The ontological argument (if we can conceive of the greatest possible being, then it must exist – the “assertion fallacy” or “circular argument”), is not what is discussed – it is creation and science having no tools to address it – but scientist in fact using the “ontological argument” to posit their new religion (science will solve or explain everything despite the recent prise winning proof that there are problems that science can not solve). Indeed the entropy/time construct, the there is no dimension called time construct, the 2 arrows of time construct, the gravity is gravity (my favorite with wandering dimensions making a QM event a close second) are all ontological argument. Indeed I am amazed that others are impressed that the math from A to B works – guess they forget they in effect defined A as B.

I agree we can not “adequately imagine what constitutes the JudaeoXtian understanding of God” – everyone’s faith is unique to themselves – and I do not begrudge the “atheist” or “scientific” faith folks their beliefs – just don’t tell me your beliefs are “science” and therefore “logical” – based on Falsifiability or refutability where the logical possibility that the assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment has been shown.

Paul Tillich: Faith is a centered act of being ultimately concerned is one of many interesting books on faith – there are others I agree with – but we agree “The existence of God is not something that can be proven or disproven. It is ALWAYS an article of faith.” – as is the belief that there is no God.

Finally – creation is – well – creation. Folks must learn to deal with that fact. Post creation math needs work – the effort should be in this area where the logic might actually led to something productive. The attempts to blur creation is a waste of my contributions to my and others colleges. Bell’s work in the 60′s really has not been improved on – a valid alternative explanation of QM is multiple universes – the current work being discussed adds nothing to the discussion.

Does anyone here believe science will ever concoct a TOE that encompasses this?

And if there is a TOE would not that then obviate human autonomy?

How would our speculations about therse things not just be an inherent component of determinism?

If the universe was dense and confined and lower entropy at origin, with gravity “thinning” and more diffuse as information and entropy increase, what is the relationship of gravity and information?

Are black holes points at which gravity and information invert — more gravity again, but little information?

Going to have re-read the chapter again where “conservation of information” and time reversal are discussed.