Omniscience+omniscience has infinite explanatory scope - so it's certainly a convenient assumption. But it's an enormous assumption that's as implausible as it is convenient. All evidence points to knowledge being something that is accumulated over time, that it consists of organized data, and data is encoded. So the notion that a being just happens to exist who happens to have infinite knowledge, that has neither been developed over time nor is encoded, is grossly implausible: it's magic. Theists are conditioned to unquestionably accept omniscience on faith. Believe what you like, but accept the fact that there's no rational reason to believe omniscience exists.

existence is created everyday. — alleybear

There is a Totality of Existence (TOE), and that is what I was treating as "existence". It's the TOE that could not have been created.

The material world could have been created only if TOE encompasses more than the material world (such as an immaterial God). But it's possible TOE=the material world, in which case it was not created.

Believe what you like, but accept the fact that there's no rational reason to believe omniscience exists. — Relativist

Well that is the question of this topic, whether God or omniscience exists. And I accept your disbelief in it so we differ there. Indeed there may not be any grounds to believe in God as we cannot truly provide conclusive proof that such a being exists yet here we are existing as intelligent beings and this to me constitutes proof that there are probably other intelligent beings out there even as far as the ultimate being who embodies or is identical to omniscience as per my earlier article on divine simplicity attested to. That such a being has always existed is what is implausible to you.

However because the world, the universe or this reality exhibits order, complexity and purpose it’s not too far fetched to attribute the cause to a designer or omnipotent being.

Sure this order and complexity could have arisen by chance and though plausible it’s equally plausible to attribute it to a higher being. The laws of physics seem to be very finely tuned in order to support life and again it could be that it is by pure fluke and chance but then again it could easily be explained in terms of a higher being who set the conditions for life to emerge rather than not emerge.

yet here we are existing as intelligent beings and this to me constitutes proof that there are probably other intelligent beings out there even as far as the ultimate being who embodies or is identical to omniscience as per my earlier article on divine simplicity attested to. That such a being has always existed is what is implausible to you — kindred

Omniscience is implausible to me. Yoy don't seem to agree, so why don't you explain why you find it plausible - addressing the objections I raised. On a possibly related note, I believe the past is finite.

We are intelligent creatures, and there may indeed b⁷e others in this vast universe - but in all these cases, I expect they developed over the course of billions of years through a series of events that led to their existence; their knowledge is acquired over time, and it exists in some form of physical encoding.

However because the world, the universe or this reality exhibits order, complexity and purpose it’s not too far fetched to attribute the cause to a designer or omnipotent being. — kindred

I disagree. The overwhelmingly simpler explanation for order is the existence of laws of nature. Again, you're just treating omniscience as no big deal, when it's an enormously big assumption.

The laws of physics seem to be very finely tuned in order to support life and again it could be that it is by pure fluke and chance but then again it could easily be explained in terms of a higher being who set the conditions for life to emerge rather than not emerge. — kindred

A fine-tuning argument depends on circular reasoning. The unstated premise is that life was some sort of teleological goal. That assumption entails a designer. A materialist would consider our existence as simply a consequence of the way the world happens to be. Plus: if intelligence requires a designer, then God requires one.

You made the claim so you have the burden of proof. Believe whatever you fancy, sir – apparently, you don't understand the argument from poor design. or why your "belief" is fallacious as I've pointed out ↪180 Proof. — 180 Proof

The argument from poor design ignores the fact that evolution is an ongoing process whose sole aim is to enable organisms to adapt to their environment. I believe in evolution and a deity, they’re not mutually exclusive in my world view yet despite some examples of poor design as a result of evolution (e.g various cancers) and types of suboptimal creatures they’re outnumbered by designs that more than meets the environmental requirements required of it.

You might say that if the designer/God is perfect then so should his creation but this is a poor argument because it would exclude diversity and the end product would be one perfect creature, but that already exists in the form of God, and since god is all things he is perfection and imperfection at the same time.

I disagree. The overwhelmingly simpler explanation for order is the existence of laws of nature. Again, you're just treating omniscience as no big deal, when it's an enormously big assumption. — Relativist

And where did these laws of nature come from? Just chance that they happen to be so as to allow life to emerge in the world? I think this is equally implausible as that of an eternal omnipotent, omniscient being which could explain why there are laws of nature in the first place.

Plus: if intelligence requires a designer, then God requires one. — Relativist

A common misconception which would lead to infinite regress of prior causes. God is assumed to have no predecessors before him, he just happens to be so eternally (and having existed infinitely) thus the only issue I see here is one of proof. And as I stated before the fact that the laws of nature allow order, complexity and purpose to arise it points towards these attributes being pre existing before they manifested, and they were pre existing in the form of God.

And where did these laws of nature come from? Just chance that they happen to be so as to allow life to emerge in the world? — kindred

The best explanation for laws of nature is law-realism: a law reflects a relation between universals. In simpler terms: they are part of the fabric of material reality.

Where does anything come from, ultimately? Answer: a metaphysically necessary, autonomous brute fact. That's true of any metaphysical foundation of existence, even a God.

Just chance that they happen to be so as to allow life to emerge in the world?

"Allow?" I assume you mean: why did it happen to be possible for life to develop? The answer is: because that is the way the world happens to be. Why think life is anything other than an unintended consequence of the way the world happens to be? This points to the fundamental error that fine-tuning enthusiasts make: they treat life as a design objective, such that the universe had to be finely tuned to achieve it. Drop that unstated premise, and there's no argument.

I think this is equally implausible as that of an eternal omnipotent, omniscient being which could explain why there are laws of nature in the first place.

