What would evidence of a God even look like?

[Jesster]

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.

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.

[Excited Penguin]

Ok, fdesilva, that still doesn't tell me I should project my own imagination on the fact. We just don't know how the universe came into existence. I don't think there's a why, that's a purely human question, it is concerned with meaning, you know, something brains create in order to make sense of the patterns in the world, it is something we're evolved to be able to do in order to survive. It's not something a God would have, unless said God would be itself part of a world similar to ours where it would have to survive as well. But anyway, we don't know how the universe came into existence. Nobody knows. But you're trying to say you do, and I'm just not comfortable with doing that myself. I prefer to admit when I'm in the dark about something rather than lie to myself that I'm not.

[fdesilva]

Ok, fdesilva, that still doesn't tell me I should project my own imagination on the fact. We just don't know how the universe came into existence. I don't think there's a why, that's a purely human question, it is concerned with meaning, you know, something brains create in order to make sense of the patterns in the world, it is something we're evolved to be able to do in order to survive. It's not something a God would have, unless said God would be itself part of a world similar to ours where it would have to survive as well. But anyway, we don't know how the universe came into existence. Nobody knows. But you're trying to say you do, and I'm just not comfortable with doing that myself. I prefer to admit when I'm in the dark about something rather than lie to myself that I'm not.

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.

[chimp3]

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?

[fdesilva]

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?

I was using Columbus's story as an example of a working hypotheses, it was not meant to be taken as a accurate account of what may or may not have been the fears of Columbus

[chimp3]

Are any other of your hypothesis not meant to be accurate accounts?

[fdesilva]

Are any other of your hypothesis not meant to be accurate accounts?

I did not claim to be God

[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.

[RozKek]

Before we try to find evidence for a god, we need to figure out how the metaphysical can interact with the physical. Makes no sense to me. And if god is physical, then surely we'd find signs of him. If god is physical, then he's deterministic and completely predictable. If not, then he's random, and I don't see a god in any of those options. In other words, god doesn't seem physically possible.

Edit: The idea that the universe itself is God, it doesn't make sense to me. It still stands that he's either completely predictable or has a bit of randomness (but still deterministic and predictable in bigger scales). That doesn't seem godlike to me.

[Arkilogue]

Before we try to find evidence for a god, we need to figure out how the metaphysical can interact with the physical. Makes no sense to me. And if god is physical, then surely we'd find signs of him. If god is physical, then he's deterministic and completely predictable. If not, then he's random, and I don't see a god in any of those options. In other words, god doesn't seem physically possible.

And you think what you are made off and walking around on is "physical"? It's 99.999999999% empty space occupied by the movement of an extremely tiny amount of physical matter.

If God is 100% physical, He would be made of quark matter, pure matter with no space unoccupied by it. It would be an almighty, all-consuming fire compared to atomic matter.