God most likely exists.

On the eternal god that came out of itself. I'm not sure that it violates Occam's razor, Since attributing that quality to the physical universe makes it way more complex (from the patterns that we know, Not to say the ones that will probably be discovered in the future) than attributing it to a very powerful entity. I could agree though, That although God as a creator would be a simpler explanation than an eternal physical universe, It would be a pretty narrow explanation that wouldn't satisfy the "craving" we as humans have to know about the subject. So. . . Yes, It presents a problematic of simplistic but superficial explanation vs. Complex but thorough explanation. On the observation of god. I would say that is really hard if not impossible to observe it rejecting 100% the possibility of a god. Yes, Probably you can't observe God in any way if you don't take any god-related assumption as possible, Since where one person observes the "work" of God, Another observes scientific patterns: the way light behaves when it hits certain materials and how our eyes perceive color, Etc. (in this case I'm talking about a sunset/dawn, For example); but I don't see why those reject one another, In my opinion both of those observations can co-exist in the same person. This leads me to a question though; would you say that -f. E- one is capable of observing/feeling hope if one does not believe that hope exists? On abstracts. I agree, Most of us can tell what we see and what we are imagining. Though, I argue that you sense it, For putting a rough example, When imagining something threatening, Senses outside the mind are activated (legs get warm, Hands get cold, Vision turns slightly tunnel-like, And so on -if I remember correctly, This are some of the responses the human body has to fear-). Also, When imagining something, You use neurons to do so, Neurons occupy physical space, So therefore imagination occupies physical space. Following this train of thought, When you draw a triangle in a sheet of paper, The ink occupies physical space in that sheet that itself occupies physical space (although I don't think I understood you properly on the triangle bit; if you don't mind elaborating a little bit more on that it would be nice). // I agree, If minds didn't exist, Abstract wouldn't exist either. But, I wouldn't say that humans "invent" abstracts, More than observing them, Since again, The only way we have to observe is by the act of abstracting it. Also, Even if this last assumption weren't true, Without humans not only we couldn't abstract things, But we couldn't even observe them, Therefore there wouldn't be a way of knowing if anything exists at all. // "When I think of existence, I think of what holds space and affect reality", I argued before that abstracts exist, And even following the premise that those things that exist affect reality and hold space, I argued that they do, They occupy space in our brains and our brains affect reality. // On the abstract of Plato, I agree that thinking of him does not bring him back to existence, But thinking of him in the time he still existed doesn't "confirms" his existance either. This is a broader subject, Since it could be argued that even if we met him in person [how cool would that be, Huh? :P], No one, Not even himself could look him and asess "how" he exists, Since again, We can only observe by the use of abstraction. On physics. "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. " It does change it, Because the assessment of what happens when a domino hits a domino hits a domino is a result of an observation of the first domino-hitting-domino, And therefore, There is no humanly way possible to know how would the dominos behave before there were any dominos to observe. On particles. They are indeed abstraction, Just look at how many abstractions are listed there: size, Interaction, Colors, Map, Even object. In fact, What we consider physical and what isn't, Is an abstraction within itself. // I can't prove that there are things that exist that aren't related to a particle, But I can argue that those particles are indeed related way back to something/someone that wasn't reduced or derived from one. // Whatever I'm discussing, If it's related to the universe somehow, I don't attach boredom to any of that, I find it quite entertaining. On God 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. " I 100% agree on this point; I think it is a slippery slope for anyone to do so. :P Omni: "I would agree that infinity is one of the most useful tools in math. But that has nothing to do with physics. " Ok, I'll take little step here (because my knowledge on this is fairly limited), But I can only but wonder, How would physics look like without math? They are intrinsically related if you ask me, In fact, When talking about the universe we keep hearing "the universe is infinite" as a statement; from that, I derive that the universe manifests physically in a way that follows the concept of infinity, Therefore you can't disattach math from physics (I'm hoping to be proven terribly wrong on this one; it would be awesome). Also, From my understanding, Infinite is not the polar opposite of zero, The polar opposite of infinite is the negative one. -Infinite, +Infinte. Minimal: I agree here. We can't possibly know. I don't know about finding particles and then making some kind of composition of it, But t would be great indeed if such thing could happen. On the definition. Yes, I could define a non agent god as such; although I'd like to state that I still "don't know for sure" what God is and which are its characteristics, And that I stated a definition for it at the beggining of the debate just to have a clearer debate. // And indeed, I think most of people would like to know what God is, Hence why I think it will always be discussed as it is a matter in which so many differences in concept exist within people. Fascinating, Really. I think that what you stated on the last paragraph is true, Yes. Although, I feel like keep debating since I feel most of the "gold" in our debate is in our different notions on abstracts and reality more than in the concept of God. In fact, Once we are done with this debate, -if you want to- I would like to debate you on some of this issues disattaching them from the god concept. For now, I think it is better if we keep them attached. Your floor.