NationStates Jolt Archive

Oh don't let me lose respect for you, Lost is bizzare borderline crap.
Which season is it?

Season 2. It is pretty crap, but, I feel I need to watch it for some reason. Must be subliminal messaging.:(

Season 2. It is pretty crap, but, I feel I need to watch it for some reason. Must be subliminal messaging.:(
How many episodes?

How many episodes?

Don't know. We're up to the bit where the black guy (not michael, the other one) goes into the jungles and hopes to protect himself against the monster with a large stick.

Don't know. We're up to the bit where the black guy (not michael, the other one) goes into the jungles and hopes to protect himself against the monster with a large stick.
New Zealand is ahead of you!:D

New Zealand is ahead of you!:D

Well australia is ahead of you with NCIS. :p

Well australia is ahead of you with NCIS. :p
Silence!

Never?

Not when you said there was a time before Christ, were shown Scipture that clearly states otherwise, and then said, "I know"?

Jesus was not a person but a spirit when the world was created.

Or just suffer.

Oh brother.

You've already fallen for a hypothetical argument, Corneliu. That's the problem. :(

What's the hypothetical argument? God exists.

There isnt A god, there is The God.

Abusive Christianity seems to be the latest craze around here, doesn't it? =p

Not all of us want to kill people :P

But once he knows, he limits. He limits you to doing what he knows, that's all.

Look at it this way. When God ordered the deaths of the firstborn children of egypt in an act of anger against a ruler, he ordered the Jews to put lambs blood on their doors, so he would know which children to murder and which children not to.

Would an all-knowing God need a blood marking to guide his childkilling?

No. He doesn't limit at all. This argument makes no sense. He doesn't limit one's actions by what he knows, he just knows whatever one freely chooses.

And if one did not mark their doors with the lambs blood, their home would not have been protected - so it was an act of faith in God. God knew what He would do before they did it, but He knew what he would do based on their decision.

Side note: God "murdered" children? Very interesting language you use there. The fact is that God is the giver of life in the first place and every day of life we have is not to be demanded but considered a gift. One may not like some of the things they read in the Old Testament in particular, but it is very consistent with God being a holy God. But I don't expect everyone to understand that just because I pointed that out. I'm just saying there is more than one way to understand some of the mischaracterizations of God mentioned in this thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamsaki
Abusive Christianity seems to be the latest craze around here, doesn't it? =p

I haven't read the whole 100 pages of this thread so I don't know everything you're talking about, but I've seen alot of people attacking people's faith here. It's a thread to do that and people should know what they're getting into. Still, I understand if one gets upset when people stomp on their sacred. Not that I agree with behaving in the same way if that happens.

God knew what He would do before they did it, but He knew what he would do based on their decision.

Something not quite right with this reasoning, can't quite put my finger on it. :rolleyes:

Sure, but in that sense, time is just a mural, already drawn and only experienced as we walk down that hallway. Still bumps into free will a bit.

No, it actually isn't. Time isn't "already drawn". It just all happens simultaneously to one who is outside of it. It's a matter of what being "outside time" would be like, which isn't something we, who are bound by time, can understand. You can't even use the term "already" when you are talking about being outside of time.

Choices can't be "locked in" that way, or they aren't choices.

So, when God sits around a billion years ago and says "Channel 4", you can now no longer watch channel 2. Its forbidden. If your Free Will differs, you change your mind from what God foresaw, your out of luck.

By this logic, you have to come to one of two conclusions:

(a) The universe is not deterministic, and thus science is useless.
(b) There are no choices. Ever. With our without God.

No, it actually isn't. Time isn't "already drawn".


I think what was meant is that there is only one future. Certain conditions have been satisfied such that any future choices have already been made. The concept of choice exists because we appear to make the choice at the very instant we are posed with the question, but in actual fact the choice is already made. The point being that what you consider to be choice is non-existant.

Correct me if I'm wrong St Curie

By this logic, you have to come to one of two conclusions:

(a) The universe is not deterministic, and thus science is useless.
(b) There are no choices. Ever. With our without God.

Science isn't useless. We have the desire to know how something happens. We can achieve this knowledge with science.
It is philosophy that becomes useless, because there is no real reason why.

No choices. Is it really that hard to swallow? Surely God is a much larger leap of the imagination

Oh don't let me lose respect for you, Lost is bizzare borderline crap.
Which season is it?

paint a cross on your forehead and ask for forgiveness...

paint a cross on your forehead and ask for forgiveness...

