Do miracles invalidate faith?

Originally posted by Digi
Fair enough, dudemon. Just a case of misinterpretation. So you're saying that you don't believe in miracles in a supernatural sense, right?

Pretty much. Not entirely. I more or less think what we think as "supernatural" is actually just unexplained science...or at least not explained fully.

Originally posted by Digi
I'd still disagree if you then say it's God working through the universe's rational means. But you're at least denying the sillier definition of miracles, so yeah, I think we're mostly on the same page.

I don't think God can operate in the universe in any other manner, actually. Right now, sure, it seems supernatural. But like I said above, we should eventually understand it and it becomes "rational"* to us.

*I put "rational" in quotes because particle duality is by no means "rational".

I just don't think there's anything else going on. A "rational" miracle that God creates is a "rational" miracle with no need for God, because the very idea of rational implies that it is causal and in line with the laws of our universe, whether we understand them or not.

At that point, just apply Occum's Razor. For example: a ball fell, or a ball fell and an omniscient, all-powerful, totally unknowable being made it fall. Logic clearly dictates we lean toward one option over the other. Even supposedly improbable events follow the same line of logic. There is an underlying causality to it happening, however improbable or "miraculous," therefore no God is needed to have intervened.

But it seems we agree at least that colloquial definitions of supernatural and miracle are needlessly abstract and illogical.

Originally posted by Digi
I just don't think there's anything else going on. A "rational" miracle that God creates is a "rational" miracle with no need for God, because the very idea of rational implies that it is causal and in line with the laws of our universe, whether we understand them or not.

A rational miracle that God creates is a miracle that can be understood but does not instantly exclude a variable of God at all.

Your definition of God is one of perpetual ignorance or "carrot on the stick" (meaning, we can never know the nature of God or the mediation). Mine is not. I feel that with enough time, even "God" and everything about God will be a rational understanding.

In other words, I would not be shocked at all if there was some sort of energy or field permeating the universe/multiverse which provides the conduit through which God interacts.

Knowing that I'm a Mormon, you should already know that "we" think we will one day be Gods ourselves...creating our own universes/realities. 😆 It should not shock you that a Mormon thinks God is just "super-science". In fact, that's a motif that is often discussed at church and a topic we talked about at church, Sunday: the secular and God are not mutually exclusive and, in fact, they are one in the same. We just haven't progressed far enough as a species.

Originally posted by Digi
At that point, just apply Occum's Razor. For example: a ball fell, or a ball fell and an omniscient, all-powerful, totally unknowable being made it fall. Logic clearly dictates we lean toward one option over the other. Even supposedly improbable events follow the same line of logic. There is an underlying causality to it happening, however improbable or "miraculous," therefore no God is needed to have intervened.

Occam's razor has it's logical problems. But, using Occam's razor, I would conclude that a sentient being far beyond our own intellectual ability created the rules that created our universe. So, indirectly, yes, God caused that ball to fall.

Additionally, the more philosophical the discussion using logic, the more subjective the application of logic becomes.

For example, imo, occam's razor says that the universe/multiverse was created by "God" because that's a far simpler concept than a baseless creation that results in an infinite number of configurations with an infinite number of sets of physics.

Originally posted by Digi
But it seems we agree at least that colloquial definitions of supernatural and miracle are needlessly abstract and illogical.

Meh. As inimalist loves to say, it's all anthropic in the end. Everything becomes arbitrary the deeper you philosophically consider things. It is we humans that have decided to symbolically represent everything around us. I'm perfectly accepting of there not being a God and there is no literal point to life other than the subjective labels/constructs that people create.

Originally posted by dadudemon
A rational miracle that God creates is a miracle that can be understood but does not instantly exclude a variable of God at all.

Your definition of God is one of perpetual ignorance or "carrot on the stick" (meaning, we can never know the nature of God or the mediation). Mine is not. I feel that with enough time, even "God" and everything about God will be a rational understanding.

In other words, I would not be shocked at all if there was some sort of energy or field permeating the universe/multiverse which provides the conduit through which God interacts.

Ok, cool, though this goes against traditional and cultural uses of the idea of God. It's debatable whether we'd actually call it God or not if you're right...it wouldn't be much different than if we discovered aliens created life on earth. A higher intelligence, sure. God, probably not.

