Theists: What would a godless universe look like?

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not according to Fries trilemma. According to Fries trilemma this would be accepted through psychologism (AKA on personnal experience and comparisons through a common standard).

Well, it is still subjective and relative, What "common standard" works for you, is in some sense psychological and thus subjective, because even a common standard is intersubjective and not objective. It is a bias in favor of the standard.

According to Popper, the idea itself of absolute truth, while unatainable doesn't mean it's impossible to arrive to arrive to useful results and that all investigative methods are equal in that regard.

There is no objective standard for useful. Useful is always first person. You can't see, hear, touch and so on it. It has no objective measurement standard or instrument. Useful is a subjective "calibration" of your own brain, so what makes sense.

Also, your use of Agrippa's Trilemma is itself absolute and a fairly ammusing paradox. You are claiming as aboslute truth that it's impossible to know absolute truth. If you consider all claim to knowledge to be fruitless and equal, than Agrippa's Trilemma should also be discarded for it ends up being dogmatic per itself.

Well, we hit conditional truth. That is the fun part about absolute. Absolute is a condition itself. It will only remain absolute if the conditions for it remain the same. Now could the conditions behind Agrippa's Trilemma change? Yes, but in practice you would stop being you because you would be so different, because in a sense you would be a god if not God.
I can't rule out for the future, that I couldn't overcome Agrippa's trilemma, but then I wouldn't be me anymore. I.e. imagine you were God, if you are God, then you are not you. Of course you would still be someone, but not you. That is the "absolute" in effect. Not that is universal always for all conditions absolute, but it is absolute for humans as such. But being a human is conditional.
As for being dogmatic. Well, I can image if I wasn't restricted by Agrippa's trilemma, but it stops there. Because I can't tell, what it would be like. We end in "brute facts" in a sense. Agrippa's trilemma is a cognitive version of a "brute fact". You can't get past it as long as you are a human.
If my cognition changes and I can overcome it, I will get back to you.

BTW. You are not the first one to bring it up. I ran into it, while trying to understand cognitive relativism:

Cognitive relativism consists of two claims:
(1) The truth-value of any statement is always relative to some particular standpoint;
(2) No standpoint is metaphysically privileged over all others.
Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

(1) is relative for/conditional on (1) being so for humans. You could imagine being so else than for a human, but the condition is different, so (1) is not absolute. It is only absolute as long as it meets the condition, namely all humans as individuals are different particular standpoints. We are all in at different times. places and senses. That is the particular. To overcome that you had to be at all times, places and sense as in ALL. You are apparently not, right?!! But if you were, you would have different truth, but you would also be a god if not God.

 

[halbhh]

Why not?



Why do you think the universe needs a cause? Or, for that matter, the multiverse? Causality is PART of the universe, not external to it.

I totally get (and 40 years ago I think) that of course everything could exist eternally in time as a distinct possibility. There is even an elegant cosmological theory in recent years using QM (Quantum Mechanics) in an Oscillating Universe model.
For those interested: https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

But......if you think on it regarding this other question about God, you realize it is an independent question. Neither tells us anything much about the other.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Correction, the observable universe doesn't have "a set of rules"; it IS "a set of rules". The "Laws of Nature" aren't prescriptive laws; they are descriptive laws.

There is no coherent set of rules as for now. We have no universal theory of everything, so you can't say that that. But you seem to know that. I.e. The "Laws of Nature" and not the Laws of Nature.

 

[halbhh]

You are falling prey to an outworld paradox here. An outworld paradox is when you impart a characteristic of the universe to something outside of the universe or, as you are doing above, as a necessery precondition to the universe itself. Causality is a characteristic of the universe, thus you cannot make a causal chain to explain the universe since without the universe there is no causality.

No not really. ( I'm kinda about 3 or 4 steps past that, depending on how you count.) See my last post above this one a minute ago. post #122

(btw, if it can help forestall guessing, I wouldn't come to believe in God nor to disbelieve in God on the basics of physics. Best to just ask me questions really rather than guess at my assumptions)

 

[Polymath257]

I totally get (and 40 years ago I think) that of course everything could exist eternally in time as a distinct possibility. There is even an elegant cosmological theory in recent years using QM (Quantum Mechanics) in an Oscillating Universe model.
For those interested: https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

But......if you think on it regarding this other question about God, you realize it is an independent question. Neither tells us anything much about the other.

Yes, questions about deities are independent of question of science.

 

[Super Universe]

Anger has nothing to do with it. Even if a God exists, I don't see why it would have an effect on anything I care about.

If there was evidence for God that is as good as, say, the evidence for dark energy, it would be sufficient to make the hypothesis possible and worthy of study.

If the evidence was as good as that for dark matter, it would be convincing to many atheists.



And how do you distinguish between a universe created by a God and one that was not?



Of course we are. But emotions are a very poor determiner of truth.



And how much have theists? Answer: the same amount. But the theists claim God is everywhere, so extensive investigations aren't required to show non-existence.



Why do you assume academics always have messed up lives?



Well, the archeology shows that Troy existed and that Thermopylae occurred. It also shows that the Exodus never happened.



Really? You think that a horse with a single horn that is magical actually exists?



OK, what does that have to do with deities?



And I cannot choose *to* believe. I have also had 'visions', but I realized they were my mind playing tricks on me and not anything due to a supernatural.

Anger has nothing to do with it? You're saying that people separate their emotions from their decision making process? When did that change happen?

If there was evidence for God as good as the evidence for dark energy, that would make a hypothesis? The evidence is the universe. I could also point to personality as evidence but human understanding of the brain is way too primitive to even begin theorizing how it really works.

How do you distinguish between a universe created by God and one that was not? I think therefore I am. If I don't think then I am not.

Emotions are a poor determiner of truth? We definitely agree on that.

How much of the universe have theists explored? The same amount as atheists. They both believe what they want to believe. The theists want to feel that their belief's are better and that they are going to heaven, and others are not. It's emotion that is driving it, emotion to be better than someone else. Atheists blame religious people/God for something bad in their lives or something they did not get. It's emotion that is driving it. Humans are emotional beings.

Theists claim that God is everywhere? God produces the matrix (space) and He produces personality. Detect those things and correctly understand the source of them then you will have the answer.

Why do I assume academics have messed up lives? I assume all humans have messed up lives. A rock pile is a rock pile is a rock pile.

Archeology shows that Troy existed? But it was folklore long before archeology found it.

Archeology shows the exodus never happened? What archeology? Have you seen the Merneptah Stele? I know, it's not proof of anything.

I think that a horse with a horn that is magical exists? I didn't know unicorns were supposed to be magical. What magic do they have? If you can think of it, then, it exists but it may not exist in that exact form, humans can mix and match things. Also, I don't think unicorns are thought to have created the universe. If you want to use the name Unicorn for God, then that is up to you.

What does the GUT have to do with deities? The GUT does not exist. God does. Math that.

You cannot choose to believe? Maybe you can't.

You have had visions but it was just your mind playing tricks on you? That's not a vision, that's just a dream.

 

[Polymath257]

Anger has nothing to do with it? You're saying that people separate their emotions from their decision making process? When did that change happen?

No, it's just that the predominant emotion is either boredom or astonishment that anyone can believe that way.

If there was evidence for God as good as the evidence for dark energy, that would make a hypothesis? The evidence is the universe. I could also point to personality as evidence but human understanding of the brain is way too primitive to even begin theorizing how it really works.

How do you distinguish between a universe created by God and one that was not? I think therefore I am. If I don't think then I am not.

Not even close to an answer.

Emotions are a poor determiner of truth? We definitely agree on that.

