Theology is discussed in the RGT Forum, i.e. Religion, God and Theology.

Thread moved to appropriate Forum.

-Zeno

yes, but math and physics are discussed in the other forum, plus it's already posted here...
besides, you already proved that movement of threads is impossible.

Even if this GOD could/will exist and even if he created our universe after he was formed in another universe it still doesnt solve the problem how the first universe started. In this theory it cant be a GOD, because he is always 'born' after (probably gazillion years after) the 'first' universe or whatever started. And I am not even going to talk about the other problems with this theory like even if this GOD exist why would you think he created exactly ours universe given the odds on your math it seems really unlikely that this being created our universe, he probably created the universe next door or something. And yeah the fact that such a being cant exist, because he defies the laws of the universe can be a problem, too.

an infinite universe would preclude a creator. your other points are irrelevant. my proof does not say that this universe was created by a god with any particular intention. in fact it's entirely possible according to it that it was created by god on accident, for revenge, out of curiosity, or any other reason you can think of.
why is my post so hard to understand? it seems so obvious to me.

Let me get this strait... OP thinks he understands quantum mechanics and he cant even spell it correctly?

i haven't studied quantUm mechanics in depth since i was 12, but i had a good grasp of it at the time and the concepts haven't changed since then. however, i could see how one misspelled letter in a paragraph would negate the argument contained therein if you were a completely anal retentive cockbag.

God is supposed to be immaterial, so any probability based on the behavior of particles is irrelevant, with regards to Gods existence.
Batman on the other hand; given enough quantum stuff, Batman must exist somewhere.

i'm sure that depends on which god and who you ask. this is a ridiculously singular minded group.

there is most certainly a tradition definition of God, one which includes God being immaterial. So I think that it is up to the one using a non-traditional definition of God to specify that.

If he is physical, he is subject to the physical laws; that would not make much of a God.
Regardless of which type of God you choose, you have to show that a God is a meaningful possibility. How exactly does the whole suspension of physical reality work?

i agree with you for the most part op. however seeing as there is no way to determine if we are living in a universe created within the multiverse by a being with seemingly limitless power or simply in another naturally occurring part of the multiverse it seems pretty pointless. i do believe all possibilities will eventually occur/have already occurred.

The OP is banned thread no longer matters

reason for ban?

*nvm, wasn't that hard to find out*

Probably wore a hoodie in a pizza joint

I still got the pizza.

If there was a just god you would have not.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35

^^ Makes no sense.

quit beating around the bush. that's your christian god. there's a tradition of all kinds of gods, material, immaterial, pre-creation, post-creation, man-like, animal-like, plant like, phenomenon-like, without form, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
our current pantheon of common gods worshipped on earth are only a tiny percentage of the gods worshiped throughout history and pre-history, and who knows if alien civilizations have gods, if they exist.
looking at the world with blinders on like you are, of course very little will make sense to you. you're not going to see much evidence of the theory of evolution looking at the 3 kinds of apples the grocery store has, either.

God is traditionally defined as 'the creator of the universe.' It then follows that he must have existed before the universe did and cannot be a product of it.

i'm not going to answer that 5 times in one thread.

Would like to say this again- Welcome to RGT.

Sounds like it is settled then. Admittedly, all I have done is quickly read through the responses, but the only response I can recall you having of this is, 'well that is only one particular god' which is wrong. If you want to make up something new, and label it god, and then say that it is possible that that thing has existed if the universe is infinitely old, well then fine. But you are no longer talking about 'god' in any meaningful sense. You are talking about a separate concept and just calling it 'god.' Your argument also hinges upon the premise that the universe is infinitely old, or that there is a multiverse which is infintely old, which has not been demonstrated and it is therefore acceptable to reject your argument for this reason.

it (infinite multiverse)makes more sense. what did your face look like before you were conceived?

i've made up nothing new in the way of gods. i don't even know who the **** you're talking to.

string theory hasn't been demonstrated.