The universe with no need of God

[Tree of Life]

Why would God change his preferences if he was perfect to begin with? How can you change the "basic, brute fact"?

So this point seems to be drifting into the background. Are you prepared to admit that "random" cannot be applied to God?

 

[civilwarbuff]

Why do you say "most certainly"? On what do you base your opinion?

The laws of conservation of energy and mass.....what do you base your opinion on?

This would be a mischaracterization of inflation theory; big bang cosmology describes how we arrived at the energy and mass we observe in the universe today, in a manner that required little or no energy at its instantiation.

So you have a "little bang" that needs little or no energy to start but creates a universe with an incredible amount of energy and mass. Care to explain how that happens? And understand, the universe is a closed system; the amount of energy/mass does not change within an enclosed system (laws of conservation mass/energy) unless added to from outside the system.

That is described by inflation theory.

No, does not seem to be described.....Just the 1st para....long article....no mention conservation of mass/energy..
Physical cosmology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the branch of physics and astronomy. For other uses, see Cosmology.
"Cosmic Evolution" redirects here. For the book by Eric Chaisson, see Cosmic Evolution (book).
Part of a series on

Physical cosmology is the study of the largest-scale structures and dynamics of the Universe and is concerned with fundamental questions about its origin, structure, evolution, and ultimate fate.[1] For most of human history, it was a branch of metaphysics and religion. Cosmology as a science originated with the Copernican principle, which implies that celestial bodies obey identical physical laws to those on Earth, and Newtonian mechanics, which first allowed us to understand those physical laws.

Physical cosmology, as it is now understood, began with the development in 1915 of Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity, followed by major observational discoveries in the 1920s: first, Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe contains a huge number of external galaxies beyond our own Milky Way; then, work by Vesto Slipher and others showed that the universe is expanding. These advances made it possible to speculate about the origin of the universe, and allowed the establishment of the Big Bang Theory, by Georges Lemaitre, as the leading cosmological model. A few researchers still advocate a handful of alternative cosmologies;[2] however, most cosmologists agree that the Big Bang theory explains the observations better.

Dramatic advances in observational cosmology since the 1990s, including the cosmic microwave background, distant supernovae and galaxy redshift surveys, have led to the development of a standard model of cosmology. This model requires the universe to contain large amounts of dark matter and dark energy whose nature is currently not well understood, but the model gives detailed predictions that are in excellent agreement with many diverse observations.[3]

Cosmology draws heavily on the work of many disparate areas of research in theoretical and applied physics. Areas relevant to cosmology include particle physics experiments and theory, theoretical and observational astrophysics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and plasma physics.

As I said, it is a long article....maybe you could be a little more specific where in the article you found this:

Gravitational interactions, in this case, circumvent (but do not violate) the first law of thermodynamics (energy conservation) and the second law of thermodynamics (entropy and the arrow of time problem).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)

 

[Davian]

The laws of conservation of energy and mass.....what do you base your opinion on?

What I meant was, from where do you get your understanding of the laws of conservation? A book? An internet apologist site? A kid from down the street?

So you have a "little bang"

No, there was no "little bang" or "big bang", it was a very rapid expansion of space/time.

that needs little or no energy to start but creates a universe with an incredible amount of energy and mass.

Sure, but the net energy is observed to be zero.

Care to explain how that happens?

No, but I will point you in the general direction. Lead a horse to water, and all that.

And understand, the universe is a closed system; the amount of energy/mass does not change within an enclosed system (laws of conservation mass/energy) unless added to from outside the system.

Indeed, energy must be conserved. Inflation theory does not violate the conservation of energy.

No, does not seem to be described.....Just the 1st para....long article....no mention conservation of mass/energy..
Physical cosmology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the branch of physics and astronomy. For other uses, see Cosmology.
"Cosmic Evolution" redirects here. For the book by Eric Chaisson, see Cosmic Evolution (book).
Part of a series on

Physical cosmology is the study of the largest-scale structures and dynamics of the Universe and is concerned with fundamental questions about its origin, structure, evolution, and ultimate fate.[1] For most of human history, it was a branch of metaphysics and religion. Cosmology as a science originated with the Copernican principle, which implies that celestial bodies obey identical physical laws to those on Earth, and Newtonian mechanics, which first allowed us to understand those physical laws.