Still, you're assuming a lot here, and presupposing the existence of fields and forces that we frankly have zero reason to believe.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Knowing that I'm a Mormon, you should already know that "we" think we will one day be Gods ourselves...creating our own universes/realities. 😆 It should not shock you that a Mormon thinks God is just "super-science". In fact, that's a motif that is often discussed at church and a topic we talked about at church, Sunday: the secular and God are not mutually exclusive and, in fact, they are one in the same. We just haven't progressed far enough as a species.

Seems like a very large leap in logic to think that. What makes you believe we'll be gods?

Originally posted by dadudemon
For example, imo, occam's razor says that the universe/multiverse was created by "God" because that's a far simpler concept than a baseless creation that results in an infinite number of configurations with an infinite number of sets of physics.

I'd disagree here. It seems more logical to you, but you're not evaluating all the known facts. We know how the planets and galaxies formed, we know how life formed, and we have mathematically viable models of how the universe came to be from nothingness...the creation point seems to be the only major thing we haven't yet proven, but we have reasonable hypotheses. The "God" scenario does not have such viable models or hypotheses, and thus would require further evidence to be on equal footing. Since Occam's Razor points us to the simpler of two possibilities, the choice is clear.

Otherwise, this seems like a fancy disguise on invoking the Anthropic Principle as evidence for God, which has long been a discredited argument.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Meh. As inimalist loves to say, it's all anthropic in the end. Everything becomes arbitrary the deeper you philosophically consider things. It is we humans that have decided to symbolically represent everything around us. I'm perfectly accepting of there not being a God and there is no literal point to life other than the subjective labels/constructs that people create.

That's...progressive, coming from one who espouses a particular religion.

Originally posted by Digi
Ok, cool, though this goes against traditional and cultural uses of the idea of God. It's debatable whether we'd actually call it God or not if you're right...it wouldn't be much different than if we discovered aliens created life on earth. A higher intelligence, sure. God, probably not..

I actually had a theory that lots of the ancient gods were just meddling aliens. It explains the "jealous god" thought put forth by the Judeo-Christian god.

This idea is not my own: my coworker/friend is a heathen. He believes in Thor, Odin, etc. In his religion, they had a prophecy that the fire god would come from the south and take over. He thinks it's our "Christian" god.

But...with a universe that is 13.7 billion years old, the possibility that a species out there progressed to a state of "God-like" status/ability should be significant. Imagine where humans will be (assuming the singularity cannot/does not occur) in just 200 years.

Which makes me want to say this: what if humans create God (literally...what if we create a God-like sentience. That's predicted to occur around 2050 with "god-like AI"😉?

Originally posted by Digi
Still, you're assuming a lot here, and presupposing the existence of fields and forces that we frankly have zero reason to believe.

Why would an atheist have any reason to believe in God?

And, in my studies, we may have already discovered some or part of those "energies/fields". Interacting with them? Good luck. But I'd like to stay alive for another 100 years (could happen) because I think we will really/truly answer the God question by then.

Originally posted by Digi
Seems like a very large leap in logic to think that. What makes you believe we'll be gods?

This absurd concept known as "prayer" and this stupid concept known as "faith".

😄

Originally posted by Digi
I'd disagree here. It seems more logical to you, but you're not evaluating all the known facts.

Originally posted by Digi
We know how the planets and galaxies formed, we know how life formed, and we have mathematically viable models of how the universe came to be from nothingness...the creation point seems to be the only major thing we haven't yet proven, but we have reasonable hypotheses. The "God" scenario does not have such viable models or hypotheses, and thus would require further evidence to be on equal footing. Since Occam's Razor points us to the simpler of two possibilities, the choice is clear.

Yes, the choice is quite clear when using Occam's razor: God.

Occam's razor is not the end all be all for logic. In fact, as an atheist, you must throw out occam's razor when applying it to the creation of the universe. The models/theories used for the creation of the universe/multiverse are absurdly complex compared to, "Oh..well…God created the beginning and then science after that singularity is everything else..."

And we actually do not know what happened before the explosion of the singularity. This is a fact. We cannot know, in fact.

Originally posted by Digi
Otherwise, this seems like a fancy disguise on invoking the Anthropic Principle as evidence for God, which has long been a discredited argument.

Originally posted by Digi
That's...progressive, coming from one who espouses a particular religion.

I've stated before that if there's no God, I'm fine with having lived my life as a dedicated citizen, father, and husband. If there is a God that cares about us in the way I believe, then all the better.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Which makes me want to say this: what if humans create God (literally...what if we create a God-like sentience. That's predicted to occur around 2050 with "god-like AI"😉?

