Detecting God

You mentioned in your prologue, detecting gravity by its effects on a ball when it is released. So are you saying that you would accept the effects of a God or gods on physical objects, as evidence of His/her/their existence? What exactly counts as "god evidence?"Here are some other important question that relate to this topic.
Do you agree that the universe is finite? Yes or No?
Do you agree that something can not come from nothing? Yes or No?
Do you agree that if there was ever a time that there was absolutely nothing, that nothing could exist now? Yes or No?
Do you agree that a yes answer to that last question requires something infinite to exist in order for something now to exist?
Do you agree that for something to exist infinitely it must be self sustaining?
What is the best term to give to something that is infinite, self sustaining, and able to produce our universe?

My understanding is not that the Hebrew alphabet didn't exist, but only rather that the oldest Hebrew writings found to date are from the tenth century BCE. Would the fact that no older writings have been found to still exist today, truthfully negate the possibility that the Hebrew language could go back much further?Bible Possibly Written Centuries Earlier, Text Suggests | Live Science

You indicated that answered prayer to a request for healing cancer would count as "god evidence." But what if the persons cancer just went into remission on its own and our prayer just happened to be around the same time that this was already going to occur? You can see how this one isolated case could not be counted as evidence. Perhaps 10 such cases would be sufficient.I read an example once about an episode of the Simpson where Homer prayed that if it were God's will for him to eat a box of chocolate chip cookies that God would do absolutely nothing. Homer waited a few moments and observed nothing happening and so he said, "I accept your sign of nothing oh great one as a sign that it is your will for me to eat these cookies." Lol!The point of course is that if you are using "signs" as evidence for detecting god then the sign has to be predetermined, and it has to be a sign that could not possibly be coincidentally a natural event occurring at the same time as the request. In other words it has to be very specific and very unique.You also seemed to indicate that something could come from nothing. If that is what you meant to say, could you please give an example? You also seemed to indicate that if there was ever a time when there was nothing that something could still be here now. Could you please explain how this would be possible?You also seemed to indicate that something can exist in an infinite state without the need to be self sustaining. Please explain how that could be possible?

Out of curiosity, what is your definition for universe? Mine is everything that exists. So if there were as you said "a larger universe" wouldn't it merely be a part of this "everything?" You seem to be saying that you believe that something could now exist if something infinite did not exist. That would mean that you are not sticking to your "for the sake of argument" statement and that you believe something finite can exist in an infinite number. How is this physically possible?Also you seemed to indicate that there is no requirements for something infinite to be self sustaining. So how can something infinite exist while needing external forces to feed its existence? That would seem to require the existence of other infinite sources to feed that infinite source. But then wouldn't those sources need to be self sustaining? I agree. Personality is one of the characteristics we generally assign to the term "god." And so far we have mentioned nothing that indicates this infinite, self sustaining, and universe forming entity is sentient. But for now are we not just trying to "detect" god? And not trying to exhaustively define him?

Don't you think the bubble concept is very speculative? Personally (with no reason to even hint of its reality) I think it seems more like a desperate grabbing at straws. But that's just me. At least back in ancient times when some astronomers proposed that the Earth was not the center of the universe, and that other planets might exist out there, they had some observations (such as the moon) with which to make such "wild" claims. I agree that if there were an infinite entity, then he or it would be part of the "everything" and therefore part of the universe. But with the presupposition that the finite universe proceeded forth from he/it, this would also indicate that before the current finite universe came into being, he/it existed apart from the universe. That would make my reference to this entity separately or prior to the universe, a grammatically accurate one. Also I don't understand why this infinite entities existence within the current universe would necessitate the entire universe be infinite? You lost me on that one. I would again question the existence of such a "cyclic relationship" on the grounds that there is no observations to even hint of one. But "for the sake of argument" if one such cycle did exist, given that the current observable universe is finite, we would have to impose the reality that this "cycle" would eventually have to break down. Any "loop" with even one deteriorating element is destined to eventual collapse. Such a system would then have hoisted upon it the requirements of a beginning. This would mean that if was not an infinite loop. And that puts us back at square one...what came before the loop? How did the loop begin if there were ever a time in which nothing existed?Do you see that the existence of anything finite (traced back far enough) logically requires the existence of at least one thing infinite capable of producing the processes that produce the finite thing that exists? The definition of something finite is that it has a beginning or an ending. So wouldn't you say the very definition of "finite" places those constraints? I agree Paul. Personality is a big defining factor in rather we call this "thing" god or just some impersonal effect like energy. But before we can determine rather a thing has personality or not, wouldn't you agree that we have to first be reasonably convinced of its presence? Yes but don't you think we could eventually rule out any mythology, if it existed within our concept of who or what god is? For example, as science has progressed, we have ruled out all the old notions that Mars is teaming with aliens just waiting to launch an all out invasion on us unsuspecting earthlings. Mythology about Mars has been slowly replaced with reality about Mars. My point is that just because some truly outrageous myths have existed about god, do not of themselves negate his existence.In the final analysis, virtually all concepts of god or gods, include an infinite entity, who is self sustaining and the originator of our current universe.

