A predictable proof of God.

I think it is reasonable to assume laws of nature govern the whole of nature, until we have a really good reason to assume otherwise.

You do not know that everything is predictable, but you say we should believe this? How can this be rational? ](*,)

I said we should believe this until there is a really good reason to believe otherwise.

When I throw a ball in the air, I assume it will come down again .What good reason is there for me to assume that such predictable laws are not universal?

I have already told you it is a weak induction from particular to universal. You know some things are predictable and you infer that all things are predictable. But there is no reason to believe this.

The quantum world is non-deterministic so basically its unpredictable.
As Last Man said, your premises are unjustified.

You’re jumping the gun, it may be that the quantum world is deterministic.

“Despite its extraordinary predictive successes, quantum mechanics has, since its inception some seventy years ago, been plagued by conceptual difficulties.”

plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/#com

Why a “will” specifically? Even if we know that the universe is caused by an unmoved cause, there is still some speculation on what that cuase is?

If I roll a million 6-sided dice, and the individual roles are completely random, the average of all those rolls will still be 3.5. If I roll two 6-sided dice together a million times, the average of the pair-roll will always be 7. The point here is that order does emerge from randomness, because order is nothing more than a higher-order perspective of randomness. If we have zillions of quantum events on the level of Planck energies occuring every second, the sum of these energies interactions with each other (even assuming that the states that these energies attain in their interactions, individually, is random) will form larger comprehensive energetic forms which attain a semblance of order and stability from this higher perspective.

Science and philosophy ought to be used together, neither should exclude the other. Pure empiricism is useful because it can give us information that philosophy cannot, and philosophy (Reason, logic, self-awareness) is useful because it can give us information that science cannot. And when we use the results from these together, we obtain a more comprehensive picture, our models become more justified. Of course science is never absolutely right, just as we never absolutely know Truth via philosophizing, but that does not mean that science or philosophy are not useful.

Your second point isn’t a proof, it’s an assertion.

To predict our environment, we must direct our will. Our experience of life doesn’t necessarily extrapolate to the existence of the universe. I’d be sorely shocked if it did.

For the proof of God you don’t need to use 'Scientific" statements cause Science is a retard way of living with enormous limitations. God is far beyond that.

Yes, we dont need to use science or philosophy at all to prove God, because those are all inferior to God anyways so how could God be proven by their base and ignorant means? God proves them, not the other way around.

The only possible proof for God’s existence is the sentence: “God exists.” That is all thats needed. Case closed. God exists. I guess we can all go home now.

Unfortuantely people still don’t wanna give up on the fact that everything they hear IS THERE to hear. It’s not possible you hear about something that doesn’t exists. And in the case of God, the percent of denying reaches Zero because in all stages of human’s history, in all places, all the cultures, they all believed in something as their Greatest. All the religions, cultures, myth, Adam and Eve, Satan, all the wars for ages, sacreds, millions of stories, How can all these be nothing?!! How much blind can someone be to try to disprove all of these?! Disproving them is the same to the disprove of their own existance and that’s were the greatest ignorance comes forth.

Same goes for ghosts and (in various forms) dragons. You can’t disprove them, either. You don’t need to live your lives by the rules they tell you, though.

This claim that “God is beyond stuff we can know” is the most dumb hypothesis ever.

Millions of children all around the world come to their parents at night times and say something is in their room or clothes. Parents go and check out there and see nothing and then act like their children had an illusion. But what kind of illusion is this that happen millions of times?! It is because something that people call as “Illusion” is still a part of the whole reality which gets ignored. So how come people assume they are so intellectuals when they are cutting the arms of reality like that?! That itself becomes an illusion. The illusion of ‘Knowing’. And that’s where the problem lies in what IconoclastWorshipper claims. God is definitely beyond the stuff we know, as if we really knew the reality we were not wallowing so desperately in the problems. That’s the code. When you deny something its existance is gone for you. And when something is gone for you then how can you evaluate everything when you have neglectaed many parts of it?!

When you go into their room and see that their dressing-gown is what they thought to be a “ghost”, you see the illusion for what it is: a trick of the mind, a perceptual quirk caused by the brain’s tendency to ‘recognise’ things from limited sensory data. Similarly, the brain may be wired to imagine a God - it may improve survival to have a concept that reduces stress and uncertainty and encourages you to act in unison. In that case, God would be an illusion. Your arguments ad populum notwithstanding.

This is sophistry. If God is unknowable, you have nothing meaningful to say on the matter, for or against his/her existence. And whether God is unknowable or denied, we can’t evaluate anything about matter either way.

A trick of mind will be recognsied as much as you can recognise it. And by the elements you exercise it you still can’t be sure of the right result because the righteous of the elements have to be evaluated first.

God is not unknowable. GOd will be known through your thoughts and actions. As much as your thoughts and actions can lift you through they can uncover as much as God to you. Something that human finds as his/her DEFINITE conclusions will still put him/her in the trap that might stop or distract her/him from going to the right way. That’s where the God hides. The reason that God is still unknown to the human being is because the human being is a slave of his/her own adventures. A crucial piece of the puzzle will be uncovered when you can find where your thoughts come from and where are they going.

The fast-food ways will get the fast-food results.

Right; this isn’t so much an argument as a stream of consciousness. Enjoy.

A real happy meal is far more nutritious than a make-believe banquet.

By posting that you thought you have found paradox?! The first line is about the way we use to draw God. The owner of power, health, wealth, everything. People try to explain God with their own ways. That’s where my first line comes from. God is beyond that way. By saying the first line I want to say that how much you learn you’re still need to learn more. That’s the way to God. Someone that doesn’t think like that simply start to deny the existance of God because s/he becomes too full of his/her own achievements that become the master of his/her mind.

and the second line is how you will recognize God.

If this couldn’t help you to a more understanding then you are too deep into your ‘Stream of Consciousness’!

Because my experience in day to day life tells me that complex structures that obey rules have to be intended. If you walked around a corner and saw Tower Bridge you wouldn’t think that it had formed without intent.

I think you are making a basic mistake.Things like numbers, sides, rolling and dice are a product of order .Pure randomness can not form anything, including a" higher-order perspective".