Where's God?

[POI]

Does he pop up in my dreams? Is he the one whom produces my goose-bumps? Is He the one giving me my "moral compass"? Is he only experienced during deep meditation? If I have enough faith, will he appear to me? But seriously. Where is he? I was a Christian for decades. I earnestly prayed for him to reach me, to no avail.

For debate: Why have I not felt his presence?

A) I never tried hard enough; lack faith
B) He does not want to reveal Himself to me (yet)
C) Evil is blocking the request(s)
D) I'm too dumb to realize he's reaching me
E) He's not really there at all <- Current conclusion

Do not answer yet. This topic has spawned from another unrelated topic. I decided to devote this large topic to itself. Below are some premises:

P1) does god exist? (dunno)
P2) does god want a relationship with all, especially the ones who seek him (apparently so)
P3) is god capable of communicating (apparently so)
P4) can god communicate his message in a way in which the recipient could no longer deny (apparently so)
P5) have I asked for this communication earnestly and repetitively (YES)
P6) does the Bible state god answers the call to all who seek him (YES)

At best, god has opted not to contact me YET. And this would be after decades of actively seeking him. Without any emotion, I'm logically left with 2 options.

A) God is not really there <- Current conclusion.
B) God is not adhering to his promise (yet).

[POI]

Who knows, maybe with all these decades of probing and prying, you'll come to the Kingdom.

Or maybe my interlocutor found every excuse in the book to avoid the obvious, in the demonstration that prayer is nothing more than just talking to yourself.

It's like taking candy from a baby .

The Dunning-Kruger effect is a cognitive bias where people with limited knowledge or skill in a specific area greatly overestimate their own competence. Because they lack foundational understanding, they lack the self-awareness required to recognize their own errors, resulting in unwarranted confidence.

[SiNcE_1985]

Whatever that means.

Exactly.

"Whatever that means".

You don't have a clue about the subject matter, do you?

Just talking.

Is this comment the "agreement" that you're talking about? When you were trying to use entropy to deflect from discussing a mythical Jesus?

Um, both the historical Jesus, and fine-tuning were being discussed.

What Penrose really did in The Emperor's New Mind, at least in relation to the number you're fond of, is argue that given a random initial state of the universe and all of its matter, the number of states with low enough entropy to be our universe are vastly outnumbered by higher entropy states.

You're preaching to the choir, sir.

I know what it states. No need for filler paragraphs.

What Penrose did in Cycles of Time is propose a way that expanding universes like ours eventually evolve the conditions necessary for another low entropy starting point for the next universe.

It's not about what you can propose.

One can propose anything.

The question is; is there empirical evidence supporting what you propose...in this case, we're talking about Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology...which no one in cosmology has taken serious...and from my research (Wikipedia), it has been rejected by the scientific community...as it has no empirical evidence supporting it.

Second, according to AI Overview...

"Because standard cosmic inflation does not resolve this extreme fine-tuning problem, Penrose developed Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (CCC) to explain the initial conditions without relying on a multiverse or intelligent design."

Wow, there is that "initial conditions" concept in there. You see it?

I wonder what that's about? Hmmm.

Also, it states that Penrose attempted with his CCC, to explain the initial conditions, without relying on intelligent design.

Sounds like a "this seems to be pointing towards ID, and that cannot be allowed to happen"...kind of thing.

That means that one of the premises of his earlier claim was wrong; the initial low entropy state leading to a universe like ours isn't random, so it isn't competing with 10¹⁰¹²³ incompatible entropy states.

Not sure what you're saying here.

In fact inevitable, so your 10¹⁰¹²³ is now a 1¹¹. That has nothing to do with any of your PC or whatever, including even the cosmological constant. See, according to the fine tuning argument, the cosmological constant must be "nonzero but profoundly small in value," regardless of whether it's positive or negative. Penrose' cosmology requires is that the cosmological constant is positive, regardless of how large or small it is. They're unrelated conditions, because they're unrelated arguments!

Not sure what you're talking about...nor do I care (respectfully).

However, this is what I'm talking about...

AI Overview..

"Penrose calculated the precise degree of fine-tuning required to result in our highly ordered universe"

and..

"The resulting odds of the universe's initial low-entropy state occurring by pure chance are approximately 1 in \(10^{10^{123}}\) (often referred to as the Penrose number)."

That's, what I'm talking about^.

And no, I'm not about to read through all that cosmo-babble.

Cosmic fine-tuning needs to be explained, and entire books have been written to explain it..namely Penrose's book.

Entire theories have been proposed to explain it (multiverse).

And to explain something, presupposes that there is something to be explained.

And it is best explained by ID.

[Difflugia]

I'm still racking my brain in wonderment DIfflugia. I present what I present in the OP, and somehow, we're instead submersed in teleological arguments, cosmological arguments, etc? Starting from the OP, and beyond, I'm not asking for anything scientific here. I'm instead asking 'god' to answer prayer. It's rather simple, and yet, all that is displayed is a continuous borage of Venom's Dunning-Krugger effects in perpetual action, as well as Venom's deliberate avoidance to my simple request. O well....

I feel like I'm talking to Eliza.