Physical cosmology, as it is now understood, began with the development in 1915 of Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity, followed by major observational discoveries in the 1920s: first, Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe contains a huge number of external galaxies beyond our own Milky Way; then, work by Vesto Slipher and others showed that the universe is expanding. These advances made it possible to speculate about the origin of the universe, and allowed the establishment of the Big Bang Theory, by Georges Lemaitre, as the leading cosmological model. A few researchers still advocate a handful of alternative cosmologies;[2] however, most cosmologists agree that the Big Bang theory explains the observations better.

Dramatic advances in observational cosmology since the 1990s, including the cosmic microwave background, distant supernovae and galaxy redshift surveys, have led to the development of a standard model of cosmology. This model requires the universe to contain large amounts of dark matter and dark energy whose nature is currently not well understood, but the model gives detailed predictions that are in excellent agreement with many diverse observations.[3]

Cosmology draws heavily on the work of many disparate areas of research in theoretical and applied physics. Areas relevant to cosmology include particle physics experiments and theory, theoretical and observational astrophysics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and plasma physics.

As I said, it is a long article....maybe you could be a little more specific where in the article you found this:

Third paragraph in the "initial conditions" section.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)#Initial_conditions

 

[Moral Orel]

OOOOOKKKKK.

It seems from the sarcasm I detect in this statement that I was correct in assuming you misunderstand what the Big Bang is.

Then please explain when it did come into existence...

Who says all the matter and energy we see did "come into existence"? Well, I guess the Bible does, but you're asking for a scientific explanation, and "coming into existence" isn't necessarily the case. Some people argue that it can, but those aren't the models I find to be the most likely.

 

[civilwarbuff]

What I meant was, from where do you get your understanding of the laws of conservation? A book? An internet apologist site? A kid from down the street?

If all you want to do is toss insults we can stop here.

Sure, but the net energy is observed to be zero.

Let's just assume that inflation theory is correct and their is not big bang. It still does not account for where the mass/energy comes from unless it assumes it always existed.

Third paragraph in the "initial conditions" section.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)#Initial_conditions

Here it is in context:
Initial conditions

Some physicists have tried to avoid the initial conditions problem by proposing models for an eternally inflating universe with no origin.[99][100][101][102] These models propose that while the Universe, on the largest scales, expands exponentially it was, is and always will be, spatially infinite and has existed, and will exist, forever.

Other proposals attempt to describe the ex nihilo creation of the Universe based on quantum cosmology and the following inflation. Vilenkin put forth one such scenario.[93] Hartle and Hawking offered the no-boundary proposal for the initial creation of the Universe in which inflation comes about naturally.[103]

Guth described the inflationary universe as the "ultimate free lunch":[104][105] new universes, similar to our own, are continually produced in a vast inflating background. Gravitational interactions, in this case, circumvent (but do not violate) the first law of thermodynamics (energy conservation) and the second law of thermodynamics (entropy and thearrow of time problem). However, while there is consensus that this solves the initial conditions problem, some have disputed this, as it is much more likely that the Universe came about by a quantum fluctuation. Don Page was an outspoken critic of inflation because of this anomaly.[106] He stressed that the thermodynamic arrow of timenecessitates low entropy initial conditions, which would be highly unlikely. According to them, rather than solving this problem, the inflation theory aggravates it – the reheating at the end of the inflation era increases entropy, making it necessary for the initial state of the Universe to be even more orderly than in other Big Bang theories with no inflation phase.

Hawking and Page later found ambiguous results when they attempted to compute the probability of inflation in the Hartle-Hawking initial state.[107] Other authors have argued that, since inflation is eternal, the probability doesn't matter as long as it is not precisely zero: once it starts, inflation perpetuates itself and quickly dominates the Universe.[4][108]:223–225 However, Albrecht and Lorenzo Sorbo argued that the probability of an inflationary cosmos, consistent with today's observations, emerging by a random fluctuation from some pre-existent state is much higher than that of a non-inflationary cosmos. This is because the "seed" amount of non-gravitational energy required for the inflationary cosmos is so much less than that for a non-inflationary alternative, which outweighs any entropic considerations.[109]