How much of the universe have theists explored? The same amount as atheists. They both believe what they want to believe. The theists want to feel that their belief's are better and that they are going to heaven, and others are not. It's emotion that is driving it, emotion to be better than someone else. Atheists blame religious people/God for something bad in their lives or something they did not get. It's emotion that is driving it. Humans are emotional beings.

I don't blame any theists for anything bad in my life. In fact, my life is pretty good overall.

I am an atheist because I am not convinced by the theists arguments. I find their stance to be pretty clearly wrong.

And, as you acknowledged, emotions are a poor way to determine truth, so the theist's emotional desire to feel 'better' is part of the problem.

Theists claim that God is everywhere? God produces the matrix (space) and He produces personality. Detect those things and correctly understand the source of them then you will have the answer.

Why do I assume academics have messed up lives? I assume all humans have messed up lives. A rock pile is a rock pile is a rock pile.

I think that it is sad you make that assumption. But if everyone has messed up lives, why did you select out academics? Why not theists?

Archeology shows that Troy existed? But it was folklore long before archeology found it.

Archeology shows the exodus never happened? What archeology? Have you seen the Merneptah Stele? I know, it's not proof of anything.

The Stele shows that there were people identified with early Israelites when the Stele was carved. It says nothing about an Exodus.

I think that a horse with a horn that is magical exists? I didn't know unicorns were supposed to be magical. What magic do they have? If you can think of it, then, it exists but it may not exist in that exact form, humans can mix and match things. Also, I don't think unicorns are thought to have created the universe. If you want to use the name Unicorn for God, then that is up to you.

What does the GUT have to do with deities? The GUT does not exist. God does. Math that.

Prove God exists. For that matter, even define the concept of 'God' in a way that the existence even makes sense.

You cannot choose to believe? Maybe you can't.

You have had visions but it was just your mind playing tricks on you? That's not a vision, that's just a dream.

Well, I could say your 'vision' was a dream as well. Can you prove me wrong?

 

[Super Universe]

You're trying to fit the universe into a human, technological model. That makes no sense. Chemistry and physics don't need intentional manipulation to work. There is no need to posit a magical manipulator.

Nature doesn't make Samurai swords or airplanes, but it can make planets and lava and chimpanzees. The natural mechanisms by which this happens are known and familiar.

You say it's impossible for the universe to make itself. Why? The universe exists. We don't fully understand it, but attributing it to magic, from an undetectable personage, just because the processes responsible for it perplexes you -- that's absurd. Worse, it's unreasonable.
But science has no place for the supernatural. Its explanations rely on evidence, not incredulity.
Are you sure you understand what science is?
Please point out an instance of science finding god. How is sciencing finding something and not recognizing it?
You make a lot of claims, but you don't back them up with any evidence.
Goddidit is not an explanation of mechanism. It doesn't address 'how,' it just posits a 'who'. So goddidit is not an explanation. It explains nothing. Capiche?

Do you seriousy think you're being reasonable, here?
A nonexistent god poofed himself into existence? How does something that doesn't exist do anything?
It's usually you religious that claim nothing comes from nothing. In claiming god created himseld you're not claiming a thing created itself, you're claiming nonexistence created a personage.

OK, fine. Are you seeking an explanation for this; a mechanism, like science is?
Where are you getting this? We're perfectly happy. It's you theists that feel put upon; who feel threatened by reason, logic, science and technology.
If anyone/s angry it's you theists.

I'm trying to fit the universe into a human idea? Can't do that, no way, no how. Humans can't even imagine the size of their own galaxy let alone the universe.

Chemistry and physics don't need manipulation to work? They obey the matrix rules. But they don't form samurai swords or 777's.

There is no need for a magical manipulator? The Magical Manipulator does not use magic nor manipulate. He forms the matrix. You use the matrix as you can.

Nature can make chimpanzees? Take an amoeba and put it into a warm pond, does it evolve? Why not?

Reason is not proof. What is reasonable to you is impossible to a tribal person.