This whole monster in the jungle thing has gone on for far too long. Now it's just boring.

This whole monster in the jungle thing has gone on for far too long. Now it's just boring.

i think we are past the whole monster thing, at least there hasnt been an episode about it in a while. in the U.S. we have gotten to more interesting matters. i think the series is getting better and better with each episode...

i think we are past the whole monster thing, at least there hasnt been an episode about it in a while. in the U.S. we have gotten to more interesting matters. i think the series is getting better and better with each episode...

Where are you up to?

Where are you up to?

if you havnt seen the episodes i dont want to spoil it. or do you not care?

if you havnt seen the episodes i dont want to spoil it. or do you not care?

I was beyond caring a long time ago.

I was beyond caring a long time ago.

*lost spoiler* any who watch the series shouldnt read dis...

ok, well. the main thing that is going on is that they caught one of the others and have been interrogating him for a few episodes. they find out that he is one of the "others" and decide to go out to the other side of the island, and tell them they have one of them hostage. then michael comes out running through the jungle. and thats how the last episode ended.

the preview for the next epidose shows them getting guns together and heading back to the "others" side of the island...

ok, well. the main thing that is going on is that they caught one of the others and have been interrogating him for a few episodes. they find out that he is one of the "others" and decide to go out to the other side of the island, and tell them they have one of them hostage. then michael comes out running through the jungle. and thats how the last episode ended.

the preview for the next epidose shows them getting guns together and heading back to the "others" side of the island...

How did they catch him. Did the others raid the beach? I'm only up to the bit where the black guy from the tail end of the plane thinks he can defend himself against the monster with a large stick. That's the next episode anyway.

How did they catch him. Did the others raid the beach? I'm only up to the bit where the black guy from the tail end of the plane thinks he can defend himself against the monster with a large stick. That's the next episode anyway.

oh yeah, thats several episodes behind where i am.

you remember the french woman Roussoe? she has traps all over the isalnd and caught him in one fo them, then gave him to Saiid...

oh yeah, thats several episodes behind where i am.

you remember the french woman Roussoe? she has traps all over the isalnd and caught him in one fo them, then gave him to Saiid...

Ok. Thanks. I'd better stop hijacking the thread now before I draw the mods attention.

Originally Posted by Republicans Armed
God knew what He would do before they did it, but He knew what he would do based on their decision.


Something not quite right with this reasoning, can't quite put my finger on it. :rolleyes:

A leading theologian, Cottrell (2002) writes concerning this, "It is true that foreknowledge means that future events are in some sense certain. But the question is, what makes them certain? The foreknowledge itself? No, foreknowledge does not make thing happen or make them certain; it only means that they are certain. What makes them certain is the acts themselves as freely chosen by their subjects, as viewed by God from his perspective of eternity. Certainty is not the same as necessity (p. 86).


Cottrell, Jack. (2002). The Faith Once For All (Bible Doctrine For Today). Joplin, Missouri: College Press Publishing Company.

I certainly do not see an inconsistency with this position. God's foreknowledge of events in my life has no impact on my free-will. I do not claim to understand everything about God's eternal nature, but I accept it as a part of the identity of God based on His revealed word I have come to trust after much investigation into the truth claims therein contained.

A leading theologian, Cottrell (2002) writes concerning this, "It is true that foreknowledge means that future events are in some sense certain. But the question is, what makes them certain? The foreknowledge itself? No, foreknowledge does not make thing happen or make them certain; it only means that they are certain. What makes them certain is the acts themselves as freely chosen by their subjects, as viewed by God from his perspective of eternity. Certainty is not the same as necessity.

How can you be certain of a future event without making it certain? Especially if you are the cause of everything in the Universe spatially and temporally? :confused:

How can you be certain of a future event without making it certain? Especially if you are the cause of everything in the Universe spatially and temporally? :confused:
you know what you did yesterday. does that mean you didnt have free will?

the space of your life exists forever. the beginning you know, the end you dont but the beginning AND the end already exist and are shaped by you (with all the other factors of life thrown in)

you know what you did yesterday. does that mean you didnt have free will?

the space of your life exists forever. the beginning you know, the end you dont but the beginning AND the end already exist and are shaped by you (with all the other factors of life thrown in)

Yesterday? No free will in the world now can make me change what happened yesterday!

