God Likely Exists

Surprised and enthusiastic to see a fellow theist. I share your desire for arriving at stronger conclusions. "I have a contention with the idea that an infinite time span leads to infinite possibilities. An infinitely spatial/ temporal universe would lead to all possibilities within the parameters of that universe's natural law." A natural assumption. However, to get technical: 1. The constancy of the universe's natural laws (fundamental constants, ratio of energy/matter, dark-normal matter, etc.) is questionable for our own observable universe, and almost certainly incorrect for the inobservable (ie - the rest) universe. The conclusion being that, if these natural laws are invariable along any infinite plane in space - then a variety of possibilities (indeed, all conceivable ones) would occur, resulting in the multiple God/alien/human being paradox that was talked about previously. Natural laws of one universe may ordain a certain type of life, other universe regions may have different types of life - point being, as we approach infinity there are no limits on what can, or cannot happen due to the variation of the universe as a total. (Homogeny vs inhomogeny) Atheists who cite the "cosmological principle" here misunderstand its primary use - its for emphasizing structure uniformity mainly, its use for evaluating constants is less cited. https://journals.aps.org... Note that they conclude variation in the alpha constant with a certainty above 99%. https://arxiv.org... Other studies have noted variations at high redshifts - which doesn't even move us out of our known universe! Countless more find significant, inhomogenous variation within our known universe itself. Of course, the common convention is to say that cosmological principle dictates homogenity across large enough scales, but this only relies upon cosmic microwave background radiation which is notoriously unreliable at larger scales (infinity, perhaps?) due to Gaussian additive noise (from matter) https://arxiv.org.... (Homogenous Universe cannot be proved or observed on large scales, but can be tested on smaller scales) -> Note that assuming this as evidence of homogeny on a larger scales means you would have to reconcile studies like the ones above, which is impossible. Also, this would be an incorrect leap of reasoning and a violation of physics. Not just me, but as of right now theoretical physics cannot prove a homogeneous universe - at least on the scales of infinity. Again, this means that a universe that is fundamentally different everywhere on large scales while approaching via infinite plane - leads to paradoxical loops of entities that occur purely because of the mathematical limit of infinity (Black holes that can spontaneously result in a Big Crunch, which means we wouldn't exist - or an advanced species that would have already made contact with human beings, the possibilities are endless...) If I may add my own input to these scientists, and reduce the jargon that atheists enjoy misunderstanding - I will say that all rules of interaction (physics/mathematics) tends to break down near points of infinity - the same reason why singularities are so elusive to scientists, quantum mechanics is often confounding of conventional theory physics. We could have a limitless universe with identical natural laws that govern all, and we still could get multiple paradoxes (Gods, aliens) simply because the mathematical representation of infinity is larger than just repetitive natural laws - it is literally beyond the scope of what our universe could exist as, and hence it's impossible to say the universe is infinite - going back to my previous argument for God's existence as the only "infinity". But let's say that the universe is homogenous, infinite, etc. as your assumption stated, and can only produce entities that are like us - humans. To date no observational evidence is found of a repertoire of species similar to our capabilities has been found in the observable universe, and by logic - there should have been an infinite amount of advanced life elsewhere in the universe, being that it is truly infinite. (atheist assumption) As per the anthropic principle, even our own existence is questionable to exist if we occupy such an infinitesimal chance of existing, essentially reducing to zero when the limit function is taken. The other issues are easier to talk about: "Another problem is I'm uncertain how you're defining the term god. if there's a possibility that there isn't an omnipotent god, then what in your eyes is a god?" I was merely entertaining a common atheist response. God has to be omnipotent for my theism. "Also, while I think it's clever, invoking "Occam's Razor" can be considered a non sequitur argument, and perhaps even a counterproductive one, as maybe god isn't the most simple answer to the question. Perhaps a more simple answer is that the law's of the universe are dictated not by a supreme being, but by mathematical principles, making determinism the simplest explanation of the universe." I don't believe it's non-sequitur, or counterproductive. The law of parsimony generally applies when all other evidence are equal, and the probability of an infinite universe with infinite possibilities merely can be translated to infinite infinities, whereas believing on a monotheistic God reduces the value to one infinity. In essence, you prescribe "finiteness" to creation, and the "infinite" to Creator. Whereas in multiverse theory/B theory, you would prescribe "infinite" to everything, which would invalidate long standing assumptions of our place in the universe (anthropic, cosmological principle) and if we should even exist or not (we obviously do!) The mathematical principles you evoke, I have already proven to vary both within and outside of our universe - going back to the heterogenous/homogenous debate. Especially across a theoretically infinite timescale, defending this assumption only complicates an already too complex theory. God is the simpler explanation.