What would you consider to be evidence for God?

[Pat Mustard]

Well then, the question you got to ask yourself is, whither god? If there is no magic to create the universe, god doesn't exist because there is no magic for to allow god's existence.

There is no more magic God pro-creating the infinite universes than there is in us being able to self express and say "I am"

There is however a bit more power.

By what mechanism does a god get the power to willfully create the universe? Remember, as far as we can know before the big bang everything was contained in an infinitely small and infinitely dense singularity.
By what mechanism does a god exist when there is no reality for him to exist in?

You see, every mechanism posited for the existence of any god since humanity has actually started properly looking at reality and finding out how things actually happen (rather than accepting the frustratingly stupid goddidit you so love, yet want to deny your love of) the best theists have been able to come up with is "because he's (or they're) supernatural", which is synonymous with saying "I have no mechanisms but god must exist because I believe he does, therefore magic!". So if you want to convince others that god can exist within reality you'd better come up with a plausible mechanism for him which is testable, falsifiable, obeys William of Ockham and agrees with what facts we know of the universe.

[Brian37]

The OP is a very old and tired question and every religion claim their deity or god are real. I think the real question for every religion is "What would one accept as evidence that god/s are nothing but products of human's imaginations?"

[Arkilogue]

There is no more magic God pro-creating the infinite universes than there is in us being able to self express and say "I am"

There is however a bit more power.

By what mechanism does a god get the power to willfully create the universe? Remember, as far as we can know before the big bang everything was contained in an infinitely small and infinitely dense singularity.
By what mechanism does a god exist when there is no reality for him to exist in?

You see, every mechanism posited for the existence of any god since humanity has actually started properly looking at reality and finding out how things actually happen (rather than accepting the frustratingly stupid goddidit you so love, yet want to deny your love of) the best theists have been able to come up with is "because he's (or they're) supernatural", which is synonymous with saying "I have no mechanisms but god must exist because I believe he does, therefore magic!". So if you want to convince others that god can exist within reality you'd better come up with a plausible mechanism for him which is testable, falsifiable, obeys William of Ockham and agrees with what facts we know of the universe.

Infinitesimally small? Compared to what? That nothing space you are always shone around it that does not exist? Why are you viewing from outside? There is no outside, the only valid point of perspective is inside the singularity.

The singularity exists as a field of mass in equilibrium, not a tiny sphere radially oriented to a nothing space outside that does not exist.

If you improperly imagine the pre-inflationary state, your mistake will color all the rest of your work.


In fact the common idea in both early science an religion was of an infinitely spatial "singularity" mostly characterized as water, in the Nun of Egypt, the Chaos of Greece, and the infinite body of Vishnu, the preserver. Also called the Prima materia in early science. An undifferentiated primal state that all forces and phenomenon are carved out of.

A "tiny", mono-centric finite singularity is a very new idea. An infinite singularity is a much older idea represented throughout diverse cultures.



I work with an infinite singularity, have you ever considered it?

[snowtracks]

---

Perhaps 100 years ago the logic would be circular, but discoveries in science have validated the Bible which said it first.
1. Universe has constant laws of physics - “I have established the covenant of day and night and the fixed order of heaven and earth” .
2. Universe is expanding - He created the heavens and stretched them out.” and ‘stretching out the heavens like a tent’ - the Hebrew verb form here indicates a continual or ongoing stretching.
3. Universe is decaying - In Romans 8 it’s state that the entire creation has been subjected to the law of decay.
4. Universe had a beginning - “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”.

What sciences says:
1. Astronomers have look back into time within 200,000 years of the big bang event and have seen no change in the physical laws, and other sciences have not detected any changes.
2. Hubble discovered this shortly after General Relativity published.
3. 2’nd law of thermodynamics (entropy).
4. The Big Bang marks the instant at which the universe began, when space and time came into existence and all the matter in the cosmos started to expand.

---

---

On your four "points":

1) Just because A says X and B says something similar you cannot infer that A supports the truthfulness of B. The fact that, as far as we know, scientific principles are constant across the universe does not even remotely lead one to be able to surmise that god exists nor that science has provided evidence for god. In fact everything we know in science leads us to be confident that god is not necessary, and what is not necessary can be safely disregarded without evidence (for which the god hypothesis has none). Also in your "science says" part you give scientific evidence which flat out contradicts biblical "truth". The bible states the world is c. 6,000 years old and yet you can agree that scientists can accurately see to within 200,000 years of the big bang (an event which itself contradicts biblical creation).

2) No the bible didn't posit an expanding universe. The bible posits that the "heavens", to which we are generous in accepting that they meant the universe (the fact is ancient hebrews knew fuck all about the universe thinking stars were simply fixed pinpricks in the "heavens" and other absurdities), is a fixed plane which is permanently put in place above the world and doesn't move. Thus the bible posits a stationary non-expansionary universe not an expansionary one.

