There is no God PERIOD

[Blackleaf]

No I don't believe the world is merely a simulation however I do think its a created reality as opposed to another plane of existence which could be described as real reality. Correct me if wrong at this time the consensus among scientists is that the universe and time came into existence about 13.5 billion years ago. At the very least (if true) time and the laws of physics as we know them didn't always exist but began to exist in its present form. The available evidence suggests the universe emerged from a singularity of infinite density and temperature. 

Singularity
See also: Gravitational singularity and Planck epoch

Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.[13] This singularity indicates that general relativity is not an adequate description of the laws of physics in this regime. How closely models based on general relativity alone can be used to extrapolate toward the singularity is debatedâ€"certainly no closer than the end of the Planck epoch.

You're treading into a topic I have little knowledge of, so I'll just take your word for it.

If true the singularity isn't anything we are familiar with and not subject to any known laws of physics. It defies the laws we do know of. I don't know of any evidence that forces we are familiar with are capable of causing a universe to exist. Doesn't this seem to contradict the notion its natural forces all the way down? My belief in theism is due to known facts.

No. It doesn't contradict anything. If I tell you that there is pizza in the fridge, but I don't tell you about the mayonnaise, does that contradict what I told you? As science has advanced over the years, the need for gods to explain things has shrunk, and the trend will continue. The lack of knowledge we have now does not contradict what we already know.

[Baruch]

No because I don't point to that void in our knowledge instead I list 6 known irrefutable facts to support my belief in theism. I don't want to repast them as I've already been accused of using the same material. However, if the universe did begin to exist either it was caused to exist (by something by necessity outside the laws of physics we are familiar with) or it came into existence un-caused out of nothing which sounds like a miracle event.

You know too much physics of the popular kind, and not enough metaphysics of the sophisticated kind.  You are trapped in the common meanings of a popular usage, when specialized jargon is required.  Cause/effect is one example.  And you have no idea what a miracle is (nor do the atheists here).

[Drew_2017]

You know too much physics of the popular kind, and not enough metaphysics of the sophisticated kind.  You are trapped in the common meanings of a popular usage, when specialized jargon is required.  Cause/effect is one example.  And you have no idea what a miracle is (nor do the atheists here).

This is a popular coffee house discussion board...
Explain how I can communicate effectively without using common meanings of words? Wouldn't everyone be confused if I used words with my own meaning attached to them?

I assume if I quoted the dictionary definition of the word miracle you would say that's not what it really means? I tell you what, take some time to create a dictionary of common words so we know what they really mean according to you. In the mean time I'll continue to attach common meanings to words in blissful ignorance of what they really mean.

[Baruch]

Alas, dictionaries both reveal and conceal meaning.  You have to have experience of X, to know what X means.  For example "Fishing" ... if you never have fished, then you really don't understand what the world means.  You can know, by looking it up in a dictionary .. but knowledge is weak compared to understanding.

[Solomon Zorn]

This is a popular coffee house discussion board...
Explain how I can communicate effectively without using common meanings of words? Wouldn't everyone be confused if I used words with my own meaning attached to them?

I assume if I quoted the dictionary definition of the word miracle you would say that's not what it really means? I tell you what, take some time to create a dictionary of common words so we know what they really mean according to you. In the mean time I'll continue to attach common meanings to words in blissful ignorance of what they really mean.

You should probably avoid arguing with Baruch, at least until you have your "sea-legs" under you.

[Mike Cl]

In the mean time I'll continue to attach common meanings to words in blissful ignorance of what they really mean.

Actually what you really mean is 'willful' ignorance not blissful.  But in your case, both meanings apply.

[Drew_2017]

You're treading into a topic I have little knowledge of, so I'll just take your word for it.

No. It doesn't contradict anything. If I tell you that there is pizza in the fridge, but I don't tell you about the mayonnaise, does that contradict what I told you? As science has advanced over the years, the need for gods to explain things has shrunk, and the trend will continue. The lack of knowledge we have now does not contradict what we already know.

If the existence of a phenomena is unlike anything we know of and the known laws of physics don't apply to it yet you say it doesn't contradict the belief its natural forces all the way down then your position is data and evidence proof. This coincides with my belief that the difference between the natural and the supernatural (according to naturalists) is a moving goal post. The supernatural is what can't possibly happen unless it turns out it does happen in which case its 'natural' whatever that means.   

[Mr.Obvious]

You should probably avoid arguing with Baruch, at least until you have your "sea-legs" under you.

Or a good, strong cup of coffee.

Preferably Irished up.