How can you be certain of a future event without making it certain? Especially if you are the cause of everything in the Universe spatially and temporally? :confused:

Because that certainty is based on the fact that an eternal being that stands outside of time knows about it already. You can be certain because you have already seen it happen. That doesn't mean you caused it to happen. Certainty and necessity are the two major words here to understand.

If I were able to time travel (whoa! Definite hypothetical here I realize) and go into the future and see a news program with a hurricane that wipes out New York City and then come back - I hardly cause that happen just because I know about it. I realize my analogy falls short because I'm not the sovereign creator of the Universe, but it compares on the issue of foreknowledge and causality.

Because that certainty is based on the fact that an eternal being that stands outside of time knows about it already. You can be certain because you have already seen it happen. That doesn't mean you caused it to happen. Certainty and necessity are the two major words here to understand.

If I were able to time travel (whoa! Definite hypothetical here I realize) and go into the future and see a news program with a hurricane that wipes out New York City and then come back - I hardly cause that happen just because I know about it. I realize my analogy falls short because I'm not the sovereign creator of the Universe, but it compares on the issue of foreknowledge and causality.

But he is also the First Cause. If he can foresee what you did in all of time, you cannot do anything else BUT what he foresees. To you, you have a semblance of free-will. To Him, everything is predetermined. By Him.

Yesterday? No free will in the world now can make me change what happened yesterday!
*gives xisla the look*

im not trying to convince you of it, im trying to explain it to you. that requires you to put a little effort into it

does the fact that you know what you did yesterday negate that you had free will YESTERDAY?

no of course it doesnt. you had all sorts of choices yesterday and you made them.

the same goes for the future. that someone (god) knows what you WILL do doesnt mean you dont choose it.

I know this has been done before.. But is there a god?
Yes 300 46.22%
No 349 53.78%

Interesting. A Barna (2005) study shows "69% believe in God when described as the all-powerful, all-knowing, perfect creator of the universe who rules the world today." http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=Topic&TopicID=2

When a less descriptive view of God is used, I believe the percentage increases to somewhere in the 80 - 85% range.

This thread / poll indicates to me that a majority of people who post in this forum are skewed a bit more atheist and agnostic than most people in America. That's interesting, for what it's worth.

But he is also the First Cause. If he can foresee what you did in all of time, you cannot do anything else BUT what he foresees. To you, you have a semblance of free-will. To Him, everything is predetermined. By Him.

I'm sorry, but your argument is flawed. You continue to confuse God's foreknowledge (certainty) with causality (necessity). Theologians will tell you that God may intervene in human activity, but he will not do so in a way that violates free will (permission, deterrence, and influence are the usual theological terms). This means that our actions are not pre-determined. They are just known about in advance. knowledge does not equal causality.

I cannot do anything else other than what I choose to do, which God happened to know already. Just because God knows it does not mean He made it happen. I certainly mean no offense, but I cannot understand what is so difficult to accept about that.

If god knows what will happen then free will can only be an illusion because you are bound to choose a certain option. Unless only specific event are predetermined in which case you are talking about fate. ie I am fated to die tomorrow - I could make different decisions and die in different ways but I WILL die.

I'm sorry, but your argument is flawed. You continue to confuse God's foreknowledge (certainty) with causality (necessity). Theologians will tell you that God may intervene in human activity, but he will not do so in a way that violates free will (permission, deterrence, and influence are the usual theological terms). This means that our actions are not pre-determined. They are just known about in advance. knowledge does not equal causality.

I cannot do anything else other than what I choose to do, which God happened to know already. Just because God knows it does not mean He made it happen. I certainly mean no offense, but I cannot understand what is so difficult to accept about that.

What exactly do you mean by free will. What, to you, is choice? I ask because the rest of us have the definition Free Will: The capacity for uninfluenced choice. So what do you mean when you say free will?

*gives xisla the look*

im not trying to convince you of it, im trying to explain it to you. that requires you to put a little effort into it

does the fact that you know what you did yesterday negate that you had free will YESTERDAY?

no of course it doesnt. you had all sorts of choices yesterday and you made them.

the same goes for the future. that someone (god) knows what you WILL do doesnt mean you dont choose it.

I don't think you can flip time around like this, but as what I have done yesterday has become completely determined I have also lost any ability to freely choose what "will" happen yesterday. Likewise if I could know exactly will happen tomorrow I would not be able to choose anything else.

