The go-to response for someone without a good answer.

So, god.

No, you don't have to say you don't know.  Knowing through reason is fully contained within the realm of logic.  Logic is self-contained.  It reinforces itself.  Anything outside of logic isn't an "I don't know."  It's more like a "don't even bother going there because it's pointless to try."  You know that tree that falls in the forest where nobody's around to perceive it?  I don't either.

As long as you adhere to some essential rules you can never be wrong.  The reason you can never be wrong is because logic says you can never be wrong, so long as you're logical.

Because logic reinforces itself, 'infinite regressions' and other paradoxes must be self-resolving, for if they weren't, logic 1) is an incomplete method for forming true statements and therefore can't be trusted, and/or 2) is not self-contained, meaning there is some higher-order law (an illogical one, at that) at play capable of making sense of paradoxes, and therefore it can't be trusted.

Referencing "supernatural," I think we could both agree that this generally (and literally) means "above or superior to natural law."  This could imply a few things.  It could imply the possibility that something could directly manipulate or influence natural law and cause the law itself to change.  It could also imply the possibility that something could manipulate the content that the law governs without changing the law itself.  Or it could imply the possibility of both.  After all, were talking about "natural processes" here, and "natural processes" describes a relationship between both physically real content and abstractly real law.

Now, is supernatural possible?  Well, first of all, supernatural does NOT necessarily mean illogical.  It's quite plausible to imagine, for example, that for no apparent reason you could raise your arms up and start floating up into the air.  All I'm asserting is that it's possible to imagine.  And, given that thoughts are logical constructs, I'm also asserting that it's possible to imagine something quite "supernatural" (defying gravity).  This would be a concept representing a supernatural manipulation of content without manipulating the law itself.  The Jesus miracles are also examples of this.

Now, what about the other case?  Is is possible to imagine something supernatural affecting the law itself?  The whole concept of a god that is "outside of reality" but is real enough to "be inside of reality when he wants to" goes nowhere fast.  If something is real enough to be considered real, it would always be inside of reality and never outside of it.  A much more interesting option is a law that intrinsically changes itself.  If a law changes itself, then something interesting happens -- both the law and the content governed by that law are changed dynamically in tandem.

So, yes, I think supernatural is very possible, logically.  All you need is a Universe with an informational feedback loop.

So if god created physical laws, then who created god?


Same question. If god always existed, why couldn't physical laws always exist, too?

Actually God is universal energy that we can feel >>That's the reason they say God is everywhere. It's the universal energy.
We are made from star dust, so that energy resides in us >>The reason they say God resides inside us

No one created God.  He was, and is and is to come.  He is eternal.  Living in finite bodies in a world that has a beginning and an end we see things in the physical but cannot grasp the idea of eternity fully.  Everything around us is going through a process of life and then death so this is really beyond us at this point.

BTW, don't ever try to think about where God came from!  I have tried to do that a few times and it just makes me dizzy.    

And laws of physics can't be "was, and is and is to come ... eternal ... [and] living in finite bodies in a world that has a beginning and an end" because...?

Exactly, the great eternal consciousness.

I can say the same about you, and we would still be exactly where we started, with both of us thinking we are right. So...


This can actually go both ways:

A. You *can* reason what is beyond the horizon based on what you know is in front of it, and what you know about the world/system it exists in (if we are on sea, the only answers to that question are "water" or "beach" and not "mountain" or "waterfall" or "a land of meat"). I do this all the time in my profession, where I don't know what our financial situation will be at the end of the fiscal year, but I can reason what it will most likely be based on data I have right now. This is also how we reason what is in other solar systems, or what other planets are composed of. We don't actually percieve what they are made of, we just make reasoned conclusions based on what we see here in our solar system.

B. You can't percieve what is beyond the horizoon and it's impossible to reason what is beyond it, and thus since you can't percieve god, it is impossible to reason about god's existence.

1) I explained to you why you can't be right regarding your assumption of an absolute separation between objective and subjective reality.  There's an entire logical principle dating back to the ancient Greeks (and likely before them) that states exactly this...it's the principle that states differences arise from sameness and similarities.  Your methodology to forming conclusions about reality incorporates a false assumption about reality itself.  Reality includes both subjectivity and objectivity, and so a comprehensive model of reality must explain how each defines the other. 

Everything shares a fundamental identity with everything else.  In mathematics, this fundamental identity is a distributive property represented by the number '1'.  Consider a statement, "ab = xy".  This is really 1(a)1(b) = 1(x)1(y).  The property of identity is a mathematical law that distributes to everything.  Everything is united by this principle of identity...of cohesion.

2a) You can reason about what's behind the horizon in a probabilistic way, but that's another way of saying "I don't know."  Instead, I can say "I know that it's impossible to know what's beyond the horizon" and be correct.  You never know where Dank is having his million man music festival.  It's always just over the horizon, isn't it?

2b) Non-sequitur.  The reason is because "beyond the horizon" (not-visible) and "horizon" (visible) are localized distributions in spacetime.  Your conclusion would only be valid if you're talking about polytheistic gods.  A monotheistic god is omnipresent.