[Blackleaf]

If the existence of a phenomena is unlike anything we know of and the known laws of physics don't apply to it yet you say it doesn't contradict the belief its natural forces all the way down then your position is data and evidence proof. This coincides with my belief that the difference between the natural and the supernatural (according to naturalists) is a moving goal post. The supernatural is what can't possibly happen unless it turns out it does happen in which case its 'natural' whatever that means.

It's natural if it doesn't require gods, angels, ghosts, or other spirits to explain it. What qualifies as supernatural is a moving goal post because we keep finding natural explanations for things once assumed to be supernatural.

[Drew_2017]

Alas, dictionaries both reveal and conceal meaning.  You have to have experience of X, to know what X means.  For example "Fishing" ... if you never have fished, then you really don't understand what the world means.  You can know, by looking it up in a dictionary .. but knowledge is weak compared to understanding.

I think most on this board do enough talking past each without adding to the difficulty by suggesting we should look for some alternative shaded meaning to words. In this regard we're all talking beyond personal experience anyway when it comes to being familiar with how a universe came into existence, what a singularity is, how life began to exist. Except Baruch who I suspect was there at the time...

[Drew_2017]

Actually what you really mean is 'willful' ignorance not blissful.  But in your case, both meanings apply.

That depends I will take 'willful' to mean you think I'm brilliant and ignorance to mean you think I'm really clever...Thanks for the compliments.

[Drew_2017]

It's natural if it doesn't require gods, angels, ghosts, or other spirits to explain it. What qualifies as supernatural is a moving goal post because we keep finding natural explanations for things once assumed to be supernatural.

In this case we're talking about God. Suppose what theists believe is God is actually a scientist(s) in another plane of existence that caused our universe to exist...would that be naturalistic? That just pushes the envelope back a notch we'd still wonder what caused the scientist to exist.

The evidence you offer is in the form of an argument. The argument is as science continues to broaden its scope it continues to find naturalistic explanations (for clarity's sake what I mean by naturalistic explanations) are ones in which no purpose, intent or design caused what we observe. This leads some to believe if and when we can peel back further we will continue to find naturalistic explanations for whatever else there is to discover.

In my opinion this is a poor argument because in known examples the same evidence doesn't lead to the same conclusion that we owe our existence to unguided mechanistic forces that didn't intend to cause or create anything that was created. For instance a car or a laptop can be explained by an appeal to the known laws of physics. We know such things were caused and created by design yet everything about them including their function can be described by naturalistic forces. If your evidence holds true this should have led to finding its 'turtles' all the way down and cars and laptops were created unintentionally by mechanistic forces. In fact however it isn't naturalistic forces all the way down it was caused by sentient beings. You're argument is classical circular reasoning. The evidence its naturalistic forces all the way down only holds water if in fact its true its naturalistic forces all the way down. Nonetheless I don't believe in theism due to what we don't know. I infer it from what we do know...

[fencerider]

Do theist think of god as a person, or localized entity, or an energy field spread out through out the universe?

If god is a non-sentient being or an energy field, then there is no reason to have god in our consideration; other than an observation that maybe the universe came out of god.

If theist think of god as a person, i.e. a creator or a supreme being that doesnt fit any description of religion there are still basic questions to ask.

In the case of a supreme being we have to ask if this particular being created the universe. We have to ask how this particular being got the title of supreme being. and we have to ask what does this supreme being have to do with us.

In the case of a creator we have to ask other questions. Did the act of creation kill the creator? Did the creator die at some later date? Does the creator want the position of a superior or supreme being? and of course we still have to ask what does this have to do with us.

[Drew_2017]

Do theist think of god as a person, or localized entity, or an energy field spread out through out the universe?

If god is a non-sentient being or an energy field, then there is no reason to have god in our consideration; other than an observation that maybe the universe came out of god.

If theist think of god as a person, i.e. a creator or a supreme being that doesnt fit any description of religion there are still basic questions to ask.

In the case of a supreme being we have to ask if this particular being created the universe. We have to ask how this particular being got the title of supreme being. and we have to ask what does this supreme being have to do with us.

In the case of a creator we have to ask other questions. Did the act of creation kill the creator? Did the creator die at some later date? Does the creator want the position of a superior or supreme being? and of course we still have to ask what does this have to do with us.

I believe we owe our existence to a sentient being who caused the universe and humans (possibly other beings) to exist. I'm not attempting to answer what God is like, how God came into existence or whether people were inspired by God to write have a message from God. Those are theological questions and I'm not a theologian.

[Sorginak]

Those are theological questions and I'm not a theologian.

The irony is that even theologians cannot seem to agree on the status of god; the only difference between a religious theologian and a secular theologian is that one uses a bias to make the overwhelming claim that god does exist whereas the other uses the evidence currently available to properly assert that god appears entirely mythological in nature.