Oops, I think what we have here is a failure to communicate... I meant to refer only to the majority of concepts about god, and not to imply that the majority of the conglomeration of all religions hold to this concept. Wouldn't you agree that the majority of this planet's religious population hold to one of the five or six main religions -- which do see their god as an infinite creator of the universe? And thinking about this further wouldn't you agree that this is relevant because if we are going to "detect god" we want to address the major religious populations concept of the term, rather than including all the obscure and less followed beliefs such as Greek mythology etc...? But wouldn't you agree that we are not talking about events that "most often" occur? Rather we are discussing an event that is unique to our universe (its birth). So wouldn't you agree that all of your "most often" events (like rock slides and supernova's) can be traced back to that one unique event? Therefore we have a first cause that we must refer to as the first cause or expansion/big bang of the universe. It seems highly odd to suggest that before this event occurred that there was nothing. Because something can not come from nothing. Therefore it seems more likely to me that something must have always existed. And we call something that always existed, "infinite." And wouldn't you agree that something infinite in nature would logically have to infinitely survive? Even through a finite event like the big bang?

Yes but don't you think that since we are discussing the infinite existing prior to the formation of the finite, that it is just easier to differentiate when we refer to the "universe," by meaning the finite portion of everything, rather than the infinite and the finite combined? If this is a stumbling block for you we do not need to define it this way. I was just trying to keep things easier is all. Well, if we don't try and partly anchor our speculations in some observation, we end up chasing flying spaghetti monsters like my good buddy Dawkins. And reaching for the ridiculous like that is not very helpful in these kinds of discussions. So based on observation, "something finite" requires an origin from something else. But no observation even on a small scale shows how a cycle of anything with finite components can exist in an infinite amount of space or time. The closest thing I could think of would be the cycle of life having existed and perpetuated for a very long time on some accounts, but even so most of all life forms to have ever existed on earth have gone extinct.This seems to demonstrate my point that no process (regardless of how strong it is) can survive with one of its links being finite. Lets face it...no matter how strong a tire we buy, if it has a small leak it will eventually go flat. I am not assuming there was ever a time when there was nothing, I am just saying finite things can not logically occupy infinite space or time. Therefore I can only logically conclude that, there must have been a time when only something infinite existed.

Yes but don't you think the definition that most people hold to when discussing god, is relevant with what to look for when trying to see if we can detect any entities out there that match that description? This is true but the very meaning of the word "unique" implies what is unusual to the human experience. Perhaps there are some 200 trillion year old aliens out there some where that have experienced the birth and death of finite universes many times and to them it is not unique at all. But to us what is unique is that which is unusual to our experience. And so far we are only acquainted with the formation of the one finite universe. We are however acquainted with several supernova's and many rock slides. I am basing this statement on the fact that so far this has never been observed occurring. The closest thing to this being possible is in quantum fluctuations at a sub atomic level, particles appear to be coming form nothing, but we are talking about theoretical particles not actually observed ones, and even if these particles are real, this is still occurring in a currently physical finite universe where there are already existing laws of physics in place. So I seriously doubt that this is hope that whole universes could appear from nothing. But that's just me. You don't see the destruction of something infinite as an oxymoron?