Another problem that has occasionally been mentioned is the trans-Planckian problem or trans-Planckian effects.[110]Since the energy scale of inflation and the Planck scale are relatively close, some of the quantum fluctuations that have made up the structure in our universe were smaller than the Planck length before inflation. Therefore, there ought to be corrections from Planck-scale physics, in particular the unknown quantum theory of gravity. Some disagreement remains about the magnitude of this effect: about whether it is just on the threshold of detectability or completely undetectable.[111]
Most of the citations supporting this theory are 20+ years old. A lot has happened in cosmolgy in that time. The citatiions disputing the theory are far more recent.

 

[civilwarbuff]

It seems from the sarcasm I detect in this statement that I was correct in assuming you misunderstand what the Big Bang is.

The sarcasm was appropriate be cause you made a statement and offered no supporting evidence; I guess you expected people to believe your statement simply because you said so.

Who says all the matter and energy we see did "come into existence"? Well, I guess the Bible does, but you're asking for a scientific explanation, and "coming into existence" isn't necessarily the case. Some people argue that it can, but those aren't the models I find to be the most likely.

OK, here is your chance. Where did the mass/energy come from? There is an incredible amount of it in the universe; how do you account for its existence?

 

[DogmaHunter]

A. If the gravitational constant (G) or weak force constant (gw) varied from their values by an exceedingly small fraction (higher or lower) – one part in 1050 (.00000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000001) then either the universe would have suffered a catastrophic collapse or would have exploded throughout its expansion, both of which options would have prevented the emergence and development of any life form. This cannot be reasonably explained by pure chance.
B. If the strong nuclear force constant were higher than its value (15) by only 2%, there would be no hydrogen in the universe (and therefore no nuclear fuel or water – this would have prohibited life). If, on the other hand, the strong nuclear force constant had been 2% lower than its value then no element heavier than hydrogen could have emerged in the universe (helium, carbon, etc). This would have been equally detrimental to the development of life. This anthropic coincidence also seems to lie beyond the boundaries of pure chance.
C. If the gravitational constant, electromagnetism, or the “proton mass relative to the electron mass” varied from their values by only a tiny fraction (higher or lower), then all stars would be either blue giants or red dwarfs. These kinds of stars would not emit the proper kind of heat and light for a long enough period to allow for the emergence, development, and complexification of life forms. Again, these anthropic coincidences are beyond pure chance occurrence.
D. If the weak force constant had been slightly smaller or larger than its value, then supernovae explosions would never have occurred. If these explosions had not occurred, there would be no carbon, iron, or earth-like planets.
E. Fred Hoyle and William Fowler discovered the exceedingly high improbability of oxygen, carbon, helium and beryllium having the precise resonance levels to allow for both carbon abundance and carbon bonding (necessary for life). This anthropic coincidence was so striking that it caused Hoyle to abandon his previous atheism and declare: “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”
For all five anthropic coincidences, refer to New Proofs Chapter Two, Section II by Robert Spitzer.

This should be on the wiki page as a classic example of "argument from ignorance".

 

[DogmaHunter]

It is very relevant to the question. The fact is that a creator had to have done these things to a very exacting standard.

That's not the fact.

The actual fact is that the values are what they are.

What you are calling "fact" here, is not more or less then what you BELIEVE concerning those values. You have not demonstrated this to be factual by any means. You merely declared it so. Through an argument from ignorance, of all things.

It is absolutely impossible that the universe could have formed randomly.

Please provide evidence of this assertion.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'm not going to argue physics. What I posted was a summation of a book, and if you're interested, really interested, you might read it. The point is that they are constants, but they argue for intelligent design of a creator, because if they had been designed even a little bit differently, we would not exist today.

Again, that's not at all what the facts actually are.

You're jumping from "there are constants" to "therefor, creation". You are missing a couple steps there.

You are just declaring these things to be facts.
I can declare them to be evidence of the magical chicken cheese sandwich, and I would be making just as much sense.

I honestly doubt there is any other life as we know it in the universe.

Why?

When we come to another position where I'm proven wrong, we'll deal with it.

So until that time, you are just going to go with whatever unsupported assertion you happen to buy into today?