Have you ever read Simmons' Hyperion?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Occam's razor is not the end all be all for logic. In fact, as an atheist, you must throw out occam's razor when applying it to the creation of the universe. The models/theories used for the creation of the universe/multiverse are absurdly complex compared to, "Oh..well…God created the beginning and then science after that singularity is everything else..."

The razor is more "make things as simple as possibly but no simpler" than "always pick the simplest explanation no matter what".

Originally posted by dadudemon
Dis…credited? How is that even possible? 😬

The argument behind it is basically nonsense if you've learned about this new thing called evolution.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Have you ever read Simmons' Hyperion?

I have not but I heard about it years ago. I should read it as it's some good sci-fi.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The razor is more "make things as simple as possibly but no simpler" than "always pick the simplest explanation no matter what".

I know you don't, but you agree with me based on those words.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The argument behind it is basically nonsense if you've learned about this new thing called evolution.

"behind it"

What is "it"?

And evolution only supports my belief in God. That should be obvious based on my previous statements about God being required to interact with the universe through "rational" means and me calling some ideas about God/miracles as "immature magic things".

I'm not sure if plausible explanations apply to occams razor.

Originally posted by Deadline
I'm not sure if plausible explanations apply to occams razor.

I'm not sure occam's razor legitimately applies to anything related the origins of the universe or God. Much too complex and too many variables that are related to oversimplify.

Occam's razor is also not how we are using it. It's selecting, out of two competing ideas, the one that uses the fewest new assumptions.

That's very fallacious in many regards.

Discredited just means that argument has been debunked logically and isn't used anymore even by modern theistic apologists. In the case of the Anthropic Principle to "prove" a god's existence, it was debunked decades ago, and innumerable times since.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I actually had a theory that lots of the ancient gods were just meddling aliens. It explains the "jealous god" thought put forth by the Judeo-Christian god.

This idea is not my own: my coworker/friend is a heathen. He believes in Thor, Odin, etc. In his religion, they had a prophecy that the fire god would come from the south and take over. He thinks it's our "Christian" god.

But...with a universe that is 13.7 billion years old, the possibility that a species out there progressed to a state of "God-like" status/ability should be significant. Imagine where humans will be (assuming the singularity cannot/does not occur) in just 200 years.

Theories, beliefs, predictions, assumptions that technology will fit into your worldview, assumption that "God-like" (whose quote?) is equivalent to "God," a laughable link. There isn't one piece of credible evidence here.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Which makes me want to say this: what if humans create God (literally...what if we create a God-like sentience. That's predicted to occur around 2050 with "god-like AI"😉?

Um...ok? Then you've been praying to a human-made AI that doesn't exist yet.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Why would an atheist have any reason to believe in God?

He wouldn't. Did I imply this?

Originally posted by dadudemon
This absurd concept known as "prayer" and this stupid concept known as "faith".

You're interestingly futurist for a theist, but this sentence probably just sent us into a nosedive. I can't follow you to concepts I don't believe in that are directed at a deity we have no evidence of.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes, the choice is quite clear when using Occam's razor: God.

Occam's razor is not the end all be all for logic. In fact, as an atheist, you must throw out occam's razor when applying it to the creation of the universe. The models/theories used for the creation of the universe/multiverse are absurdly complex compared to, "Oh..well…God created the beginning and then science after that singularity is everything else..."

And we actually do not know what happened before the explosion of the singularity. This is a fact. We cannot know, in fact.

You cite the complexity of the math and science behind creation hypotheses and how the universe came to be formed without acknowledging four things:
- One, they work. They've been tested and observed.
- Two, any God that did that would have to be infinitely more complex. You're throwing around "God" like it's the simplest thing in the world. It would be nice to think that, except any being capable of creating and maintaining the universe would almost by necessity have to be more complex than it.
- Three, we've actually observed "something from nothing," as absurd as that seems. So no, we can't "know" what happened pre-Big Bang. But we have testable models that sufficiently explain it.
- Four, this sounds an awful lot like a God of the Gaps. Appealing to gaps in our knowledge doesn't validate an alternative theory, unless the theory has equal or greater evidence.

