What would evidence of a God even look like?

[Arkilogue]

What are you talking about, that looks delicious!  

And for good example, would you mind briefly describing the Big Bang theory in a non-salad form? *popcorn*

Nope. I'm not making an assertion here. I'm not spending time explaining something if it's not my job to do so. So far though, most of what you've said is still nothing but abstraction. Bring it to the real world.

Do I get one given beginning axiom or do you want me to justify that too?

[Jesster]

Nope. I'm not making an assertion here. I'm not spending time explaining something if it's not my job to do so. So far though, most of what you've said is still nothing but abstraction. Bring it to the real world.

Do I get one given beginning axiom or do you want me to justify that too?

Not my assertion, not my problem. Justify your own assertions. I'll let you know when I accept them or not after the salad settles. Otherwise I'll leave this to the others and stop wasting my time.

[Arkilogue]

Do I get one given beginning axiom or do you want me to justify that too?

Not my assertion, not my problem. Justify your own assertions. I'll let you know when I accept them or not after the salad settles. Otherwise I'll leave this to the others and stop wasting my time.

As you wish...

[GrandizerII]

Apparently, this may be explainable by the Many Worlds Interpretation of QM if MWI is true.

I find it so bizarre that scientists would attribute a completely deterministic model (currently understanding of quantum mechanics and physical forces) on a completely random Many Worlds metaverse that burps out lucky universes like a drunken bingo machine.  Illogical.

You mean counter-intuitive.

[Jesster]

Not my assertion, not my problem. Justify your own assertions. I'll let you know when I accept them or not after the salad settles. Otherwise I'll leave this to the others and stop wasting my time.

As you wish...

I love you too 

[Ravenshire]

Matter, through vibration, creates space...

Evidence for that assertion?!?

[Arkilogue]

We'll have to start over before the beginning, up for a brief journey through matter, space, time and scale?

Sure.   Any time you're ready.

My model begins exactly the same as the Big Bang Theory, with one single difference: The singularity is omni-centric (the center is everywhere) and infinite (occupying all space forever in all directions). This is actually consistent with the logic of the BBT singularity but inconsistent with ALL MEDIA REPRESENTATION, and this distinction is critical. We have been shone a finite singularity, in a black nothing space that is not supposed to exist. The only valid point of perspective is inside the singularity.

Follow so far?

---

Matter, through vibration, creates space...

Evidence for that assertion?!?

How about 3 physical experiments?









And here is vibration through matter (water) creating space and light.

[Angrboda]

Sure.   Any time you're ready.

My model begins exactly the same as the Big Bang Theory, with one single difference: The singularity is omni-centric (the center is everywhere) and infinite (occupying all space forever in all directions). This is actually consistent with the logic of the BBT singularity but inconsistent with ALL MEDIA REPRESENTATION, and this distinction is critical. We have been shone a finite singularity, in a black nothing space that is not supposed to exist.  The only valid point of perspective is inside the singularity.

Follow so far?

Yes, I follow. That's consistent with relativity and standard big bang cosmology. Please continue.

[Arkilogue]

I find it so bizarre that scientists would attribute a completely deterministic model (currently understanding of quantum mechanics and physical forces) on a completely random Many Worlds metaverse that burps out lucky universes like a drunken bingo machine.  Illogical.

You mean counter-intuitive.

I stand corrected

---

As you wish...

I love you too 

[Bunburryist]

Even if we could find evidence of "something" that we can't explain, something completely beyond the realm of science, that doesn't make it evidence FOR the existence of a god. Besides, science has a habit of finding things no one had ever even conceived of and turning around and building a physical theory around it. I think you'd have to find evidence that there is SOMEONE behind that SOMETHING we can't explain. Proving there is "something" and proving that the "something" is a god are two different things altogether.