What's wrong with, for example, admitting ignorance on things you are ignorant about, instead of just believing whatever feels nice?

For me, the above is evidence of an intelligent designer.

As long as you realise that "for me" part, as this is just your opinion and nothing else.

 

[Moral Orel]

OK, here is your chance. Where did the mass/energy come from?

It always existed, in one form or another. The Big Bang doesn't mean that it popped into existence, it simply means that it moved outwards from a single point.

 

[Davian]

If all you want to do is toss insults we can stop here.

lol, coming from the guy throwing insults at me in that other thread.

No, my question was pertinent; did you read somewhere that modern cosmological models [allegedly] violate the conservation of energy, or is this just your own (mis)understanding?

Let's just assume that inflation theory is correct and their is not big bang.

"Big bang" is just the label.

It still does not account for where the mass/energy comes from unless it assumes it always existed.

This would be a mischaracterization of inflation theory; to rephrase, big bang cosmology describes how we arrived at the energy and negative energy we observe in the universe today, in a manner that required little or no energy at its instantiation.

Try this: You go to a new bank, where you open a chequing account; you then take out a loan for $1,000,000, depositing it into the chequing account. You obviously now have lots of buying power, but what is your net worth at the bank at that moment?

Here it is in context:
Initial conditions

Some physicists have tried to avoid the initial conditions problem by proposing models for an eternally inflating universe with no origin.[99][100][101][102] These models propose that while the Universe, on the largest scales, expands exponentially it was, is and always will be, spatially infinite and has existed, and will exist, forever.

Other proposals attempt to describe the ex nihilo creation of the Universe based on quantum cosmology and the following inflation. Vilenkin put forth one such scenario.[93] Hartle and Hawking offered the no-boundary proposal for the initial creation of the Universe in which inflation comes about naturally.[103]

Guth described the inflationary universe as the "ultimate free lunch":[104][105] new universes, similar to our own, are continually produced in a vast inflating background. Gravitational interactions, in this case, circumvent (but do not violate) the first law of thermodynamics (energy conservation) and the second law of thermodynamics (entropy and thearrow of time problem). However, while there is consensus that this solves the initial conditions problem, some have disputed this, as it is much more likely that the Universe came about by a quantum fluctuation. Don Page was an outspoken critic of inflation because of this anomaly.[106] He stressed that the thermodynamic arrow of timenecessitates low entropy initial conditions, which would be highly unlikely. According to them, rather than solving this problem, the inflation theory aggravates it – the reheating at the end of the inflation era increases entropy, making it necessary for the initial state of the Universe to be even more orderly than in other Big Bang theories with no inflation phase.

Hawking and Page later found ambiguous results when they attempted to compute the probability of inflation in the Hartle-Hawking initial state.[107] Other authors have argued that, since inflation is eternal, the probability doesn't matter as long as it is not precisely zero: once it starts, inflation perpetuates itself and quickly dominates the Universe.[4][108]:223–225 However, Albrecht and Lorenzo Sorbo argued that the probability of an inflationary cosmos, consistent with today's observations, emerging by a random fluctuation from some pre-existent state is much higher than that of a non-inflationary cosmos. This is because the "seed" amount of non-gravitational energy required for the inflationary cosmos is so much less than that for a non-inflationary alternative, which outweighs any entropic considerations.[109]

Another problem that has occasionally been mentioned is the trans-Planckian problem or trans-Planckian effects.[110]Since the energy scale of inflation and the Planck scale are relatively close, some of the quantum fluctuations that have made up the structure in our universe were smaller than the Planck length before inflation. Therefore, there ought to be corrections from Planck-scale physics, in particular the unknown quantum theory of gravity. Some disagreement remains about the magnitude of this effect: about whether it is just on the threshold of detectability or completely undetectable.[111]
Most of the citations supporting this theory are 20+ years old. A lot has happened in cosmolgy in that time. The citatiions disputing the theory are far more recent.

What exactly are the papers in those citations disputing, in your own words?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

So this point seems to be drifting into the background. Are you prepared to admit that "random" cannot be applied to God?

Let's compare God to the number 5.

The number 5 has properties. It's prime, and it's the unique prime p such that p-2 and p+2 are prime. Other things as well. We could describe it in detail if we were so inclined.

