God most likely exists.

On existence. That would be a valid logic structure. It's essentially the Kalam with the additional premise of something coming from nothing. The argument would not be sound, But you've been honest about it, So there's not need to press the matter cause I'm here to counter points and not to convert you, Lol. That's not a derailment at all. I would have to take that statement as saying "God is eternal" Since we have inductive reasoning to show that all existing things always existed, I'm much more confident in an eternal god. The problem for me personally is that it violates Occam's razor. Which is to say that it is not irreducibly complex. If we're already inducing eternal existence, Then I think it's more structurally valid to remove god and attribute this quality to the physical universe instead. Since particles has been confirmed to exist, This would not be a stretch. Good question. On observation. I'm okay with that assertion, However, My next question would be that if god is observable, By what means can we observe god? In order for this claim to stand, I would need some examples. On abstracts. Well, It's not just a baseline assumption, I have justifications, You could argument that some of my justification are just assumptions, But that's you call. So the reasons I justify this is that I can tell between what I see and what I imagine in my head. I know that I'm not sensing it and I know that it's not inhabiting space. There is also no space in reality for them. If I draw a triangle on a piece of paper, That picture is just ink spread out in a pattern. The "triangle" itself cannot inhabit this space. So where is it? Now you could invoke alternate dimensions and I would reject it. But I'm not going to argue that too hard, Because that's a whole different conversation. I would just say that there is no good evidence for alternate dimensions in my opinion. The one thing that every abstraction has in common is people. If the universe had no minds, Then abstracts wouldn't exist. Humans invent abstracts. Somebody looked at a three sided object and named it a triangle. They invented the centimeter and measured it ends with it. They invented angles and measured them with the numbers they invented. Every quality given to a triangle is man made. The abstract is just a description. That's why they can only be in our minds. When I think of existence. I think of what holds space and affects reality. Abstracts don't that standard for me. We might have to agree to disagree on this one ultimately. Now when yo mentioned unicorns, You brought up a good point. There could be a time where, Say, Plato existed. He would not be an abstract. However, When we remember plato, The image that we hold is an abstract. The abstract does not bring plato back into existence. Furthermore, The abstraction of plato in our minds would not even look like him even if we met him in person. These are my arguments for why abstracts don't exist. A Platonist would reject me ironically, Lol. On physics. We have no evidence that the big bang was the beginning of everything, But rather everything in our universe. There could have been a trillion to the trillionth power big bangs and we might not have known because space could be virtually limitless by human standards. Furthermore, The laws of physics are not light switches that can be flipped on or off. Physics is a description of the consistencies or lack thereof within the observable universe. A domino hits a domino hits a domino. The fact that there are no dominos does not change the fact of what would happen if you did have dominos. On particles. It's not an abstraction, It's a caricature. They use a physical object the size of an atom to rub up against the proton like a record player needle and map the physical interaction piece by piece, Which then appears as a physical picture. You could say it's abstract in the sense that they add colors. But that would be no different from color coding a map. The very act that they're measuring a physical interaction shows that there is existence. Furthermore, I am not aware of any physical thing that cannot be reduced or derived from a particle. So how can we honestly say that there is anything other than particles? I know it might make the universe sound boring depending on your point of view. But after all the evidence I've seen, I can't help but believe it. I would be willing to meet you halfway here and say that the belief in a god concept could be used as a tool. But I would not begin to illicit to the benefit or harm of this tool. It would be a slippery slope for me to do so. Omni: Right, I would agree that infinity is one of the most useful tools in math. But that has nothing to do with physics. If infinity cannot be applied to physics, Then it cannot manifest physically. The only way that infinity could apply as far as I can tell is if it represented a number that just kept getting higher for all eternity. But even this would not be infinite because the rising number would still be finite. You see the problem here? Infinite is just the polar opposite of zero. They're both place holders for any possible number that a person can think of when the finite number is too big to calculate. Minimal: I agree with that statement. It's basically chaos theory/butterfly effect. I'm sure that we could ever know what the minimally powerful god was or if it existed. The best we could do is discover it's particles and then maybe get a shady concept of it's composition. If you're okay with defining a non agent god as such, That's fine by me. At least then we'd be clear on what god means. Isn't that what we all want at the end of the day? In summation, Our two main contentions are the existence of abstracts and the ex nihilo concept. My worldview suggest that particles made everything through motion and that consciousness is a property of some particles. So in the end, If this discovery was true, I'd be right by description, And you'd be right by definition. That might be the axiom of our debate unless you want to challenge this assessment? Which you are justified to do. You floor.