Science has no place for the supernatural? Disease was supernatural until it was explained. God can be explained, just not with today's primitive ideas. You're going to have to think outside of the box.

Am I understanding what science is? Yes, it invents a law of gravity and then violates it with the big bang idea. That's a very human thing to do.

How is science finding something and not recognizing it? An infinite source of energy is God. The math robots have found God in their math but they think it has to be an error because they think there can't be an infinite source to the universe when there is.

Do I back up my claims with evidence? Go to college, you'll see.

God did it doesn't address how? Does chemistry not work if you don't understand how it works?

Am I being reasonable when I say that God created Himself? Yes. Your rules are not universal rules.

Non existence did not create a being, the being created Himself. What was before is impossible to comprehend.

Do virtual particles exist or not? If you deny their existence then you are going against accepted science.

Theists are threatened by reason, logic, science, and technology? I took many science classes, reason did not play a part in much of it.

The theists are angry? I think some of them really are.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

2 Answers, because of the 2 different premises one can use --

Premise A: The Universe wouldn't exist at all.

Premise B (premise/idea 'God' doesn't exist but that something causing this Universe to arise, such as a 'multiverse' etc., does exist): People would eventually realize (universally instead of only a few) that of course the fact that something exists means that something caused it to exist. This something (larger physics of the multiverse, etc.) is in ultimate control. I.e., is "God" in a sense.

But, you appear to incorporate a premise of you own in your question! Have a look --

"There are many things that I would expect to see in a universe containing a benevolent, omnipotent, personal god that I don't see in this universe...."

What premise am I seeing? This very reasonable and common one --

First, consider that if one assumes that death of this body is the final real death, extinction of the person, then God would logically be a murderer, or worse, doing genocide, really.

But assuming death of this body is final is an assumption! A premise.

A basic part of the definition of "God" in Christianity is He Who makes death only temporary.

In other words, if God exists, the death of this body is only door to another life.

And then the question of what is 'benevolent' depends profoundly on the rules, and the goals, and the outcomes, in that next-life.

Ergo, questions arise, starting from the easier:

What is "love"?

What then, is "faith"?
(as an aid, ask what is 'trust')

How does faith affect love over long periods of time (more than just decades)? -- e.g.: Can love last without war arising in the absence of trust and a mutual willingness to "forgive" and demonstrated tendency to "love one another"

(these italicized words are key scriptural words or phrases about our conditions to be in eternal life)

There seem to be two parts of your post, one claiming that the universe needs a first cause, and another dealing with the problem of evil and a benevolent god. To address the first cause argument, I'd simply ask, why does the universe need a cause and if it does, why is the first cause exempt from needing a cause?

You're right that if we assume that death is merely a transitional state, then the definition of "benevolent" actions by a deity must change. But if death is the transition from life to either heaven or hell, and whether one goes to heaven or hell is dependent upon the knowledge of Jesus, then why does God fail to give that knowledge to so many people? We should expect to see Christianity uniformly distributed throughout history and geography if Christianity is the correct religion, because supposedly the Christian God wants everyone to have an equal chance of being "saved." But instead we see religious beliefs highly dependent upon the geographic location and historical time of a person's birth--when European missionaries arrived in the Americas for instance, they met Natives who had never heard of the Christian story. A real god wouldn't need to wait for missionaries to reveal himself across the world--he could use any means necessary to give everyone an equal chance of accepting or rejecting him.

 

[epronovost]

Well, it is still subjective and relative.

Relative, yes, all standards are relative. Everything is relative. The universe itself is relative, but it's not subjective in the sense that the standards isn't dependant on my emotions and desires or those of others.

There is no objective standard for useful. Useful is always first person. You can't see, hear, touch and so on it. It has no objective measurement standard or instrument. Useful is a subjective "calibration" of your own brain, so what makes sense.

