God most likely exists.

You brought up some interesting points. I think we can mine a bit further. On Occam's Razor: I would say that God seems like a simple explanation in terms of details. But it only seems that way because we think of God as one piece when really God would be a bunch of super complex pieces. If it was an omni god, For instance, It would be the most complicated thing in all of existence. But I want to show you what I mean when I say that the physical universe is simpler. So we have two scenarios: 1. If (U & P) Then E 2. If (G & U & P) Then E G= God Exist P= Physics exist U= Uncaused causes exist E= Everything Exist So if we look at the two propositions. We have U & P and G & P attributed as justification for Everything existing. Physics is irrelevant because it's in both models. So we can cross them both out for comparison. Both models also have Uncaused causes in them. So those are crossed out too. So what we're left with is God. This is a violation of Occam's Razor depending on how you do it. Now in the model for a definitional god, Both models would be equally viable. But the minute you start adding any properties to god, Like agency, Omnipotence, Etc. It all starts getting packed into that G. At that point. The first model starts to look more likely. I will be fair and say that the first model would fail if it cannot account for the things that G accounts for. So in that case. G would be a necessary minimum piece. Unfortunately. We have no real information for G. So we have no way to tell if it can actually account for something better than Model 1. Furthermore, There is no evidence to support that method 1 requires G at this point in time. That could change in the future. But this is what I meant by Occam's Razor. On Observations. The problem is that we could say that about anything. We could say that leprechauns are impossible to observe so we can't rule them out. This is why it's logically more sound to start with the assumption that nothing exist until it is observed. So logically speaking, The current inability to observe god is the current proof that it doesn't exist. You can't do it the other way because you would start off believing every single thing is true, Including every god claim and this would be a poor model for logic. Now I understand that's not what people do, But why do we hold god to a different standard? Surely if we're holding god to a different standard, There should be a justification for doing it. It would have to be different justification from the other gods that are professed. I'm not sure it can be done. On Abstracts. This was the fun part to read. So you're correct that what humans observe with their senses are abstractions. None of those things really exist physically. But these are not the same as the abstractions in your imagination. The difference is that I cannot choose to change my abstraction of reality. It necessarily conforms with reality. So while the image itself doesn't exist. It's a functional representation of reality. One could actually argue that our mind actually improves our view of reality. Everything we see is actually 90% Empty space between atoms. Yet we can't put our hands through them. Isn't it funny that our minds set things up so we could see the barrier of movement. Furthermore, Here's an interesting thought. The image that we see of things does actually exist physically for an instance. Because it's not the atoms that we see, It's the light bouncing off of them. So in that sense, We're actually seeing something that exists for a short instance in time. That light pattern. It is true what you said about the term physical being an abstraction. It's an arbitrary observation we make and then set a standard of definition for. But that brings us back to what makes it physical. I think there are only two fair answers. 1) Something that holds matter. 2) Something that holds positive space. the first definition would exclude certain particles and the second definition would just include everything except virtual particles which have not yet been proven as things but possibly events. I have no problem with people saying abstracts exist in a conceptual manner. The part I don't like is when they say start attributing qualities to abstracts that they would attribute to particles. Or physics. That's why I define things the way I do. To your comment about particles being abstractions. That's not entirely accurate. Observations we make about particles are abstractions. But the particle itself if physical. The "qualities" don't actually exist but rather describe how the particle behaves. All abstractions can basically be reduced to relationships between various states of affairs. With this in mind, We could think of abstractions as representing causality or lack thereof. On physics. So the problem here is that we're talking about two different things. But both of our observations are valid. You're saying that we can't KNOW what will happen to the dominos until we abstract it. Which is true. But what I'm saying is that the fact that it will happen under those variables is always true in all times and all places regardless of observation. Omni: Without math, Physics would look exactly how it does now. Just like it did before humans invented math. This helps support what I'm talking about when I say abstractions don't exist. What you're really asking me is what would the universe look like if it didn't obey the laws of math? This is actually a good question and brings up an interesting point. If the universe was inconsistent such that one could never describe an accurate physical law. It would likely be the case that nothing would exist for long. Particles might pop in and out of existence and randomly form and then deform living things with no pattern in it. But the funny thing here is that in a weird way, The universe is still being orderly. Because it's following a rule. The rule of change. The fact that the universe is not allowed to have a pattern is a pattern in itself. This means the universe would never be allowed to have a consistent pattern and a Outside observer would be able to derive what things "won't happen" instead of what things "will happen" like a bizzaroverse. On the comment about infinity and negative infinity being polar opposites. That can only be true in theory. In the physical world, There are not negative numbers. Furthermore. The results of these two numbers equals zero, Which is another number that can't exist in reality, So the very fact that this can't produce a real number disproves it. You brought up some good points on abstractions. I believe that it's good in general to talk about how we define existence versus nonexistence because it is key to producing proper logic. Your floor.