What would I require to believe in god?

Hi All,

This is a response to a question I was asked by bbb in a comment on my profile, which was:

'You ask for proof of God’s existence. What proof do you want?'

Here is my logic and the evidence I would require to belief in a god, or any specific god you care to name:

Let's ignore the black hole of complexity requires creation, and where the creator (being more complex than his creation) may have come from for a moment.

Let's assume there are only two possibilities:

1) The universe has always existed in some form
2) The universe was created by a deity, who always existed.

How should we tell the two options apart? Please devise an experiment in order to differentiate an eternal universe from one created by a deity. Run your experiment and present your results.

Once this has been done we can be assured that a creator made the universe, but not that any one of the possible gods we know of was this creator. Please devise an experiment to prove that it was the god you believe in was responsible for this creation. Run your experiment and present the results.

Are my standard too high. No. This is the process of science and it has worked for everything else it has turned its attention to. I see no reason why it should not work in this case, except devising an experiment in either case seems extraordinarily difficult.

Can anyone provide feedback on my logic, or devise the experiment, or produce the results?

Your basic assumption is faulty.
Science deals in testable, and falsifiable suppositions.
Religion deals in faith and absolute, inflexible beliefs.
One can believe in both at once because they cover two different areas of our human experience; simply put the HOW and the WHY.

Non overlapping magisteria?

While I partly (mostly?) agree with you, I should point out that a creator might have left some indications of creation. These fingerprints certainly fall under the scrutiny of science.

Moreover, in order to establish the 'why', you must first establish that there indeed needs to be a 'why'.

I should point out that a creator might have left some indications of creation.

He did, the evidence is all around you. But, man chooses to explain away everything. If he did not, then, he would be accountable. He does not choose to be accountable to anyone, except himself.

Satan provided the theory of evolution, and this is what man chooses to believe in, simply because he does not want to be accountable.

However, that is not going to be an adequate excuse.

Thank you for your reply, Silverwings.

However, you have failed to provide a way to differentiate an eternal universe from one created by a deity.

I don't believe in evolution just so I can do whatever I like. I believe it because there is a mountain of evidence supporting it. I could fire 'you only believe so you can avoid hell. You are afraid of god'.

If god loves us so much, then why throw us into eternal hell for the simple act of not believing? Seems like harsh punishment for an all loving god, especially when he knew it was going to happen.

Furthermore, if god loves us so much why not just destroy Satan? Why is free will SO important that he refuses to rid us of evil? Think about it - to an ALL knowing god our free will is just an illusion - he knows exactly what will happen until the end of time and has done since before he created everything - right?

Well the Universe has not existed forever, if it did then we wouldn't be able to see more than 13.7 billion light years away. The way I would prove this is that during Inflation the Universe expanded about a 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, Quattourdecillion times faster than the speed of light, which is the fastest known natural speed in the universe. Thus since Science cannot find anything that can travel a Quattordecillion times faster than the speed of light they cannot explain inflation. Since they cannot explain inflation there Big Bang Theory is flawed and only a Supernatural force like God could have created Inflation since He is the only one who could make matter travel a Quattordecillion times faster than light.

'Well the Universe has not existed forever, if it did then we wouldn't be able to see more than 13.7 billion light years away'

No - it's been 13.7 billion years since the big bang. No one knows what was before that. There may be higher dimensions (some say up to 11), there may be multi-verses, we may be going in some kind of cycle. Who knows? One thing is for sure - there is no clear path directly to a creator, let alone any one deity in-particular.

'He is the only one who could make matter travel a Quattordecillion times faster than light.'

I don't suppose you can actually prove that? I suspect not, so it's really just a statement of belief, not fact.

Who the f*ck is Satan? Is he from some kind of fairy tale? There is no Anti-christ there is no Satan.! That's just a story people tell their kids to make them go to sleep.

Oh yeah forgot the second part of the question. Well nobody but Krishna has ever claimed to be God, so there are no other Gods.

I AM GOD.

There! Now there are 2 gods

Seriously - is that a real argument you are putting forward? Does someone have to claim to be a god before they can even be considered one? Does claiming you are a god, prove you are a god? No.

