Non-existing objects

[Brian37]

Another one of these religious Socratic goose chases I think.  Kerim, is there a point you are trying to get to?  I think you want to argue that God exists even though He cannot actually be found in the Universe.  Am I correct?

By just accepting there is a Creator, it doesn't reflect any useful information in one's life.

In my case and when I was teen (many decades ago), I felt the need to discover the real image of the Will/Power (God if you like) which forced me to exist in the time/space realm for a certain period of time and on certain places (actually on a planet we call Earth) in a huge universe.

But I also noticed that most people, I had the chance to know or live with, didn't have such a need. They are atheists or followers of a religion which they are used to or brings them services/benefits they are looking for and are not provided by other systems.

So I am just passing by and I will be around here as long I am allowed to (I am just a guest here after all).
So I have no intention to convince anyone about anything. I know in advance that every one is right the way he sees things. In fact, I didn't meet yet a mature sane person who thinks that any of his beliefs (or disbeliefs) is wrong.

None of this post is evidence for anything and yet another mere act where you pontificate.

 In fact, I didn't meet yet a mature sane person who thinks that any of his beliefs (or disbeliefs) is wrong.

No, plenty of both theists and atheists can think they are right but admit they don't know absolutely for certain. That is possible too.

But that is not the point in any case.

WHEN you have something credible, WHEN you have something testable and falsifiable, and WHEN you can turn all that over to someone else who can repeat it and come to the same conclusions REPEATEDLY, that is when you have evidence. 

You are dodging again. Your post was not evidence it was mere commentary.

---

Here is how determining evidence works.

1. Collect data on prior established method of data collection.

2. Form hypothesis based on that data.

3. Plug that data into established formula with control groups.

4. Repeat the tests over and over to establish a decent sample rate.

5. Write down your conclusions explaining your data collection and methodology and formula.

6. Hand your findings over for independent peer review to people in the same field.

 If the vast majority who independently review it come to the same conclusions, then you are onto something. If they don't then you go back and find where the errors are and fix them, or even scrap it if you are that way off.


Nothing in your OP Kerm is doing that. It is simply making naked assertions and trying to sound sciencey.