g/cm3) is very low, much less than the density of ordinary matter or dark matter within galaxies. However, it comes to dominate the mass–energy of the universe because it is uniform across space.[6][7][8]

It just worked out that way geometrically.

The first geometry is a sphere. The second is a pillar torus in vertical motion (universe spanning EM field)...picture the sphere as the skin of an orange and the pillar torus as the white strings that wrap up the inside of the peel and dive straight down vertically as a central combined pillar. It's a circuit.

The third geometry is a horizontal disk that spins 90 degrees off the central pillar and cuts the sphere into a top and bottom hemisphere.

That disk is a reflective membrane and cuts the EM pillar circuit into 2 phases of 2 phases each (4 total in the pillar) like shone below...ignore the lines outside the torus.



Here is where the elements come from; the four phase of the pillar torus are: Inwards/downs towards center (earth phase, toward the real material foundational point at center), downward/outwards from center to bottom (water phase, innately connected and traveling in same direction a earth phase, now cut in half by the disk), outwards/upwards is the air phase as water evaporates from air, the last phase is upwards/inwards back to the top as the fire phase (compression of air makes heat and rises more so that the surrounding air).

They are the 4rth geometry, reflectively manifest as 4 horizontal ring-tori by the disk and nest according to their original relationships in the Pillar: earth connected water as the central pillar traveling downwards, and air connected to fire as the upward wrapping magnetic counter-movement. Earth/water below, air/fire above. The disk separates them into individual expressions.

The 6 spaces come from the number of regions all these nested membranes give border and form to: Inside the 2 inner most ring tori, between them and the 2 middle ring tori, and 2 between the middle tori and the outer wrap of the pillar torus at the border of the universe. 6 total.


It can also be understood as a very simple dimensional transformation in order of degrees of freedom: The first degree is radial being (sphere). The second degree of freedom is polar motion inside the sphere (pillar torus). The 3rd degree is spin and counter spin (disk). The 4rth degree combines all the previous into a single shape, the ring torus. It is space in motion, in place, that has both vertical rotation and horizontal rotation.

A contained space-time that is both in motion, and still, and can expand.



A parallel possibility is that our physical cosmos in not in the space contained by the inner most torus, it might be it's brane surface.

Either way, the ring tori model predicts a slightly negative curvature of space-time, or saddle shaped.

[LadyForCamus]

Once the evidence is there, then we can decide what the evidence is supposed to look like. Before then, describing the non-existent evidence is pointless. We can only say what kind of evidence we won't accept.

That's being a little closeminded, to say the least.

Here we go.

Why, EP?

WHY.

Why do you do it?

Pick, pick, pick...

[LadyForCamus]

My point is, there couldn't possibly be any evidence for a creating God. And anyone who isn't trying to be obstinate about it would admit it as well.

Why do you ask people to contribute their personal thoughts/ideas on something when you've already got what you consider to be the only "right" answer in your head?  Do you start threads for actual discussion, or just as a way to test people against the conclusion you've already arrived at, so that you can tell us how stupid we are?

This is EXACTLY why you get so much shit around here.

[Arkilogue]

My point is, there couldn't possibly be any evidence for a creating God. And anyone who isn't trying to be obstinate about it would admit it as well.

Are you referring to "intelligent design" or that said deity would be outside the space-time of the universe and thus not directly detectable?

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm talking about any kind of Gods here. I notice that we, atheists, generally tell theists they should show some evidence for their claims. I'm wondering, is any sort of evidence even possible? What kind of evidence could conceivably prove the existence of a supernatural being that created everything?

It would look like whatever we'd expect given their description of the diety.  If they say it;s a pink elephant in the sky...we look up and see if there any pink elephants.  If they say it created us all last tuesday we check to see what we were up to on monday.  

This goes back to why I became an atheist in the first place. The original argument that propelled my atheism seems very solid to me even now, and might even justify a position of strong atheism. Thing is, given the nature of what we're talking about with theism, I really don't think it's a question science(in the "traditional" sense) can or should even attempt to answer. I think it's more of a philosophical question, if you will.

Theists like to think that too....you're both wrong.  God believers make testable claims...and that's understandable..because human beings really don't give -any- shits about things that aren't testable, things that don't relate to -us-......in this world.  They think god does shit, is detectable, and knowable.

My argument goes like this. If there's a God that created the Universe(the Universe being everything in existence) then this God is either a part of the Universe or the Universe itself.
It can't be merely a part of it, since it created it, so it must be the Universe itself.  But then, there's no use calling it God. You might as well do away with the shady language and call it what it is. Nature, Universe, Cosmos. Whatever your secular preference.

Thoughts?

Uncogent and uninformative.

[fdesilva]

I'm talking about any kind of Gods here. I notice that we, atheists, generally tell theists they should show some evidence for their claims. I'm wondering, is any sort of evidence even possible? What kind of evidence could conceivably prove the existence of a supernatural being that created everything?

What would that even look like? 

This goes back to why I became an atheist in the first place. The original argument that propelled my atheism seems very solid to me even now, and might even justify a position of strong atheism. Thing is, given the nature of what we're talking about with theism, I really don't think it's a question science(in the "traditional" sense) can or should even attempt to answer. I think it's more of a philosophical question, if you will.

My argument goes like this. If there's a God that created the Universe(the Universe being everything in existence) then this God is either a part of the Universe or the Universe itself. It can't be merely a part of it, since it created it, so it must be the Universe itself. But then, there's no use calling it God. You might as well do away with the shady language and call it what it is. Nature, Universe, Cosmos. Whatever your secular preference.

Thoughts?

If the universe needed to be created why should the thing responsible for its creation be part of it?