No offense, Silverwings, but I really get tired of people saying that I'm an atheist because I don't want to be accountable. Personal responsibility is very important to me and I strive to live a moral life. Why are people amazed when we get so angry?

Silverwings lives in a fantasy world where she doesn't have to look for answers anywhere, except from a book writen and compiled by supersticious men 1700 years ago. She thinks that science and seeking more knowledge is the devils work. But she has no problem using science (computers and the internet) to come on here and spread her propaganda.

good response jimahl. I have noticed that silverwings doesn't answer any question unless she can respond with her propaganda.
'satan provided the theory of evolution.'
and don't forget satan gave us the easter bunny and santa.
lol. silverwings. you slay me.

First of all you cannot run a test to find out that God exists because he is not in this universe. Second of all humans cannot even find any life in the Universe and there are more than 70 sextillion, or 7 times 10^21 stars in the observable universe alone. If humans cannot even find life in our universe how can they find God outside of our universe? So are you saying that since humans have not found extraterrestial life, then extraterrestial life does not exist? Our telescopes are not large enough to spot life in different galaxies or even in our galaxy around other stars. Our spacships aren't fast enough for intergalactic or even interstellar travel. It would take 100,000 years even to reach the closest star to look for life around extrasolar planets, with our current technology. So, just because humans lack the advancement to seek out extrateresstial life that does not mean it doesn't exist. Humans have no way to test if there is life anywhere in the Universe. Do you think humans can find life 156 billion light years away? That's a lower estimate of the diameter of the universe. If they can't even do this how can they spot God outside the universe. You cannot run a test to even see if there is life besides us, in the Milky Way galaxy which is a mere 1,000 light years thick and 100,000 light years wide. If humans lack the advancement and technology to run even a very simple test like this, then how will they run a test to see if God exists which would be infinitely harder?

bbb: What are you basing your figure for the speed of the expansion of the universe on?

Also, one thing many people don't properly understand is that the big bang wasn't a whole lot of matter expanding into an existing space - it was the universe itself expanding from a very small volume into a large one - space itself expanding, not just matter travelling through space. Think of it as a balloon being blown up very rapidly.

Responding to your later post: By your analogy, then, believing in the christian god is just as faulty as believing in a specific alien race that we've never encountered - since we can't test for either, both of them are completely unfounded assumptions.

Askegg”
In your initial question you asked if your standards are too high requesting some sort of scientific ‘evidence’ for the support of a God. Let me ask you this question! Since science ‘demands’ that everything goes through its rigorous authentication, why is it that the Big Bang Theory is immune? Science made the laws according to which everything else is to be ‘judged’; tell me how these Big Bang assertions passed?

2nd law of thermodynamics says basically that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. The Big Bang says that everything that existed before the Big Bang came from an infinitesimal point of matter, about the size of a hydrogen nucleus. Since matter cannot be created, where did all of the matter come from that created the estimated 100-200 billion stars (and subsequent solar systems) come from?

1st law of thermodynamics basically says that matter, in its existing state, cannot change unless acted upon by an outside source. However, the Big Bang says that this infinitesimal speck of matter, that contained all of the existing matter and energy that ever existed, somehow “exploded”, eventually becoming all of the stars, planets and galaxies in our Universe. Since there was no available energy outside of this speck, what acted upon it to cause it to explode?

Another law of science that is broken and unquestioned by the Big Bang theory advocates is the law of inertia. Basically it says: “An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.”
What unbalanced force caused all of this exploding debris to start circling stars and become solar systems and galaxies in our Universe? And how did this unbalanced force cause them to be so organized in nature?

Another problem with the unquestioned Big Bang Theory is that Einstein showed that nothing could travel faster than the speed of light. The closer an object gets to traveling to the speed of light, the denser it becomes and it warps time causing it to slow down. How then did the Universe, during the 1st billionth of a second, expand so fast that we are able to look through the Hubble and see what the Universe looked like 2 billion light years ago?

Unlike you, I don’t require an elaborate experiment, just an intelligible answer!

BBB,
*** 'There is no Anti-christ there is no Satan.! That's just a story people tell their kids to make them go to sleep.'