Actually useful means that can be used. It can serve to produce things, predict things, find new and better questions to ask. Useful isn't always first person. You can see, hear, touch and so on the usefulness of discoveries.

 

[epronovost]

No not really. ( I'm kinda about 3 or 4 steps past that, depending on how you count.) See my last post above this one a minute ago. post #122

(btw, if it can help forestall guessing, I wouldn't come to believe in God nor to disbelieve in God on the basics of physics. Best to just ask me questions really rather than guess at my assumptions)

So if I understand your posts, and correct me if I'm wrong, you don't believe in a deity that created the observable universe, but you do belive in a deity of some sort. You also do not count on logic, evidence or physics to support this belief in this deity.

 

[Super Universe]

No, it's just that the predominant emotion is either boredom or astonishment that anyone can believe that way.



Not even close to an answer.



I don't blame any theists for anything bad in my life. In fact, my life is pretty good overall.

I am an atheist because I am not convinced by the theists arguments. I find their stance to be pretty clearly wrong.

And, as you acknowledged, emotions are a poor way to determine truth, so the theist's emotional desire to feel 'better' is part of the problem.



I think that it is sad you make that assumption. But if everyone has messed up lives, why did you select out academics? Why not theists?



The Stele shows that there were people identified with early Israelites when the Stele was carved. It says nothing about an Exodus.



Prove God exists. For that matter, even define the concept of 'God' in a way that the existence even makes sense.



Well, I could say your 'vision' was a dream as well. Can you prove me wrong?

What do you get if you are right and you prove there is no God? Even if you get a Nobel Prize you will still die and then what?

I think therefore I am. If I don't think then I am not is not an answer? Was the correct answer a math problem with a bunch of X's and Y's?

Your life is pretty good? A king owned a castle. He had a beautiful wife, many children, and many servants. He ate well. His kingdom was never challenged so he lived a long life. Then he died and what did he have?

You're an atheists because you are not convinced by theist arguments? They don't convince me either. They use a book as evidence instead of passion.

Theist desire to feel better is the problem? Human desire to feel better is the problem.

If everyone has messed up lives why did I only mention academics? Because they are not exempt, even though they think they are.

The Merneptah Stele just mentions Israel, not the Exodus? Correct. I'm sure all the rest of the stories are not true. Do you know what the Akashic Record is?

I should prove God exists? Prove you are worthy.

I should define the concept of God? Prime Creator but that is not what you are looking for. Try this one, Space Matrix Generator. Math that.

You could say my vision was a dream? I don't have to prove you wrong. You don't make universal policy. What would I get? A coupon for a reduced price McCoffee?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But already, talking about moving around means you have an external world in which you are moving.

No, I first person experience that.

And I put Boltmann Brains, brains in a vat, Descarte's demon, etc all in the same basic category. Because they have no way to test them, they are the poorest possible model for what i experience.

Yeah, you believe in another model. But that is the point then it is a model

Well, the universe is *not* in you. You are in it, though. So there is no contradiction. Your experiences are in you, but those are not the same as the universe (experience of a thing is not the same as that thing).

Well, the universe is apparently not a thing. So it seems you are making a category mistake.

Furthermore, by hypothesis formation and testing, and requiring hypotheses to be testable, you can quickly and easily get away from solipsism in all forms.

No, your still just testing your first person experiences.

You keep saying that the universe is 'in you', which to me is clearly false. So, can you elaborate on what you mean by that? I can't see any actual sensible meaning to it.

Since the universe is not a different thing and it is not just out there, it is also in me.
Remember the Big Bang and all that matter, that came out of it. Some of it is now me. Yes, in me is not the most precise, but nor is it precise that the universe is around me nor not me.

Maybe that is the essence of why we see things differently?

Yes, you are in effect an ontological dualist. I am not

And the physical universe can explain that there are subjective states inside of it.

