well, thanks for admitting defeat, then. we've come full circle and you've proven nothing about the existence of god. since you cannot prove anything (logically or existentially) you merely say "nobody is forcing you to believe anything." cool story.
The only way I am defeated in this, a little, is that I DID have a little hope that you would understand that God has been proven by the 3 solid law of nature, cause and effect, universal complexity, and universal entropy.
But in my defeat, I have the comfort of knowing that it is by your own desire for your ignorance in this matter, that you have decided to remain ignorant.
Give it up dude, you're entitled to your beliefs, but no matter how much you try to fit a square peg into a round hole, the three things you mention do not and cannot prove the existence of God in and of themselves. That you claim they do is a non-sequitur, meaning that your conclusion that God exists does not follow from your premises of those three "laws."
One simple point which disproves your conclusion is that those three things do not wholly account for your own ability to theorize about God or the rest of reality for that matter. If you can't account for your ability to theorize in general, then you can't account for the entity that you claim would have created your ability to theorize. You're putting the cart before the horse and taking your abilities to theorize and reason for granted. Sorry, can't do that.
When you are using standard laws, there is no need to theorize. All that need be done is application.
If you can't put those 3 laws together to see that God exists, that's your problem.
Incorrect. A theory is merely a description of the way something is. Any natural law amounts to a theoretical description of that law. In more refined disciplines, sure, you only need to worry about the application of those laws. But what you're trying to do is prove the existence of an entity which allows for both the laws and the theoretical descriptions of those laws. You can't just assume that the theoretical origins of these laws, and of theorization itself, are sound before trying to prove the existence of the entity which allows the creation of both the laws and their theoretical origins.
From
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory?s=t:
theory
[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]
noun, plural theories.
1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena:
Einstein's theory of relativity.
Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate.
Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject:
number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice:
music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles:
conflicting theories of how children best learn to read.
6. contemplation or speculation:
the theory that there is life on other planets.
7. guess or conjecture:
My theory is that he never stops to think words have consequences.
Idioms
8. in theory, ideally; hypothetically:
In theory, mapping the human genome may lead to thousands of cures.
Note that although the first definition, above, suggests that theories are laws, more than one of the others suggest theory is fiction.
Note that the 3 laws, cause and effect, complex universe, and universal entropy, are laws because of the abundance of observations to that effect, as well as the non-existence of opposition to those laws.
Much of modern physics is starting to be based on Quantum. Quantum is simply advanced probability. This means that the things that are proven by Quantum, have been proven because the researcher was searching for that kind of proof. If a researcher decided to use Quantum to prove the opposite of something already proven by Quantum, he could do that as well.
If a researcher proves pure random using Quantum, another researcher could much more easily prove the non-existence of pure random using quantum. But who is going to look for the non-existence of pure random through Quantum? Nobody, because we already have the law of cause and effect, which proves no pure random. There is no need to prove the non-existence of pure random by Quantum. But if somebody did, it would be a lot easier to do, and a lot firmer, because we already have the law of universal cause and effect.
1) Note that I've already given a base definition for what a theory is, and at a basic and fundemtal level. If you think it should be different or more refined, or if you think the definition I selected, which applies to all dictionary definitions, is inappropriate, then argue why that's the case.
2) Okay, but that is beside the point I'm making, and irrelevant to it. However, laws themselves are abstract. We don't observe laws, but rather phenomena that obeys laws. Hence, we discover physical laws inductively (I.e. Bottom-up reasoning).
3) Quantum mechanics and classical mechanics haven't been successfully merged in a way that's acceptable by academics. Quantum phenomena cannot be observed because they occur below the Planck scale, and are therefore metaphysical, not physical in a traditional sense. In a peer-reviewed setting, there is no currently no means by which to soundly explain observable phenomena in terms of quantum mechanics and vice versa without a lot of skepticism. There do exist such theories, but not everyone agrees on them.
4) Your conceptualization of cause and effect is a result of the theoretical context of time in which you place it (I.e. A linear one, from past to future). This is a component of time, not all that time is. Time is intertwined with space and momentum, and is a stratification of superposition. Effects also "effect" their causes. What I'm getting at here is that your demonstrated understanding of cause and effect is at a surface level, and you're not going to explain the fundamental nature of reality by solely analyzing its surface level interactions.