If what happens tomorrow always fits my exact prediction I would therefore have acquired the God-like power to change the future. But everyone else surrounding me will have to yield, otherwise my prediction would be wrong. My knowledge will necessitate my power, how else?

I'm sorry, but your argument is flawed. You continue to confuse God's foreknowledge (certainty) with causality (necessity). Theologians will tell you that God may intervene in human activity, but he will not do so in a way that violates free will (permission, deterrence, and influence are the usual theological terms). This means that our actions are not pre-determined. They are just known about in advance. knowledge does not equal causality.

I cannot do anything else other than what I choose to do, which God happened to know already. Just because God knows it does not mean He made it happen. I certainly mean no offense, but I cannot understand what is so difficult to accept about that.

He doesn't?

Exodus 4:21

And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.

I don't think you can flip time around like this, but as what I have done yesterday has become completely determined I have also lost any ability to freely choose what "will" happen yesterday. Likewise if I could know exactly will happen tomorrow I would not be able to choose anything else.

If what happens tomorrow always fits my exact prediction I would therefore have acquired the God-like power to change the future. But everyone else surrounding me will have to yield, otherwise my prediction would be wrong. My knowledge will necessitate my power, how else?
im not asking you to believe it. im saying that IF a god like this exists AND IF he exists outside of time, then this would be the way it works.

god knowing what you WILL do no more negates free will than your knowing what you DID do negates your free will.

What exactly do you mean by free will. What, to you, is choice? I ask because the rest of us have the definition Free Will: The capacity for uninfluenced choice. So what do you mean when you say free will?

Good question. I don't see a problem with your definition as "the capacity for uninfluenced choice." Without thinking about it too much, I think that is a great definition for what we're discussing because my argument is God's foreknowledge does not influence our choice. It is part of the eternal nature of God that He can stand outside of time and know what will happen without influencing it. For example, I believe Adam and Eve chose to disobey the commandment of God by eating of the tree they were told not to eat from. I do not believe that just because God knew in advance they would go ahead and eat from it means God caused them to break His command.

Good question. I don't see a problem with your definition as "the capacity for uninfluenced choice." Without thinking about it too much, I think that is a great definition for what we're discussing because my argument is God's foreknowledge does not influence our choice. It is part of the eternal nature of God that He can stand outside of time and know what will happen without influencing it. For example, I believe Adam and Eve chose to disobey the commandment of God by eating of the tree they were told not to eat from. I do not believe that just because God knew in advance they would go ahead and eat from it means God caused them to break His command.

Choices have consequences. God is no exception to that rule. God will see what will become of the universe before he creates it. He can choose to create a different universe. In this universe perhaps everybody is good and will obey God. In a different universe he might create then some of us may be good, some evil, and God will know who is and isn't going to get into heaven. He knows what choices we will make before we choose them. And God chose which universe to make. He chose the one in which there is evil. He could have chosen the entirely good universe, but he made the evil one instead. God chose for us which choices we were going to make. We are but machines, relying upon chemical makeup, past events, future predictions, etc, for our choices. God controlled the factors of choice in making the universe. We don't really make the choices ourselves, God chooses for us.

im not asking you to believe it. im saying that IF a god like this exists AND IF he exists outside of time, then this would be the way it works.

god knowing what you WILL do no more negates free will than your knowing what you DID do negates your free will.

This appears to be a sticking point. Seems that all Christians believe this, and the non-religious cannot see how it works. I wonder if Bottle or Saint Curie can address this in clearer terms.

Choices have consequences. God is no exception to that rule. God will see what will become of the universe before he creates it. He can choose to create a different universe. In this universe perhaps everybody is good and will obey God. In a different universe he might create then some of us may be good, some evil, and God will know who is and isn't going to get into heaven. He knows what choices we will make before we choose them. And God chose which universe to make. He chose the one in which there is evil. He could have chosen the entirely good universe, but he made the evil one instead. God chose for us which choices we were going to make. We are but machines, relying upon chemical makeup, past events, future predictions, etc, for our choices. God controlled the factors of choice in making the universe. We don't really make the choices ourselves, God chooses for us.

I don't understand why God, as the First Cause, can have prescience but not predetermination. Well neither did the Calvinists I guess. Can you help put this through in clearer terms?

Yes, but I really really doubt it's the kind you're thinking of. Not so much a god as a Godhead. