Conventional science must restort to this deception and to abstract renditions of math, relativity and QM, etc in order to support un-probable and un-observable positions, contrary to Ocam's Razor.
But as you know, and as Rahvin alluded to in his point about the heat death of an infinitely old universe, actual science does make testable predictions based on its mathematical models. How this would be contrary to Occam's razor remains a mystery to me. In fact, nowhere in this thread can I find any instance where you are providing a cogent argument as to why the addition of a sentient entity to the universe renders it simpler. It seems obvious to me that a creator God must entail whatever complexity (understood or not) is found in the workings of the universe
plus whatever it is that makes him Him.
If you want to better understand (he said hopefully, yet pessimistically) the problems of trying to model or understand dimensions beyond those we are accustomed to experiencing with our senses, I would recommend the classic "Flatland", by Edwin Abbott.
Capt.
Edited by Capt Stormfield, : edit typo
™ Version 4.2