Please only in physical scientific notation make the equivalent of that sentence: "And the physical universe can explain that there are subjective states inside of it." You can't because there is not physical theory of everything in the universe.

You are confusing the meta-level with internal mental states. An easy mistake, to be sure. But simply because a meta-lvel has a property doesn't mean that all simulations within it have that property.

The universe is not a meta-level. It is everywhere, if it weren't, then there would be more than the universe.

Well, I guess it is how you define the notion of 'real'. I do it through testable models. As for 'trust', that seems to be not an issue when applied to the universe as a whole (as opposed to people inside of the universe).

As for test, all you are test are your experience of the universe. They would be same in the real universe and a BB universe. The definition of real is psychological. It is real, it is real to you. Real have no objective referent. You can't observe it and you can't measure it using science. It is a cognitive concept just like God.
Again, with in effect the dualism. There is no universe as whole (one form of existence) but in a part of it there is. (another form of existence)

Well, evidence is anything that shifts probabilities. And, we do have evidence based on observations and testable models.

And again you are doing it. You don't like that there is a limit to your idea of evidence and that you don't like that, is subjective. So you still ignore it and do like some religious people. Here it is: That you don't like, that you can't known if you are in a real universe or a BB universe, will not affect which one you are in. Just like some religious people don't like that there is no evidence for God, you don't like that evidence has a limit.
Let me spell it out for you. You are the effect of the rest of the universe and you as an effect is the same in a real universe as in a BB universe.

So let me pin it out for you in philosophical terms. What you claim you know, has been tested by philosophers and your idea of an objective universal theory of everything is called a complete system of Knowledge in philosophy. The problem is that there is no such knowledge. That is how you explain that science is axiomatic and one of the axiom is the universe is fair and it is not a BB universe.
You want it both ways. You want to test, but you don't want to test the limit of test. You assume testing that it is Absolute and not conditional and axiomatic. The real universe is conditional on the fact, that the universe is fair and that testing works for you to say something about the universe "in itself".

I am tired of having to explain what an axiom is and what a conditional is. You should know this. You are a scientific and you know that there are no Absolute. And thus testing is not an Absolute.

I see the term 'real' (as well as terms such as 'exists') to require definition.

And you have use both yourself, so it goes both ways. Both words are subjective concepts and have no objective referent. Just as you can't define God with an objective referent, neither can you do so with these 2.

 

[Koldo]

Because I know.

Great. Elaborate on this knowledge of yours.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Relative, yes, all standards are relative, everything is relative. The universe itself is relative, but it's not subjective in the sense that the standards isn't dependant on my emotions and desires or those of others.



Actually useful means that can be used. It can serve to produce things, predict things, find new and better questions to ask. Useful isn't always first person. You can see, hear, touch and so on the usefulness of discoveries.

You take for granted that you are not in a Boltzmann Brain universe. All you claim, relies on the following assumptions for which there is not evidence, proof, truth, logic and what not.
The universe is real and fair and you are not in a Boltzmann Brain universe and thus the universe is knowable.

In other words, you haven't solved epistemological solipsism.

 

[viole]

The logical contradiction is that the universe could create itself without God. Can't happen.

and what makes you think that the alternative to God creating the Universe, is the Universe creating itself? You seem to base your main argument on a false dichotomy.

You also seem to assume a-priori that the universe, or all that exists, needs to be have been created. How-so?

ciao

- viole

 

[halbhh]

There seem to be two parts of your post, one claiming that the universe needs a first cause, and another dealing with the problem of evil and a benevolent god. To address the first cause argument, I'd simply ask, why does the universe need a cause and if it does, why is the first cause exempt from needing a cause?