Now, are these properties randomly assigned, intelligently assigned, or not assigned at all? Presumably you'd say that the properties were never assigned.

As a nihilist I must point out that there is a misconception about mathematics embedded so deeply in the population that even many Christians might be inclined to think that math would still "exist" even without God. I'm a math major and I've tried (with little success) to get people to see that mathematics is void of meaning, and that it is, at best, nothing but a collection of assumptions and definitions. Also, math is not "perfect" in the sense that a perfect system of logic will be both internally consistent and also will have the property that every coherent claim will be provable as either true or false, but not both or neither.

Math is irrefutably meaningless and only held as tentatively true, but I will assume here that you hold to the common view of math, in that it is perfect, well-defined, and something that exists on some metaphysical level. I will also assume that your belief is that the number 5, along with its properties, simply exist, for no reason and for no cause, and that its properties were neither intelligently assigned nor randomly assigned. You do appear to be saying the same about God. The number 5 is timeless and never changes. Most would say this about God, but you seem to indicate that God does change. For now, let's ignore that you said that. Then in what way is God different from an idea, like the number 5? Why does it even make sense for God to be a living entity if 5 cannot be a living entity? How can an unchanging, nonphysical thing have emotions and interact with the physical world?

Let's suppose God does change. You are now introducing the circumstances that allow for, or even force, God's properties to be random. Because if God exists outside of time and space, yet is able to change, then we can describe him temporally, and so there should be an initial assigning of his properties to begin with. How can he be a certain way for eternity past, and then suddenly and inexplicably change? Also, in order for him to change himself, he has to assign himself new properties. He is intelligently assigning himself new properties according to, presumably, his own preferences. Why would he change his preferences if they were perfect to begin with? If they weren't, why is that OK?

 

[Tree of Life]

Let's compare God to the number 5.

The number 5 has properties. It's prime, and it's the unique prime p such that p-2 and p+2 are prime. Other things as well. We could describe it in detail if we were so inclined.

Now, are these properties randomly assigned, intelligently assigned, or not assigned at all? Presumably you'd say that the properties were never assigned.

As a nihilist I must point out that there is a misconception about mathematics embedded so deeply in the population that even many Christians might be inclined to think that math would still "exist" even without God. I'm a math major and I've tried (with little success) to get people to see that mathematics is void of meaning, and that it is, at best, nothing but a collection of assumptions and definitions. Also, math is not "perfect" in the sense that a perfect system of logic will be both internally consistent and also will have the property that every coherent claim will be provable as either true or false, but not both or neither.

Math is irrefutably meaningless and only held as tentatively true, but I will assume here that you hold to the common view of math, in that it is perfect, well-defined, and something that exists on some metaphysical level. I will also assume that your belief is that the number 5, along with its properties, simply exist, for no reason and for no cause, and that its properties were neither intelligently assigned nor randomly assigned. You do appear to be saying the same about God. The number 5 is timeless and never changes. Most would say this about God, but you seem to indicate that God does change. For now, let's ignore that you said that. Then in what way is God different from an idea, like the number 5? Why does it even make sense for God to be a living entity if 5 cannot be a living entity? How can an unchanging, nonphysical thing have emotions and interact with the physical world?

Let's suppose God does change. You are now introducing the circumstances that allow for, or even force, God's properties to be random. Because if God exists outside of time and space, yet is able to change, then we can describe him temporally, and so there should be an initial assigning of his properties to begin with. How can he be a certain way for eternity past, and then suddenly and inexplicably change? Also, in order for him to change himself, he has to assign himself new properties. He is intelligently assigning himself new properties according to, presumably, his own preferences. Why would he change his preferences if they were perfect to begin with? If they weren't, why is that OK?

Again you managed to thoroughly lose the question in a forest of different questions and some tangent about mathematics. Could you just give a straight answer? God cannot be considered "random" by any definition provided because he is eternally existing and there was no process by which he became God. Isn't this right (logically speaking)?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Again you managed to thoroughly lose the question in a forest of different questions and some tangent about mathematics. Could you just give a straight answer? God cannot be considered "random" by any definition provided because he is eternally existing and there was no process by which he became God. Isn't this right (logically speaking)?