Look at it this way. If I define a beast as some hideous 12 foot creature that walks up right like a man but has the head of a huge wolf, and that feeds on unsuspecting joggers in the woods, then my search for such an animal like that will probably not be very successful. However if I define it as any large hairy animal that is a meat eater, and occasionally stands up-right like a man, then I have just described a bear. A search for a "beast" like that would then probably be very successful.Likewise if we don't have a general definition of what god is, before we go looking for him, we may over look what is real because we are looking for the myth. So even though our beliefs do not effect what is real, I personally think our definition of what we are looking for, effects what we accept as its fulfillment. It may very well be that that definition of god does not exist at all, and what ever is out there is yet un-titled, and wouldn't even be classed as "god." That wouldn't change its reality one way or the other. But in this thread we are trying to detect "god." Therefore what most people define as god, does seem to be an important factor in our search. Yes, but again, the definition of something unique, is that which is unusual to the human experience. All of those other things you list are easily observed many times and therefore are not considered unusual to the human experience. But the same can not be said for the formation of the universe. We do not observe even one other universe being formed anywhere and therefore this one, is unique (unusual to the human experience). It is not logical to say that because there are many grains of sand on a beach that there must be many universes. We would have to observe at least one other one in order to make such a conclusion. No actually its been a couple of years for me since I studied the whole quantum particles thing. Do you have a link that could catch me up on it? I'm sorry my friend. You lost me with the "turtles" thing. It's probably just a joke I'm not privy to. I guess I don't communicate this very well. Let me try it again. I'm saying that if it is true that something can not come from nothing (and so far I am unfamiliar with anything that says it can) then since something now exists, this requires that something always has existed. The key word here is "always." Because if there were ever a time when there was nothing, and something can not come from nothing, then there would still only be nothing.Secondly, if the observable universe is finite (most scientists agree that it is) then that means it had a beginning, and will likely have an eventual ending. This requires that something preceded the current universe and that this universe be the product of whatever that something is. Now at this point we can say another universe might have preceded this one to which was preceded by another and another. But since we are discussing finite matter, there must eventually be a beginning point to it all. So rather you espouse a multi-universe theory, or believe this is the first, you still end up with something being required to exist to get it all started. And that something must have always existed.We define something that has always existed as infinite in nature. Therefore the existence of the finite, logically requires...no demands...the existence of the infinite.

And I completely agree with this statement Paul...so long as no one can come along and give a logical reason to accept such a notion, then the idea would be a nonsensical as the other. Well in principle I agree, but in keeping with my screen name here, lets face it... Dawkins just came up with the spaghetti monster to be intentionally ridiculous, in order to mock those who do hold to a belief in a god. I see that as kind of mean spirited. He could have just made his points without the sarcasm... but you know how good o'l Richard is. So when I quickly dismiss that notion as ridiculous, I think I am justified in doing so. But when we start talking about bubble theories and multi-universes, I honestly am not so quick, but rather I do so because I have yet to see anything "but" speculation and what I call "fun day dreaming" to support it. You might think that I am dismissing them because they don't agree with my conclusions, but to the contrary, I really think it would be neat to discover other universes and parallel dimensions and all that cool sci-fi stuff. But I am trying to keep it a little grounded to reality and stay close to what we have observed. Please elaborate. Well from all that I have read, astronomers and astrophysicists are saying that the evidence points towards the universe having a beginning point and are also saying that it is winding down. This means the universe is finite. By definition, something finite can not occupy infinite space or time. Don't you think that mathematics also seems to strongly support this? I agree. It is possible that there is a "group" of entities that are infinite in nature. But they would have to at least operate in a self-sustaining closed loop system that did not require outside stimuli in order to exist. Say for example a trio functioning as one single unit. But at least one "something" infinite must exist in order for anything finite now to exist. Am I sensing your agreement on this point? Perhaps I misrepresented myself. I fully agree that they can. So long as all of the components of the cycle are infinite. If you have one component in the cycle being finite, then you can not have an infinite cycle. Follow me? And so far as I have read, this present universe is finite (with consideration for some infinite components) and therefore it wouldn't be part of an infinite loop would it? Oh boy...now you've went and did it.
Well in the one sense that is true because at the big bang, matter, the space for matter, and time itself were all created. So in that sense there was no time before the big bang.However in another sense, time is relative to the beholder. When I leave my dog chained up outside for the afternoon, to him its been a whole week where to me it was only a few hours. So we can logically talk about time existing before the big bang because we understand that it is relative to the present. When I say my grand father was born in 1909, I understand that date is relative to my present position in time.So even though we discuss a time before there was time, we understand it is relative to our present, and therefore not at all illogical to do so. So in that sense logic does demand that time be infinite. There will always be one more second further back you can reference relative to where you are now, and there will always be one more second forward you can reference relative to where you are now. So when I say "infinite time," I am meaning relative to the now and my logic then would remain sound don't you think?

