I should clarify that I'm not saying that this event would be undeniable proof of God, there's always other explanations that could just as well be right. I'm only saying that probability wise, it seems more likely that God would be behind it than any physical explanations.
You would need to first establish that God is possible at all before I would find any argument based on the likelihood of God to be compelling.
This event would be something we consider physically impossible, the only other explanation is that it isn't really happening: it's an illusion created by technology beyond our understanding or everyone everywhere is hallucinating - both take the extra step to consider "this is not really happening" on top of the belief in something we have no proof of.
In the same vein, consider that assuming the existence of a monotheistic god also requires the existence of two mechanisms:
- something that would allow gods to exist
- something that would limit the number of gods to one.
Knowing humans exist and knowing we can be fooled doesn't help the case much because we don't know of any humans that are able to move stars or convince everyone they did.
Would they have to convince everyone, or would they only have to convince me? For all I know, everyone around me could be in on the con.
To imagine a human with extraordinary abilities or technology that we don't know exist is the same as imagining a God where beyond-comprehension tends to come with the name.
Is it the same?
You just finished saying how you think God is somehow beyond the physical laws of the universe. Do you think someone with extraordinary technology would be beyond the physical laws of the universe?
Maybe I chose 'undeniable' as the wrong word. There's no way we could know with 100% certainty that these stars actually arranged in this order unless we went up close to them and observed, but it still becomes relatively hard to deny if people in space and people looking through the hubble telescope are seeing the same thing.
This is touching on why I asked
@thomas t to expand on his hypothetical scenario and explain exactly how we know that what he's assumed happened actually happened.
He hasn't bothered to do this yet, but one can always hold out hope.
The specifics of this matter, because the question of "how do we know?" ties directly into the question "how could our conclusion be wrong?"
I highlighted the important bits. If God exists, or something else non-physical, they can't be encapsulated in our understanding of things based on observations of the physical universe. These laws may strictly apply to all things we know of, but perhaps there is more than we know.
Then they are no physical laws.
"Mass and energy are always conserved" is a law. "Mass and energy either are or aren't conserved based on God's whims at the time" is useless and not a law.
Again: laws of science are descriptive laws
based on observation. If our observations say that something isn't universally true, then the law is false... regardless of whether you attribute those contradictory observations to some god or another.
BTW: I'm still waiting for you to describe this God that you think is compatible with our understanding of the universe.