So. Occam's Razor. Nothing I've seen here has made me think I'm using it inappropriately. You said it takes the possibility that requires the fewest assumptions. Mine requires none. Assumptions are guesses. And even in the few places that we don't "know" 100%, we can be reasonably sure based on evidence.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I've stated before that if there's no God, I'm fine with having lived my life as a dedicated citizen, father, and husband. If there is a God that cares about us in the way I believe, then all the better.

That's commendable. And I'm fine living that way too. It's just, living like that and being happy about it neither requires a belief in God, nor is strengthened by a belief in God. Are you theist in some sort of Pascal's Wager? It sounds like you've strongly considered the possibility that there is no God. Your staunch faith despite evidence, then, puzzles me somewhat.

Digi does Occams razor apply to plausible explanations? It didn't think it did.

Well ok, there's two aspects to consider in the use of Occam's Razor:
- Explanatory power
- Simplicity

It's usually used when two options are of roughly equal explanatory power, and it states we should lean toward the one that makes the fewest assumptions or is least complex.

You're somewhat right in stating that it's being applied incorrectly, but it was purposeful on my part (explained below):

So in using Occam's Razor originally, I was actually giving dudemon the benefit of the doubt by presupposing that the two explanations (God or science, respectively) had equal explanatory value. They don't. Clearly science has higher explanatory power, so it trumps a God hypothesis even outside Occam's razor.

But complex equations and processes are still simpler and make less assumptions than an infinitely complex God. So even if we're assuming that they're equivalent in explanatory power, God still loses on the basis of Occam's Razor.

Cliff's Notes: Take the simplest explanation unless a more complex one explains the phenomenon better. In this case, science has both. So I didn't need to be using Occam's razor, and maybe even muddied the discussion with its use, but I did to prove that even uninformed analysis of the scientific processes that exist in the universe don't make them less likely than God.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I have not but I heard about it years ago. I should read it as it's some good sci-fi.

With really neat religious philosophy in it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
What is "it"?

The anthropic principle 😐

The thing you were talking about 😐

Were things tailored to cause our existence? No, it's pretty much the exact opposite.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I have not but I heard about it years ago. I should read it as it's some good sci-fi.

Also, if you're not already familiar with it, check out the website "Orion's Arm." AI Gods galore.

www.orionsarm.com

Originally posted by Digi

So in using Occam's Razor originally, I was actually giving dudemon the benefit of the doubt by presupposing that the two explanations (God or science, respectively) had equal explanatory value. They don't. Clearly science has higher explanatory power, so it trumps a God hypothesis even outside Occam's razor.

Thing is I don't think science stating that the universe created the big bang even contradicts that god could have created it. So really we shouldn't even neccesarily be talking about occams razor in the first place.

If you use forensic evidence to prove that a building was blown up it's not occams razor to think it could have been an accident or done unpurpose. All you know is that the building was blown up.

Also the existance of god is compatible with science so we really shouldn't be seperating the two. So stating that science has better explanatory value is faulty logic.

Originally posted by Deadline
Thing is I don't think science stating that the universe created the big bang even contradicts that god could have created it. So really we shouldn't even neccesarily be talking about occams razor in the first place.

So if God isn't needed for the creation of the universe, how is it more logical to suppose that an infinitely complex being just happens to exist? You're also talking about a God that just made everything and hasn't intervened since then. If someone wants to believe in that sort of God, fine, I can't actually refute it other than to say there's no evidence for it. But such a God leaves us no reason to believe in him, nor would require belief since he's clearly not intervening in a way that suggests he wants us to believe in him.

Anyway, the conversation I was having was with a person who was refuting the idea that science can sufficiently explain existence. That's the argument these comments are directed toward, and especially when he states something like "God is the simpler explanation of the universe's existence," (paraphrased) Occam's razor is very applicable to such a claim.

Originally posted by Deadline
Also the existance of god is compatible with science

Maybe your idea of God. The vast, vast majority of peoples' ideas of God aren't, and that's what we've been talking about. God, in and of itself, isn't necessarily incompatible with science (though it would still require one hell of an explanation). The Gods of pretty much every world religion, however, are. When we talk about God, that's usually what we mean. It's not even worth talking about a God who may exist but has no direct contact with the universe. Such a God would have no bearing on our beliefs, lives, etc. because of a complete lack of interaction or doctrine.

Originally posted by Digi
Theories, beliefs, predictions, assumptions that technology will fit into your worldview, assumption that "God-like" (whose quote?) is equivalent to "God," a laughable link. There isn't one piece of credible evidence here.

