A good reason not to believe in God

[theVOID]

What definition do you prefer?

One that accords with the attributes of God (such as omnipresence)—but only if you want the argument to have any bearing on this omniscient God. (For example, see God, Revelation, and Authority by Carl Henry, and especially Eternal God: A Study of God Without Time by Paul Helm.)

So you're not going to give me the definition and instead make me run after it? Typical.

First, I am saying that God exists in all states of affairs eternally; that is, there is never a state of affairs that escapes God's existence. He describes himself as "the alpha and omega" (the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet), such that God is before everything else and he is after everything else (from which all things exist and for which all things exists). In fact, his omnipresence has a great deal to do with his omniscience; thus by separating them one risks constructing a weak straw man.

I never argued against that....

According to your argument it is crucially important, such that you posit an omniscient deity with complete knowledge about all things from t0. Your argument works for a temporally bounded omniscient deity, but that leaves the God of Christianity out of the analysis.

Fine, let's rephrase it.

Take the state of affairs that was the first instance of the universe, call this sU, the state of affairs that caused the universe is sC, the two competing sC's can be described by a certain amount of information.

Unless you deny that God caused the universe sC is completely applicable.

Of course he does. That is what omniscient means. Read what I said again and notice what my objection is predicated on. "God exists in all states of affairs eternally ... his omnipresence has a great deal to do with his omniscience." In other words, God knows in sum the position and momentum of every particle in the universe at every moment of time throughout existence at tn (which obviously includes the initial t0).

And he had this knowledge at sC?

Where did I attempt a material justification of the immaterial?

You're trying to solve the problem of pre existence - a material consideration, are you not? In your thinking, are you allowing for a non material answer?

Just WOW... Of course i'm allowing for it, I specifically compared a material answer with an immaterial one.

I would agree that B contains irrelevant information. Thus the two scenarios are unequal, not simple and complex.

No, the scenarios are equal in that they both offer explanations of the same event, they are both possible explanations, the explanation with the least amount of information is the most simple explanation and is the explanation we should prefer.

B doesn't contain irrelevant information because it COULD be the case that it is true, it's simply a case of it being the hypothesis that requires the most information to describe and is thus the more complex hypothesis.

You said "That's because the simple solution isn't necessarily the correct one". I respond: then an argument from simplicity is irrelevant.

Again... WOW... This isn't an argument that is trying to necessitate a position so that contention is completely irrelevant, this is an argument that Naturalism is, in terms of the amount of information required to describe that state of affairs, the most simple explanation. Like I showed with my above example, the explanation that requires the LEAST amount of information is the one we should prefer.

You're arguing without looking into the subject. Go find out what Divine Simplicity entails first before dismissing it.

That is not at all true, I've heard the thinking on Divine simplicity and I'm saying that Information theory discredits it, no matter what way you go about it more knowledge = more information = more complexity. To say that a book of everything isn't complex is a farce, the same happens when you talk about a being who knows everything.