What would evidence of a God even look like?

[Arkilogue]

So you have no real world concept or applications of sphere of space, point, field, straight line, curving return path, disk or circle?

You have no experience with Newtonian equal/opposite reaction?

Your appeal to ridicule is common and boring, try harder.

Typical of LSD is the creative connection of ideas that others would not connect.  You have taken a few actual ideas, and recombined them into a bunch of made-up bullshit that you think is truthy enough to pass as an actual system of thought.

It's fun to play around with numbers.  It's fun to make shit up and stare at graph paper or a computer screen and pretend you've discovered something deep.  I get it.

Well, since the structure of DNA was mapped out by Fancis Crick while on LSD and he won the Nobel Prize..... maybe I should try it for greater clarity and insight on what I've already worked out by pure logic and geometry, backed up by evidence.


Thanks for the advice!

---

Here's the thing. I'm trusting scientists with my cosmological beliefs. As far as I know, there was no time before the Big Bang, nor is there evidence that there is anything out there other than everything that has originated with the Big Bang. So, I guess it comes down to how much you trust science when you encounter this argument. I trust it, and I came up with the argument myself while coincidentally debating a theist about the existence of God. You seem not to. That's fine. You can choose to disbelieve science in favor of your own fantasies. Good luck.

Space time came into existence at the big bang that is why it begs the question what created it. If you find a dead body it could be murder, it could be natural causes or it could be suicide.

Vibration created it, cavitation created it. The substance of God created space-time when it moved and vacated the local region.

The singularity of the Big Bang is falsely imagined as some infinitesimal point of hyper dense mass in a sea of nothingness. That nothingness does not exist and the singularity is an infinite (borderless) ocean of matter in gravitational equilibrium.


The beginning is the most important place, make a mistake there and it will carry through and falsely color all the subsequent work.

---

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

Because if it's not a part of it, it doesn't exist. The universe is a word that is supposed to describe everything.

I think you need a more specific definition: The universe is everything within void/space-time and the void space itself.

If there are multiple separate void/space-times, there are separate universes in a larger metaversal bulk.

---

Space time came into existence at the big bang that is why it begs the question what created it. If you find a dead body it could be murder, it could be natural causes or it could be suicide.

Create is poor word choice. That assumes a creator. A better question is "what caused it?". What most rational atheists say is "I don't know" because nobody has found evidence of anything "before" then. We don't even know if there was a cause. Anyone who tries to make an assertion about what is likely to have caused it at this point is absolutely not being rational. You can throw guesses about it at a dart board, but that doesn't really make anything more true. Get more comfortable with saying "I don't know" when guessing is the only other option.

Having an informed guess that follows known natural laws and predicts known universe phenomenon is better. Or you could go back to your dart board.

Oh yeah sorry, you are in your safe space and can't hear me.

---

Science works on starting with a hypothesis which is something yet to be proven. Then subsequently evidence in support or against it is found. When Columbus sailed to American he was not that sure if he might fall of the edge. So in that light a creator God is a hypotheses, sure one of many. However the title of the thread suggested what you were looking for is what kind of evidence can support such a hypotheses. If that is of interest to you then I'll be happy to share my views.

Columbus knew the earth was round. Why else would he have sailed west to go to India knowing one could get there by going east?

Why would we want explanations from someone who does not understand the simple facts?

Columbus had world maps from the Vatican who got them from China who circumnavigated the globe in huge fleets before anyone.