You're right that if we assume that death is merely a transitional state, then the definition of "benevolent" actions by a deity must change. But if death is the transition from life to either heaven or hell, and whether one goes to heaven or hell is dependent upon the knowledge of Jesus, then why does God fail to give that knowledge to so many people? We should expect to see Christianity uniformly distributed throughout history and geography if Christianity is the correct religion, because supposedly the Christian God wants everyone to have an equal chance of being "saved." But instead we see religious beliefs highly dependent upon the geographic location and historical time of a person's birth--when European missionaries arrived in the Americas for instance, they met Natives who had never heard of the Christian story. A real god wouldn't need to wait for missionaries to reveal himself across the world--he could use any means necessary to give everyone an equal chance of accepting or rejecting him.

The Universe doesn't need a cause so far as I was aware or understand if it eternally exists, which could then could be for instance an Oscillating Universe model (but there are several other models that aren't multiverse models).

There's some miscommunication we should try to overcome. A "claim" is to assert or argue something is true, but notice in contrast that a "premise" is an chosen or an optional (or sometimes an unconscious) idea one uses to consider something logically. I can consider the implications of a premise and state them without at all making any claim about it being true or false. I considered the (contradictory) premise A in my answer to you above fun, but only useful to rule just out certain contradicting ideas.

So far as I know it isn't possible to figure out whether God exists on the basis of any physics theories (I'm speaking from having read a lot of them). One could only rule out certain invented notions about God some people have, usefully, via physics.

Re:
"But if death is the transition from life to either heaven or hell, and whether one goes to heaven or hell is dependent upon the knowledge of Jesus, then why does God fail to give that knowledge to so many people?"

According to the text, no one will go to 'hell' on the basis of lacking knowledge of Jesus. (see for instance Romans ch 2: v6-16 NIV, but better, ask if you want more on that)

Back to the more immediate question though: should one simply just assume God doesn't exist -- by assuming death of this body is final -- in order to think about whether God exists?

 

[halbhh]

So if I understand your posts, and correct me if I'm wrong, you don't believe in a deity that created the observable universe, but you do belive in a deity of some sort. You also do not count on logic, evidence or physics to support this belief in this deity.

After finding out that God exists, to my surprise, then I later realized retrospectively this would mean He'd be involved with our Universe in some way, modifying it or originating, or whatever. This wasn't a first step, but only an outcome of finding out He exists. I wasn't requiring explanation for the Universe being, or being how it is, either one -- other than the interesting theories I'd been reading for years in physics and cosmology. I was and am content to have many things yet to be figured out. So, it was not from A to B, but from B to A, there. Because God exists, then it is implied He'd be affecting things. But, still, it's a lot of fun to talk about cosmology when people try to use it to jump to conclusions about God, as cosmology is a life long interest of mine.

 

[epronovost]

You take for granted that you are not in a Boltzmann Brain universe. All you claim, relies on the following assumptions for which there is not evidence, proof, truth, logic and what not.
The universe is real and fair and you are not in a Boltzmann Brain universe and thus the universe is knowable.

In other words, you haven't solved epistemological solipsism.

Why would I need to solve it? The observable universe is consistent enough to be studied and predictable to a high degree. Since I can only perceive the observable universe and that it's consistent, I don't care to prove that I'm not the only "real thing" in the universe. Solipsism is a problem that doesn't really require a solution in my opinion since it only adds a layer of supposition to everything without altering any understanding or observation of the observable universe and that's the only thing we can possibly perceive. The Boltzmann Brain universe is used as a thought experiment to measure the quality of theoretical models, it's not in and itself demonstrated, demonstrable and it would change anything either to our reality much like other thought experiment of the genre like "last thursdayism" which state that God has created everything last thursday and made it look like it does now by artistic license.

 

[epronovost]

After finding out that God exists, to my surprise, then I later realized retrospectively this would mean He'd be involved with our Universe in some way, modifying it or originating, or whatever.

That's extremelly vague. If I understand you correctly, you found out God exists and then, to your suprise, you realised the He would be invovled in our universe in some vague capacity. What do you mean by "exist" in that context?

This wasn't a first step, but only an outcome of finding out He exists.

How did you found out He exists?