I was wondering what one would actually be looking for. What type of disturbances in the field, so to speak, would be noticeable and expected? Sounds like you have a "text-book" expectation for any creator of a universe to be noticed.
On the basis of what information? This isn't how gods are normally discussed, and I presume he didn't test this experimentally. Are you positing that God is some sort of physical organism existing within the observed universe and subject to its laws? Like, a giant space lion or something? Why would a god be confined to the types of natural interactions you describe, if it is indeed a god?
I feel like the two comments above don’t unerstand the Standard Model yet.
No surprise to that answer. But do YOU understand the standard model can't tell you zilch? It can't tell you if there's ANY
possibilty for a god to exist or not,
soley based on the model. I would have thought it wise to think, and just say "we don't know, or couldn't know." Have an agnostic approach, once in a while.
You must also feel, we can
boast of our supposedly full capacity, to fully understand, and know 'everything' of the whole entire universe (it sounds like you're claiming), and that there's nothing beyond our human comprehensionl; that you can make these "knowledge claims" or rather, faith claims, to say that NO gods, can ever exist, because we have a standard model which is subject to updates or even changes.
Not even Dawkins would take on that
burden of proof, no creator or gods exist, in which you both have here. Unfortunately the standard model does have its limits....
You can define your god as being able to do anything you want, but if it cannot act on us without it being noticed that something happened that was NOT caused by the 4 forces, then, by definition, nothing acted on us.
The bit I don't understand is, how you (plural) derived that such a
creator to exist, would have to be "soley" on the human scale to cause any influence?" Who says any such things would have to be on the "human" scale? YOUR god portrayal as according to you're definition seems somewhat mixed up with the concept of "advanced aliens" or something similar to the matrix perhaps? (The matrix funny enough, is usually considered a concept of a virtual reality
copy of a non-virutal reality universe, not biblical).
If we cannot detect that anything happened why would anyone believe that a god(dess)(es) acted at all?
How was this test done, again?
I delayed this response to you, because I wanted to give you the
transcription of Dr. Michael Egnor, in the video titled
The evidence against materialism. (because of your internet coverage issue you have where you are), but I didn't have time. I wanted to hightlight what was collected from the accumalative data collected from the neurologist reports and experiments, which are better expeiments and data than the experiments mentioned in Bilby's soul catching post, which like, is basing your experiments on the standard model giving limted or no results at all.
They are trying to describe for you two main observances necessary for a god(dess)(es) claim:
1. Something happened
2. It can’t be explained by normal forces.
No theists claim this can be demonstrated by physics, just as you claim physics can tell you no such thing is possible.
The problem with the notion, see bottom line...
And they are pointing out that
A. nothing in human scale has ever happened, ever, that cannot be explained by the four normal forces, and
B. Nothing between atomic nucleus and solar system size is not understood.
Are you trying to claim that A is not true? Are you claiming that you know of acts on humanity, that have occurred, that occurred by a force that could not be described by the four forces?
I am claiming your method of making those god conclusions, based s
oley on the four forces are limited - that's if you're really investigating the plausibility - hence forth with your current claim - you're only going to get a small chunk of the whole.
That’s the part you both don’t seem to understand yet. That in order to argue against the standard model, you must be introducing a known act that affects a human that doesn’t follow it. If you can’t describe that act, then you have nothing. If you have no evidence of that act, then you have nothing.
What is that act?
Say you want to claim, “an afterlife.” What scrap of evidence of any kind do you have that this act happened?
Say you want to claim a purposely directed tornado of fire to punish a sinning town. What scrap of evidence of any kind do you have that this act happened and it was not random?
Say you want to claim that a football game was won due to supplication to a godly entity. What scrap of evidence do you have that non-normal forces made any impact, that a change in the outcome even happened?
Not many theists (if non at all) claims they became believers because of the physics just as YOU do, in that the understanding you currently have definetly tells you no such thing is possible. Unless you're going to base it soley around the standard model.
Bottom line .... why your notion for using the four forces and the standard model as your baseline monitor as the decider; "no existence possible for any god," This is ultimately a flawed idea for investigation....
BECAUSE the other models or theories, that are needed to harmonize as full workings of the entire existence of the universe.
Dark matter, and anti-matter etc.. - are NOT included in the standard model!!