My appology if that's the impression you got. No such implication was intended. I was merely referring to his comments in his 2006 article about "Why there almost certainly is no God." Besides this I am unaware of anything I said that in any way disrespected him. Though you are correct that I don't think I have a lot in common with him. You seem spring loaded to charge in and defend him, but I assure you Theodorc, I meant no attack to begin with. Just an idle reference.

Perhaps I am reading too much into this, but this comment came off kind of pompous. I'd like to ask you if we couldn't try and keep the tone of our discussion more respectful? Thanks. No, you are absolutely correct, I haven't. Nor have I intended on getting that far...yet. Ok...I get it everyone! Dawkins is not the inventor of the term flying spaghetti monster. Is it really that important? But I do think he is the most "prominent" and notable public figure to use the term recently. But Paul, didn't I already address the fact that I reject those other possibilities for purely lack of observational reasons? If there are no observations to support them, can you please explain what makes them "serious suggestions?" But if everything we have observed thus far does require a cause, I am unclear as to how that is a problem? I don't see where that conflicts with my conclusion that the universe is finite? If it had a beginning, and will have a "practical" ending, how is that not finite? That's your opinion and I respect that, though I disagree. I can only conceive of things in ways that relate to my own experiences and I think most people are the same way. Again even when we judge the age of our faithful dog we tend to do so as it relates to us. I have a dog named Ginger who was born in my house 13 years ago. That makes her around 91 in "people years."

Hi Oni,
I'm glad you joined the discussion. Even though everything we have experienced thus far is finite as you said, don't you think tracing everything back to its logical origins will eventually lead you into some very big problems if you try to stick with purely finite causes? It is true that in a sense the atoms that make up my body will still exist when I die. But the energy potential that was once there will be gone. So for all practical purposes, me and my atoms are very finite. But beyond all of that, science seems to strongly suggest that these "atoms" were not always here, but rather do have a beginning. Its not mathematically possible to have an infinite number of purely finite beginnings. Therefore logically we have to conclude that because anything finite exists, something infinite must exist that was the original first cause of the finite.

Well Paul, if you were just looking for people who all agree with you and think like you then I wouldn't go to a web site entitled "Creation VERSES Evolution" if I were you. The very name implies debate...right? And if so then in a debate you will meet people who you think have really "whacked" logic. But don't you think its more productive to just tell them why you think there logic fails then it is to belittle them or to beg them to think like you? But that's just me... Well lets examine that claim and see if its true shall we?
Have we always observed that something's origin requires there be something to cause that origin? Yes.
Does this logically mean that something/s always existed in order for something to now exist? Yes.
Have we only observed finite things exist in a finite number? Yes.
Therefore must the thing/s that always existed be infinite? Yes.
If the infinite thing/s ever existed when no finite things existed, must it/they be self-sustaining (or at least group sustaining)? Yes.There you have observation coupled with logical conclusion demonstrating that some-thing/s infinite and self-sustaining must exist.Please feel free to demonstrate any observations coupled with logical conclusions that support a bubble or multi-universe theory. FINITE: Finite Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
1.having bounds or limits; not infinite; measurable.
2.Mathematics . a.(of a set of elements) capable of being completely counted. b.not infinite or infinitesimal. c.not zero.
3.subject to limitations or conditions, as of space, time, circumstances, or the laws of nature: MAN'S FINITE EXISTENCE on earth.

Please note that the key word in my phrase is "observed." I point this out because even though you may think it is theoretically possible for something to originate without a cause, the question is have we only observed caused effects? Just saying this is false does not make it so. An example of something OBSERVED that did not require a cause by something else is required. That is because you challenged my rejection of mult-universes etc... (based on no observation) stating that the sword swings both ways. Therefore I presented you with an observation to which a refutation "with an observation" is required.I can't respond to anything else in the list that you replied to because the point above is key to following the logic. It would be a waste of our time for me to do so. With the exception of this next comment of yours: Again I had stated that I reject your other possibilities based on the lack of observation. In science observation is paramount. Note that my conclusion is acceptable to me because its based on observation with logic together. Well I'm sorry you feel that way Paul. If you are going to reject a whole belief system based on the off chance that some of the other "smart guys" guesses are right, don't you think you should familiarize yourself with it just a little? In your last post you accused me of being not very humble and coming across kind of superior. I am sorry if my demeanor comes off that way. But I gotta ask; say you see a man a few hundred yards away walking with a cane and dark sunglasses towards a huge cliff. If you believe he is blind and about to fall, just what tone should you use when you cry out, "STOP...CLIFF!!!"???