I'm sorry I took so long to compose my response to your PM.
Operational definitions:
Universe: The space-time we find ourselves and all observable matter and phnomenon within. Includes un-obse(r)vable matter and unknown phenomenon.
Universe {U} is then defined as all that is real {R}? Then ~{U} is the unreal. ( ~{U} => ~{R})
The {U} is then composed of {O}, the observable, and ~{O}, the un-observable.
Let {e} be the empty set.
We see that we have four cases. A phenomenon {p} may be a subset of {U} and {O}, that is: real and observable, or {p} may be a subset of {U} and ~{O}, or {p} may be a subset of ~{U} and {O}, that is to say observed but unreal, like characters in a movie, or hallucinations, or {p} may be ~{U} and ~{O}, for practical purposes, {e}.
God: Producer and sustainer of a universe.
You are, I am supposing, arguing that God {G} is either a subset of {U} and {O}, real and observed, or {U} and ~{O}, real but not observed.
Real infinity: A borderless spatial expanse of a homgenous substance.
Infinity is a number. (Actually, more than one infinity exists, as was proved by Cantor.) It is the slope/tangent of (pi)/2 radians or the tangent of 90 deg. I don't know if it is classified among the real numbers. In any case, real in mathematics, is not quite the same thing as the real we have been using. It is not a given that the universe needs a producer or "sustainer". What is real {U} in our discussion is bordered or literally, defined, by what is not real ~{U}. And what do you mean in this case by homogenous? (homogeneous ?). The universe is composed of dynamic flows of matter and energy. It is not uniform or homogeneous. This is to say, the matter/energy is not evenly distributed.
As the universe is "finely tuned" for physical life and atomic stability to exist, ...
Douglas Addams pointed out that a puddle, if it could think, would perceive that the depression in which it rested must have been perfectly designed to fit its needs. It has not, as far as I know, ever been demonstrated that the universe could be other than it is. In other words, we can show that IF the universe were different it would be different, but we cannot demonstrate that it can actually be different. Some things just have to be. For instance e^x is its own derivative. It cannot, have any values other than that those defined. e^(pi) = (-1) This is true for all integer multiples of (pi) and only for integer multiples of (pi), and so (pi) must have the same value in any universe.
... then God, if he exists, must be a physical force or forces upon the universe so that it's phenomenons and structures are regular and capable of long term centropic processes or "life".
This does not follow logically. We know of four basic forces such that they are {U} and {O}. These are the weak nuclear force, the strong nuclear force, the electromagnetic force, and gravity. Are you proposing that God is one of these or some combination of these? Would you claim this force to be {U} and {O}, or {U} and ~{O}? I hardly think that you are going to claim that the force would be ~{U}!
We are the life questioning our origins.
Yes!
Centropic action or Centropy: The increasing of total order over time. As exemplified by the existance of the DNA molec(u)le, capable of organizing physical matter into a self propagating, centropic information set (living body) through time. As evidenced by the existance of the plethora of life on this planet.
The universe {U} and {O} is a system of dynamic flows of matter and energy, a decay of unbalanced energy states into a state of equilibrium. This is a turbulent flow, and vortices and ripples arise manifested. Just so, a river seeking gravitational equilibrium by flowing downhill can sort a landslide into boulders, cobbles, pebbles, sand and silt. No neologism (centropy) is required.
To confuse the entropy of thermodynamics and the entropy of information theory is to go astray.
If you drop a hot rock into cold water they will reach thermal equilibrium eventually. Is the system more disordered or less when that equilibrium is reached?
You have not reached a conclusion.
... , if God exi(s)ts, ...
That is what you set out to prove. Yet , here you are, making it one of your assumptions. This is a logical fallacy.
... must provide the matter, be the patterner and provide for the pattern of physical life to exist. God then must be a physical Being and have some kind of real substancial existance.
Are you asserting that God is not observable, or that God is observable? If God is observable, then all you need do is to demonstrate this. If God is not observable, then you must prove God to be a necessary subset of reality. We stipulate that the universe is real although we cannot claim to be sure of its exact nature. Thus it would seem difficult to demonstrate that God is necessary. Causes exist as a consequence of change. One state changes to another. This is a change or flow of elements from one state to another within the universe. It is not clear that the universe itself needs a cause. If the universe contains all that is real, then anything external to the universe is unreal. There would then be no real external cause.
Expanded definition of God: The Living Physical Being who provides for the substance and patterns in the universe at all scales. Including all living beings known and uknown.
Your expanded definition is no more useful than the unexpanded definition. Just as the real is defined by what is not real, so you must define God by what God is not. If a definis a border, that border must divide, and there must be some characteristic basis for distinction. If, to you, God is all that is real, then you are a pantheist, asserting that God is all that is real and observable.
To clarify: If {x} is {God} then {x} is {real} defines the theist.
If {x} is {real} then {x} is {God} defines the pantheist.
f this is acceptable, next is a description of physical matter by the way it is patterned.
You have not yet given a satisfactory definition of God. Is God all of what is real, or only some of it?
My own tentative observation is that when people use the term God they are referring to a set of elements some of which are, or may be, real, and some of which are, obviously, not real.
P.S. I am green. I do not know your format or language. Teach me so that I may become clearer and put things in p(r)oper order.
The proper language would be that of set theory, or some other symbolic logical calculus, but those are not easily transcribed by a standard keyboard. If you are already familiar with set theory or symbolic logic, we can discuss conventions of translation into symbols that can be entered from a keyboard.
My living nature is to over-grow, don't hesitated to prune the crossing branches you see. I will prune too, and retrain, and regrow, and we both shall benefit.
Before we can begin discussion, we must agree on definitions. We should be able to agree that some real things may be unobservable, and some observable things may be unreal.
So, before we can discuss God, we have to agree on what we are talking about, definitions of the terms used and the rules of grammar of governing the use of those terms. And, since you are the one proposing to prove something, it is up to you to define and explain exactly what you are going to prove.
Let us not wander off into the composition of unverifiable abstractions.