Originally posted by Digi
Um...ok? Then you've been praying to a human-made AI that doesn't exist yet.

Possibly, but if the "god" exists, then it may also exist outside the construct of time. At least its perception of time. This is speculation, so there's no need to say "that's baseless! RAWR!" 😆 Yes, I will readily admit when I am talking out of my ass.

Originally posted by Digi
He wouldn't. Did I imply this?

It sounded like you were reassuring me that you didn't believe, indirectly, in God with your statement. I assure you, I need no such assurance about your position. Yes, I am aware that you statement was directed at me.

Originally posted by Digi
You're interestingly futurist for a theist, but this sentence probably just sent us into a nosedive. I can't follow you to concepts I don't believe in that are directed at a deity we have no evidence of.

This is exactly why I labled those concepts as "absurd" and "stupid" because a conversation about them, with a strongly indoctrinated (do not take this the wrong way: I'm also strongly indoctrinated and I only see it as someone researching their position and becoming educated...never a bad thing) atheist is actually laughable for both parties.

For me, there's nothing sillier (in an intellectual conversation) than for a theist to say something like, "Well, Mr. Atheist, we should go pray about it and we may get our answer." 😆 Yes, I have seen that used multiple times and this was my reaction: facepalm

Originally posted by Digi
You cite the complexity of the math and science behind creation hypotheses and how the universe came to be formed without acknowledging four things: ...

You're arguing against ideas that I have not put forth.

I'll go down the list:

"You cite the complexity of the math and science behind creation hypotheses"

No, I most certainly did not.

" One, they work. They've been tested and observed."

For me, the working system is proof of my position, not the other way around.

"any God that did that would have to be infinitely more complex."

That's not only a baseless assumption, it is not a necessary one.

"You're throwing around "God" like it's the simplest thing in the world."

Most certainly I am not. I've been "throwing around" some of his actions, but not God Himself (don't mistake that for me saying that you thought I was physically throwing around God. I'm talking about throwing him around in text).

"It would be nice to think that, except any being capable of creating and maintaining the universe would almost by necessity have to be more complex than it."

This statement incorrectly assumes that the Being has to "maintain" the creation. Not so. Sure, He can interact with it, but "maintanence" is not necessarily required. However, some do posit that He does have to maintain because of this ugly little outcome known as Heat Death.

But I agree that the Creator may have to be more complex in the tools and concepts required to create such thing. However, that's still not absolute: humans, all the time, create things that are more complex than they can wholly comprehend. Sure, they can comprehend the overall piece in a hollistic manner, but they are not perfectly aware of every last piece that went into the entire creation.

For example, God could just be aware that doing "X" action will create a massively complex system known as the multiverse. Just because He knows "X", does not mean he is aware of every last item/variable in the multiverse (a number, assuming a finite universe containing multi-verse, would be the concept "omega"😉. However, we could assume that awareness would vastly eclipse our own.

"Three, we've actually observed "something from nothing," as absurd as that seems."

Actually, no we haven't. That's very misleading of you to try and present that. I guess you assume I'm the typical "theist" idiot? Give me a bit more credit.

"So no, we can't "know" what happened pre-Big Bang. But we have testable models that sufficiently explain it."

If you find any scientist, at all, trying to say that we can sufficiently explain what occured before the singularity of the universe, they are emphatically WRONG. It is, as fact, impossible, because multiple sets of physics occured in the very brief instances right after the 'creation' making it literally impossible to be able to measure, reproduce, or test in any form what exactly happened. In fact, this may be the one question we can never truly answer...like ever. To do so would be like the following:

"Q:What is 2+2?"
"A: Because gravy."

Even if we reproduce a multiverse creation, it would not be the same. (Meaning, even if we become "gods" ourselves, we will not be able to do exactly what happened in our own creation). You can ask for evidence of that claim but then I'll have to ask for evidence that the universe created itself: you can only present a massive pile of assumptions. How is that different from a Creationist's perspective? At least our "evidence" is based on a person that says they "saw God" or "talked with God". Sure, it's crazy, but that's second hand "evidence". I'm with you, though: I want evidence more than I want second hand accounts. I just can't have my cake and eat it too...for the most part.

"Four, this sounds an awful lot like a God of the Gaps. Appealing to gaps in our knowledge doesn't validate an alternative theory, unless the theory has equal or greater evidence."