My point in that rambling was that I dispute the notion of timeless nonphysical ideas such as the number 5 being coherent, well defined, or even existing at all.

So my answer is this:

If you want to say that God is timeless and nonphysical, then he cannot even exist. If God has properties at all, they must've been assigned to him.

 

[Tree of Life]

If you want to say that God is timeless and nonphysical, then he cannot even exist. If God has properties at all, they must've been assigned to him.

Oh, ok. Well since this is a bare assertion with no support I can respond in kind. God is timeless, nonphysical, can, and does exist. God's "properties" were never assigned to him since he has eternally been himself.

Our views have been expressed!

 

[civilwarbuff]

It always existed, in one form or another. The Big Bang doesn't mean that it popped into existence, it simply means that it moved outwards from a single point.

So what you are proposing is a modified form of the Steady State Theory.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_theory
Steady State theory

This article is about the cosmological theory. For other uses, see Steady state (disambiguation).

In cosmology, the Steady State theory is an alternative to the Big Bang model of the evolution of the universe. In the steady-state theory, the density of matter in the expanding universe remains unchanged due to a continuous creation of matter, thus adhering to the perfect cosmological principle, a principle that asserts that theobservable universe is basically the same at any time as well as at any place.

While the steady state model enjoyed some popularity in the mid-20th century, it is now rejected by the vast majority of cosmologists, astrophysicists and astronomers, as the observational evidence points to a hot Big Bang cosmology with a finite age of the universe, which the Steady State model does not predict.[1][2]

 

[Davian]

So what you are proposing is a modified form of the Steady State Theory.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_theory
Steady State theory

This article is about the cosmological theory. For other uses, see Steady state (disambiguation).

In cosmology, the Steady State theory is an alternative to the Big Bang model of the evolution of the universe. In the steady-state theory, the density of matter in the expanding universe remains unchanged due to a continuous creation of matter, thus adhering to the perfect cosmological principle, a principle that asserts that theobservable universe is basically the same at any time as well as at any place.

While the steady state model enjoyed some popularity in the mid-20th century, it is now rejected by the vast majority of cosmologists, astrophysicists and astronomers, as the observational evidence points to a hot Big Bang cosmology with a finite age of the universe, which the Steady State model does not predict.[1][2]

I don't see how you got "Steady State" from "moved outwards from a single point".

 

[civilwarbuff]

I don't see how you got "Steady State" from "moved outwards from a single point".

It always existed, in one form or another. The Big Bang doesn't mean that it popped into existence, it simply means that it moved outwards from a single point.

I did say modified.......

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Oh, ok. Well since this is a bare assertion with no support I can respond in kind. God is timeless, nonphysical, can, and does exist. God's "properties" were never assigned to him since he has eternally been himself.

Our views have been expressed!

Firstly, if you want to say that God exists for no reason and no cause and that his perfect properties exist and are not random, why can we not say the same of the universe? What about God necessarily makes him a better explanation? Recall I said this in the OP:

Have I dug my own grave?

To be fair, the theist has only won once he shows that the same logical scrutiny can be applied to his worldview and that it will be shown to be more reasonable and/or more likely to be true.

You are proposing the existence of a God for no apparent reason since his existence does not provide a better explanation for the creation event. So what's the point in believing in him? Now couple that with the fact that there is no evidence for his existence and the fact that his properties are nonsensical, or, at the very least, nonsensical to a primate brain. Willful belief in nonsense is what faith truly is.

Secondly, I didn't assert with no support. I gave a positive argument for logical nihilism and then showed that God can be characterized as a logical idea, and thus he cannot actually exist.

This thread is where you are supposed to show that the t=0 event or the creation of matter ex nihilo is more plausible with a God than without. Remarking with incredulity on the idea of this occurring like civilwarbuff or claiming that physical variables are intelligently assigned like Root of Jesse does not make God a better answer. Thus far you've made no attempt to do this other than to say that God's existence is a "brute fact" of reality. Not much of an argument.

 

[Davian]

I did say modified.......

Going back to the banking analogy in my earlier post, where did the money come from to go into your chequing account, if you came into the bank with zero, and you left with a net amount of zero?