So you *DO* think it's reasonable to summarily dismiss outlandish unprovable ideas after all. Since you've already admitted god is unprovable, you're only 1 step away from being an atheist.

Elone, yeah right, physic scientist forgot all about that. thermodynamics, is the level we are at. The Big Bang conforms to quantum level.

bbb, you're right about extraterrestrial life, That doesn't mean a myth made up by humans is real. God is an entity of extremely low probability.

The universe has precis properties we should expect if there is no planned design, and no purpose.

elone: The Big Bang theory is not immune to examination any more than the rest of science. The common view of what the Big Bang theory says is a misconception, though. The Big Bang was not an explosion in space, starting from a point - it was the expansion of the universe itself. All your objections are explained very well here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#misconceptions

It's unfortunate that the Big Bang isn't easy to explain to a layperson (I count myself as one too), but that doesn't affect the validity of the theory.

arachnid:
Again, another example of science 'rewording' its theory as it is shown to be invalid! They came up with this crap because of all of the controversy over the fact that their precious theory violated every physical law they held dear. I am aware of the 'expansion' double talk, no matter how you look at it, the theory still violates the laws of physics.

The word 'expand' means: 1. To increase the size, volume, quantity, or scope of; enlarge.

Since matter and energy cannot be created, where did all of the matter come from to 'provide' for this expansion?

All science does with theories like this is create new words. It has no evidence, no substance, no truthfulness, and no facts to back them up. Whenever they are questioned about this, some ‘theoreticist’ creates a ‘bigger’ word. All this does is buy some time while the real scientists look into what is being said. Then there is a mad dash to create and even bigger word and buy more time.

Two examples:
Evolution became Punctuated Equilibrium
Bang became expansion

Im sure I will really be impressed when they supercede Punctuated Equilibrium.

'They came up with this crap because of all of the controversy over the fact that their precious theory violated every physical law they held dear.'

Firstly, changing your ideas based on the evidence before you is the only rational response. Only those who refuse to alter their idea based on long held dogmas are burying their heads in the sand.

Second, any theory that violates ANY other theory is quickly dismissed. Are you seriously suggesting the entire scientific community is keeping the truth hidden? For what purpose?

'...I am aware of the 'expansion' double talk, no matter how you look at it, the theory still violates the laws of physics.'

Riiight. So physicists sit around shooting the breeze, when one of their mates walks in and says he has a crazy idea about a big bang. Everyone in the room says 'Wow! That violates everything we know about the universe and its origins! Let's promote it as the truth so we can do whatever we like.' Are you honestly suggesting this scenario is plausible?

'Since matter and energy cannot be created, where did all of the matter come from to 'provide' for this expansion?'

The big bang makes no comment about where the matter came from - just that it expanded. As you have pointed out, since matter can neither be created or destroyed, it stands to reason that the matter in this universe was all present at and before the big bang.

'All science does with theories like this is create new words.'

New concepts require new words to convey meaning. We have a much larger quantum of words today that we did 500 or 1,000 years ago. That is the nature of progress.

'It has no evidence, no substance, no truthfulness, and no facts to back them up.'

So you say.

'Whenever they are questioned about this, some ‘theoreticist’ creates a ‘bigger’ word. All this does is buy some time while the real scientists look into what is being said. Then there is a mad dash to create and even bigger word and buy more time.'

Urgh.

'Two examples:
Evolution became Punctuated Equilibrium'

Not quite. PE challenged evolution as a better explanation of the data we see before us. It lost when no supporting evidence for PE could be found.

'Bang became expansion'

Most people equate 'bang' with an explosion, which it was not. Expansion is a more accurate term. Is it wrong to try and clarify matters?

'Im sure I will really be impressed when they supercede Punctuated Equilibrium.'

Let me get this right. You believe that nothing happens for a long time because everything is in perfect balance. Then, for reasons unknown, everything suddenly changes to a new perfectly balanced system. New species come into being, old ones die, the geographic spread changes, the populations shift, etc - all on a whim. You honestly think that this is a much better explanation than the gradual change over time combined with competition for limited resources?