No Evidence?

[Swatopluk]

But it is conceivable that one day something is found that has no known function (like the 'junk' DNA) but seems to be too specific to not have any. Then one would try to find out what it does and that way maybe detect the unknown property. X-rays and radioactivity were someting completely unknown until some one 'accidentally' built a detector for them. In the time after that a number of 'new rays' were found, some of which did not actually exist (like the N rays). So an entity that had no idea what light is could by studying the different types of eyes in living creatures that there must be something all these complex organs are for.
Yes, we are 100% hypothetical here and I do not expect that a god-detector will be founs soon. Btw, Descartes believed that the pineal gland had something to do with the interaction of soul and body (details are disputed). That would be pretty close to the idea of a god detector.

[The Meromorph]

Sometimes you can start with the receptor - it's easy to figure out what an eye does, without knowing what a photon is. 

Whereas it is true you do not need to understand photons?  You do need to recognize that light exists, i.e. the "macroscopic" properties of a collection of photons.

We have yet to see any evidence of the "macroscopic" properties of [a] god or gods.  Absence of evidence is evidence of absence; pay no attention to that invisible elephant over there in the corner, and please try not to step in the invisible elephant dung-- the invisible and imaginary stink is invisibly overwhelming at times..... 

To understand this hypothetical god-detector or god-receptor, you must understand at a minimum some "macroscopic"-god properties or emergent god-properties.  That is?  Just as in the analogy of trying to understand the eye, you have to recognize that the eye is perceiving the macro-property of photons, light.

And whereas it is true you do not need to understand all the minute details of light itself, you do need to recognize and show that light exists, and demonstrate light's effects on non-eye structures and mechanisms, i.e. green leaves (for example) or a painted canvas (no light, canvas' colors cannot be determined, etc).

To date, we as far as I know, cannot detect any 'macroscopic' god properties of any kind.

In other words, the aforementioned meditative effects may well be an emergent property of other things, such as self-awareness, or a simple by-product of a complex brain, and not indicative of anything at all outside such brain-body systems.

To eliminate this possibility, you would have to demonstrate these hypothetical 'macroscopic' god 'properties' independent of the brain itself, just as you can demonstrate light's properties independent of the eye, even without understanding what light is, or how it's basic function works.

And that is the crux of the whole god-problem:  there appears to be no such properties independent of human brain activity.

As far as anyone knows, that is.     

Jaynes proposed a simple, and, to me, very convincing, explication of several well observed and documented macroscopic 'god properties'. It does though, intimately involve the human brain  .
And Pinker appears to be documenting structures corresponding to many of Jaynes's speculations.

and then,

THOU ART GOD, WATER-BROTHER.
I grok.

Heinlein is more indirect.