Using the following definition of God:

God ≔ Everything that exists.

Since obviously “Everything that exists” exists,

therefore God exists.

Be my imitators, even as *I* also [am] of Christ. Now I praise you, that in all things ye are mindful of me; and that as I have directed you, ye keep the directions. But I wish you to know that the Christ is the head of every man, but woman’s head [is] the man, and the Christ’s head God. Every man praying or prophesying, having [anything] on his head, puts his head to shame. But every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered puts her own head to shame; for it is one and the same as a shaved [woman].

[There is] one body and one Spirit, as ye have been also called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in us all.

The margin-of-error can only be calculated based upon the number of trials.  If I've been alive for 3,000 days and the sun hasn't exploded yet, then based upon 3,000 "trials" I can predict with very high statistical confidence that the sun will not explode tomorrow due to a very small margin-of-error.  Of course, that confidence does no good if the sun goes nova tomorrow.  The margin-of-error exists specifically because you always have access to a limited data set.  The margin-of-error could be eliminated completely if you somehow had knowledge of all trials that ever were, are, and ever will be, but obviously we don't have this ability.

And correct, mathematical proofs are fully abstract, internally consistent, and (at least) to that extent, sound.  Whether or not (and how) they actually apply to physical reality is another issue.  But regardless, they constitute 'a priori' knowledge and are knowable at a 100% level of confidence, without any margin-of-error.


Yes, your understanding is basically correct, and also correct about the "perfect machine."  Sensory technology seems to function as a 2nd-order observer.  In the double-slit experiment of quantum mechanics, the suggestive collapse of the wave function occurred in the presence of both human and technological observers.

Your question about whether Intelligent Design is the "necessary" mechanism by which reality is created/defined is fantastic.  You are correct to imply that conclusion didn't necessarily follow.

The best model one can theoretically come up with to explain something must meet a few criteria:  It must 1) Be internally consistent, 2) Comprehensively and soundly explain all information it attempts to do so, and 3) Introduce the fewest number of assumptions, ideally zero.  Falsification of the model can happen on two levels.  At a lower level, the model can be rendered internally invalid if new information is introduced which should be explained by it, but isn't.  At a higher level, the model can be rendered externally invalid if another model, which is broader in its scope, not only explains all information in the original model, but synthesizes this knowledge with other information unexplained by the original model (the result being a deeper understanding which predicates any topological understanding).

That being said, could reality have "always existed," independent of metrics?  From an empirical perspective, maybe, but there's no possible way to know without introducing some unnecessary assumptions.  This actually gets right back to the Positivistic Universe assumption, as your question yields to the same impossible means of empirical falsification, i.e. you would need to somehow collect metric data via observation in a Universe totally void of observers and metrics.  What we do know, however, is that the data suggest that in 100% of cases where reality has been affirmed to exist, perception and metrics were present, and in exactly 0 cases has reality been affirmed to exist in the absence of perception and metrics.  That's why the Positivistic Universe assumption exists in the first place; it's as practical to adhere to this assumption as it is to assume the sun won't go nova tomorrow.

From a philosophical perspective, no lol, reality could not have existed independent of metrics.  One reason is we have the sameness-in-difference tautology of logic to turn to, which states that all relational entities must necessarily reduce to a common medium.  Because what is real and unreal are relational entities, it follows they, too, reduce to a common medium.  Metrics axiomatically create the distinction between real and unreal according to a simple difference metric (i.e. 1 vs. 0).  No metric --> no distinction between what's real and unreal.

Actually, not a single one is correct, except in the post I am quoting.  Although, here, your capitalization is incorrect.

Edit:

Way to generalize.

I'm a theist.  I do not ignore science.

Here's a true generalization for you:  All scientists who believe it is necessarily silly to believe in something without physical evidence are hypocrites.

Let it go.  If you really want, I'll throw down $100.  If you really want to lose $100, go for it.

Just google "I bet a million dollars that..."

I haven't done this, but it's a common expression. 

I'm curious whether you realize that I'm a theist. I have absolutely no idea why you think that matters, anyway.

The million dollar thing was a figure of speech.
We all have to realise we are all from different geographic locations (thousands of miles apart maybe) with different ways of saying things.

It's a moot point, anyway.  The reason I said what I said was to emphasize my confidence.  I thought this was obvious.  Really, I don't need to worry about some negative feedback along the lines, "User offers $1 million dollar bet without proof he has it.  Scammer!" do I?

Asking if I have $1 million dollars is asking me about my wealth.  Or at least it's asking about it enough to the point where an honest answer could jeopardize my safety.

Let's put it this way -- I may or may not have $1 million, and if I do, I'll gladly enter into such an agreement.