3) We don't actually know if the universe is decaying overall, while it probably is the universe may not be a closed system (which is one of the necessary conditions for 2 Thermodynamics to hold) and if it is not, it need not decay, just like the earth is not decaying currently as it is receiving energy from an outside source. Plus the "law of decay" you refer to in Romans is not talking about entropy but talking about the "decay" one is supposed to experience when one is "removed from god", in order to show that such decay exists you have to prove the existence of the christian god, an impossible task because he doesn't exist.

4) Again, the big bang refutes biblical creation. In the biblical creation we have a group of gods (as per the bible) creating the world ex nihilo and then creating the "heavens" as a cloak to put around the flat earth described in the creation. This myth doesn't accurately describe the shape of the world, never mind the circumstances in which came about. An accurate bible creation story would have talked about the singularity that existed before space time had meaning, its expansion and how c.9bn years after this expansion started a clump of dust in a nebula accreted to form the proto star which became sol, and that the ring of dust around it clumped together to form the small planetisemals which eventually, by a process of hovering up other gasses and dust in the cloud and collisions, formed the planets and asteroid belts which we know as the solar system. As you can see the biblical creation myth has absolutely nothing to say about reality, and therefore science has no way to validate it.

Of course your nonsense comes to a deeper problem with your assertions. You are asserting that the bible has "predicted" scientific principles or cosmic history when it has done nothing of the sort. What others have done, and you have swallowed, is mendaciously cherrypicked passages from the bible which on a very superficial and ignorant reading of scientific principles can be made out to agree with those scientific principles, after the science was developed. If those passages were truly scientific, then we would expect medieval scholars to be able to show scientific knowledge like the laws of thermodynamics, and explain phenomena like solar system formation simply from reading the bible and applying the knowledge therein to the world they saw. Instead we see medieval scholars posit a very simplistic view of the universe, full of wrong suppositions and ideas which were generated by their reading of the bible.

---

Quote - You are asserting that the bible has "predicted".

Here's a prophecy that has decimal conciseness.The Daniel prophecy (Daniel 9:25-26*) concerning the arrival of the Messiah into Jerusalem.

•  From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem: Decree from Persian ruler Artaxerxes is issued March 5, 444 BC
  
• until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing: ‘Sevens’ by biblical definition is years. Math - “seven sevens” = 7x7 = 49 years,    62x7= 434 years,    49+434 = 483 years. Note: the 49 years is when the temple was complete that’s why two time intervals stated.
  
•  Daniel’s civilization counted time as 483 lunar years: 360 x 483 = 173,880 days. Next, convert those days back into solar years: 173,880 ÷ 365.2422 = 476.068 years. After converting the decimal part (0.068) to days (0.068 x 365.2422 = 24.8 days), the time prophesized for the Messiah to arrive comes out to be 476 years and 25 days.
  
• Adding this number to March 5, 444 BC—the date on which the decree to rebuild Jerusalem was issued—brings us to March 30, AD 33, entry of Jesus into Jerusalem.
  
• Portion fulfilled and future fulfilling prophecy -  people of the ruler (antichrist) who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. Future antichrist will be from the Roman Empire; Roman soldiers destroy the temple and Jerusalem city in 70 AD. 
   
   
  *Know and understand this: From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed.
  

•  

[Angrboda]

•  Daniel’s civilization counted time as 483 lunar years: 360 x 483 = 173,880 days.

Bullshit. There is no support for the notion that ancient Jews used lunar years of 360 days. That's just crap evangelicals pull from their ass.

[Pat Mustard]

This is just stupid. The seventy weeks "prophesy" of Daniel refers to the Antiochene crisis of the 2nd Century BCE, where the Hellenic ruler of the Seleucid Empire, Antiochus IV persecuted the jews who weren't willing to Hellenize, which was the flash point which started the Maccabean revolt. It is also generally acknowledged to have been written after the fact, in order to buff up Daniel's reputation to predict the future, and by extension, to bolster yhwh's pretensions to omniscience.

You can read a summary of what the prophesy actually means, based on works by people who know what they're talking about (unlike you snowtracks) here. It also includes a short precis on the torturing of the prophesy the funditards like yourself have to undergo in order to make it seem like it refers to the mythical personage of Yeshua bar Yosef.

So in conclusion, things predicted by science; eleventy billion. Things predicted by the bible; none. You've still got nothing but your pointless wankering.

[Edwardo Piet]

"Magic? How does that work?"

"It's magic."

---

"Wut?"

"Shazam!"

"Huh?"

"I don't get it you're supposed to turn into a mushroom now."

""

---

Since the universe is not illusionary, it can’t result from magic.

If the universe was illusory we wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

[Arkilogue]

Since the universe is not illusionary, it can’t result from magic.

If the universe was illusory we wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

Quite a persistent illusion if so, as compared to a dream state.

[Brian37]

•  Daniel’s civilization counted time as 483 lunar years: 360 x 483 = 173,880 days.
  

Bullshit.  There is no support for the notion that ancient Jews used lunar years of 360 days.  That's just crap evangelicals pull from their ass.

Meh, making stuff up isn't a patent owned by one religion.

[DanTheOutlaw]

"I don't know, what have ya got?"

Typical answer on the Atheist Experience TV show and it's mine too.