That makes sense if and only if you consider omniscience plausible. You are taking it for granted (as I expect any theist would), rather than explaining why it is perfectly reasonable to accept the existence of infinite knowledge that is unencoded and not a product of learning over time. Why is THAT brute fact more reasonable to assume than a brute fact material foundation wherein laws of nature are present because there exists universals with causal relations between them? It seems pretty clear that the material world exists, that laws of nature exist, and that they seem to fully account for the evolution of the universe- including the development of intelligent life. Why think there is magic in the world, when there's no empirical evidence of it?

The best explanation for laws of nature is law-realism: a law reflects a relation between universals. In simpler terms: they are part of the fabric of material reality.

Where does anything come from, ultimately? Answer: a metaphysically necessary, autonomous brute fact. That's true of any metaphysical foundation of existence, even a God. — Relativist

There are multiple explanations for the origins of the laws of nature and the theistic one is one of many with the others being platonic and naturalist (or scientific).

Sure, God can be subject to the same metaphysical investigation of where it came from as much as the laws of nature themselves yet equating god with the laws of nature vis-a-vis divine simplicity solves this problem.

Why think there is magic in the world, when there's no empirical evidence of it? — Relativist

In a sense the ability for life to emerge from non-organic matter to being fully bipedal, conscious and intelligent is truly remarkable perhaps even magical whether you believe in god or not.

Sure, God can be subject to the same metaphysical investigation of where it came from as much as the laws of nature themselves yet equating god with the laws of nature vis-a-vis divine simplicity solves this problem. — kindred

It seems to me that "solving the problem" entails rationalizing - showing it possible, not showing it's plausible, or better yet- that it's the best explanation.

I'm perfectly fine with someone believing in a God for the personal benefits they get from it. No one can prove you wrong.But don't fool yourself into thinking there's an objective, rational basis that can prove you right.

The furthest and most solid evidence and proof I got on the existence of God was the word God, which I can see, read and type on the computer screen. All else with the existence of God is a matter of conjecture and personal faith.

It is an illogical statement to say God exists. The correct way of saying that statement is, one believes in God.

the existence of God is a matter of conjecture and personal faith.

It is an illogical statement to say God exists. The correct way of saying that statement is, one believes in God. — Corvus

Now, that's an honest way of speaking.

Intellectual Dishonesty:
The preachers claim ‘perhaps’ as fact and truth.
Their ingrained beliefs the priests’ duly preach,
As if notions were truth and fact to teach.
Oh, cleric, repent; at least say, ‘Have faith’;
Yet, of unknowns ne’er shown none can e’er reach.

Unfortunately, for believers, a being cannot be First and Fundamental; look to the more complex future for higher beings, not to the simpler and simpler past.

Unfortunately, for believers, a being cannot be First and Fundamental; look to the more complex future for higher beings, not to the simpler and simpler past. — PoeticUniverse

Beings can be non-existence like from Meinong's beingless objects. They belong to the domain of faith, conjecture, thought and belief.

Their ingrained beliefs the priests’ duly preach, — PoeticUniverse

Beliefs don't mean they are inferior to knowledge. They are actually precondition of knowledge. If you know something then you also believe in something too. And if you believe in something, then you are possible to know it too. Not necessarily all the time, but the possibility exists.

I believe that Australia exists, but I have never been in the place. It is only a belief, but I cannot deny it exist, just because I have never been in the place, and never seen any part of the land in my real experience.

My belief of its existence is as firm as any other knowledge I have for certain.
Therefore some beliefs have a high certainty as knowledge. It depends on what evidence and reasoning, or just guessing or blind faith the belief is based on.

Therefore it could be the case that some religious beliefs based on strong and deep faith could offer high certainty of knowledge of God, albeit it might be a false knowledge, illusion or even delusion.

Ah, yes. Great quote. :sparkle:

My belief of its existence is as firm as any other knowledge I have for certain. — Corvus

We can deduce a Permanent Eternal Something that rearranges itself to form the temporaries, its state ever remaining the same, the elementary 'particles' not being new substance, but direct and rather stable lumps of It, so then, poetically:

Permanent Presence, through transient veins,
Running Quicksilver-like, fuels our gains—
Taking all the temporary shapes as
They change and perish all—but It remains.

We can deduce a Permanent Eternal Something that rearranges itself to form the temporaries, — PoeticUniverse

My inference that Australia exists is based on the real experience of meeting some folks from the land, that they are from the countries, and they spoke to me with funny English accents in my good old days in the international high school in Jakarta Indonesia when my father was working in the place.

  I recall the tall Australian guy Steve, who used to say Hi to me, then asked to teach him Tae Kwon Do, so I taught him some Tae Kwon Do movements.  In return he taught me some tricks in playing basketball which he was very good at.

There was also this beautiful blond girl called Ingrid from Australia who came and sat beside me at lunch time, and we used to have sandwiches and hamburgers together.  When we went to Bandung for the school trip, she sat beside me in the bus, and fell asleep with her head on my shoulder, which I still recall.  

 Plus I saw some youtube bits on the places supposedly taken in the places, and they just looked like any place on the earth, but with loads of bushes and fields and some beaches with the folks which looked realistic.  Therefore my belief that Australia exists is as firm and certain as my knowledge that the Earth rotates around the Sun.  However I have no clue what it would be like living in the place under the scorching Sun during the winter months where I am, because still I have never been in the place in real life.

But in the case of deducing something Permanent and Eternal being, I have no real life experience pertaining to the concept, hence I am not sure what could be the basis for such deduction or inference.