teroko

Well, if you think so, I vote for you to do that.

What about just to imagine which would be God's trouble and point out a solution? Just by hand in a sheet of paper may be enough...

Seems you took some time thinking on the subject so I will point out a possibility you are not considering at all. What about if all life's problems are related to the particular values of the Physics' parameters of the Universe? They at the end determine the entire Nature and lifeform isn't it? Assume God planned some ideal values for them for an ideal life be possible but, for some imprevisible reason, the current real running values are different from those ideal ones. Then, God's intervention would be needed to fix them. Only God could alter the Physics' parameters. No way humans could do that isn't it? Then another question arises: why didn't God already did that? And even long time ago. Here is where the proposition that God is in big troubles come into place and we, as intelligent humans naturally ask ourselves: isn't there something we could do about? Could we give a help someway? At the end we are seriously affected and need the things to be solved, isn't it? Got it? Yeah, and just sit down to watch a cowboys film, that would be much better isn't it?

Ok. I apologize to have posted my "Logical proof of a Creator God" which, at the end, is based in my background as an Electrical Engineer. I have the classical concept of instantaneous "action at a distance" forces in mind while there exist some big "Fields Perturbation" theory in Quantum Physics, isn't it? This would bring a too big off topic discussion, I agree. It was just an attempt to present an "objective evidence" for the existency of God as asked by strange. Better to discuss about that otherwhere and other time. Not here now.

In an electric motor, for instance, no "virtual particles" are seen. That model actually doesn't work with practical things like an electric motor. You think. I will wait for them to analise that properly. We cannot discuss then.

Come on, someone asking the definition of "intelligence"... I replied to look at the dictionary and he just didn't like it? What would you expect? Impossible to discuss rationally this kind of argumentation. There`s no demonstration of the existence of "virtual particles". I think that actually they don't exist. There´s no other way to explain the existence of "action at a distance" forces. Wasn't that personal beliefs doesn't matter here? This is not a rational refutation of the conclusion on the existence of a "God".

I don't want to.

You can find that in the dictionary.

Let discuss the following reasoning of mine then: LOGICAL PROOF OF A CREATOR GOD Elementary particles exist in the Universe with laws of their interaction and behavior. The possible interactions are like attractions and repulsions and are determined by the concept of forces. All are “action at a distance” forces. This means that a “Physics System” would exist “running” the Physics Laws on the elementary particles. This leaves us to think in a mathematically based Universe that would “run” in some kind of “Universal Supra-computer”. The proof of the existence of a creator God follows quite obviously: Some kind of "Superior Intelligence" must have defined the elementary particles and programmed the Physics Laws with their particular constants' values that unavoidably run over the particles. That intelligence must also have determined the way for the particles to appear in the Universe. That "Superior Intelligence" can be called the "Universe's God". Of course the questions on how a "Universal Supra-computer" and the "Universe's God" could come into existency arises but that is another story. The reasoning here proves the existence of a creator God not how came into existency. Is also not presented here any other possible capability of the Universe's God particularly in which way he could observe and intervent in his creation.

Stated at Wikipedia: "Deism... ... ... is the philosophical position that rejects revelation as a source of religious knowledge and asserts that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to establish the existence of a Supreme Being or creator of the universe". Deism assertions: "Construcctive assertions": God exists and created the universe. God gave humans the ability to reason. "Critical assertions": Rejection of all books, including the Bible, that are claimed to contain divine revelation. Rejection of the incomprehensible notion of the Trinity and other religious "mysteries". Rejection of reports of miracles, prophecies, etc.

That's what I thought at the first time...

I'm wondering now if I have posted the thread in the right place. This is the "Religion" forum and actually I'm talking about a non religious God. A God more related to Deism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism). May the administrators would like to move the thread to the "Speculation" forum for instance, i don't know...

I don't think so. There's also a logical and rational approach to God. You can find it in Deism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

Why you lost interest? What would you be interested in?

What I consider by God is a "Superior Intelligence" capable and responsible of creating the Universe. Is the Creator God. Yes, I see the difference. By the way, I'm not talking about any religious God. Much more related to the Creator God in Deism. ...

Ok, but there's no empirical evidence on God... We appply rationalism. Is a matter of the logical analisis of propositions, right?

But this is the "Religion" forum. To talk about God... And I think new ideas to be taken into consideration is something good even for scientists... How Science could progress if not? Am I wrong?

No.

Is not my aim to present a theory scientifically here now. My aim is just to present here some ideas to be taken into consideration. Of course!

Sorry, badly spelled... I meant that I present things that makes sense to me for everybody to take a look...

But take into account there are theories in Science not proven yet (Dark Matter, Chords Theory,...) and along the history of Science there have been wrong theories too...

I know: "Don't worry... Be happy..." Sorry, is not my way...

I don't understand your point... What you mean?

I disagree. I think we should always look for the truth the way we could. But those who want to do nothing, fine, just wait for te results of otherones.

Fine for you then. That's your decision. To do nothing, just stay with what has been developed... My decision was different. Was to look for the truth in some things. And I think I found interesting things although cannot be demonstrated scientifically. At least yet. As I said, I'm presenting some things that make sense to me to everybody. May be they could make sense for other ones too.