Let's stick with the actual labels instead of those misleading and somewhat insulting attempts: It's not the "God of the Gaps", it's "God of Creation."

Especially since I've put forth that I believe in a God of evolution and "pre-big-bang" creator, it should be quite obvious that I don't believe in the "God of the Gaps". Seriously, is it even necessary to throw around such insulting accusations?

Originally posted by Digi
So. Occam's Razor. Nothing I've seen here has made me think I'm using it inappropriately. You said it takes the possibility that requires the fewest assumptions. Mine requires none. Assumptions are guesses. And even in the few places that we don't "know" 100%, we can be reasonably sure based on evidence.

The universe created itself requires no assumptions?

😬

Do you even know the massive amount of theory (assumptions based on facts and sometimes nothing) required to support that?

I'll give you a hint (which you DON'T need: you're both an intelligent and educated person...so this entire portion of the discussion feels insulting to both of us and I don't care to continue it): tens of thousands of pages of work.

Originally posted by Digi
That's commendable. And I'm fine living that way too. It's just, living like that and being happy about it neither requires a belief in God, nor is strengthened by a belief in God. Are you theist in some sort of Pascal's Wager? It sounds like you've strongly considered the possibility that there is no God. Your staunch faith despite evidence, then, puzzles me somewhat.

It should be overwhelming obvious that I subscribe to a form of Pascal's Gambit. I am sure you are already aware of the various Pascal's Gamibt apologetic discussions namely the one about "shooting in the general direction of God in my faith and practices". Yes, that means that I am willing to accept things such as Mormonism as not entirely correct. But my faith and answered prayers would be the reason I have stuck with Mormonism. That...and Mormonism accounts for every last soul ever and it gives everyone an equal chance either in this life or the next (meaning, every last one of us has a godly potential). That just feels right and "perfect".

And any theist that claims that they have not considered the possibility of no God (or at least a God as they know) is, quite frankly, a damn liar. It's those types of people I wish you would smack in the face (not literally).

Originally posted by Digi
Anyway, the conversation I was having was with a person who was refuting the idea that science can sufficiently explain existence. That's the argument these comments are directed toward, and especially when he states something like "God is the simpler explanation of the universe's existence," (paraphrased) Occam's razor is very applicable to such a claim.

I disagree: my system requires two assumptions:

Assume you have a multiverse.

Assume you have a seemingly all-power Creator.

Conclusion: that creator created the universe.

The other version:

Assume you have a multivese.

Assume *insert the entirety of the theories of self creation which requires dozens or even hundreds of assumptions from our body of both theortical and "natural" physics*

Conclusion: the universe created itself.

You WANT my system to assume something more about God. But those assumptions are external to the thought problem and not necessary.

Additionally, I never presented a God that didn't interact with his creation (I directly contradicted that 2 times and one time indirectly in this very thread alone) so I'm not sure why you have presented that idea twice, now, about my perspective. You may be confusing/injecting/projectiing theistic thoughts from others onto me because of the dozens to hundreds of other such conversations you've had. I understand that: it becomes a blur after a while. 👆

Originally posted by Deadline
Also the existance of god is compatible with science.

I agree. When Christians/Muslims/theists in general finally learn that God and his "science" are infinitely more beautiful than the immature "magic" god/s they believe in, we may see greatly increased social and scientific progress.

I've said it once in the religion forums, but I'll say it again: I prefer a "human population" without religion (yes, I am aware religion doesn't mean "god" and the various iterations of that, but that's what I mean so don't take it out of context) compared to one with religion.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You WANT my system to assume something more about God. But those assumptions are external to the thought problem and not necessary.

"God did it." doesn't tell us how the universe was created, which is the question that the pages of calculations are answering. If science answers the same question that you are ("who or what"😉 then both are equally simple: physics did it vs God did it. Both only need one word.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
"God did it." doesn't tell us how the universe was created,

Yes it does: God did it. 😄

"What methods did God use?" is what you're looking for.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
which is the question that the pages of calculations are answering.

You mean speculating, not answering.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If science answers the same question that you are ("who or what"😉 then both are equally simple: physics did it vs God did it. Both only need one word.

No, saying "physics did it" is applying a sentience to it that is improper and convolutes how it is done. You might as well say "God did it" when using such a phrase.

But if we take it how you intended, simplifying it to just "physics did it" is very disingenuous and very insulting to the large body of theoretical work.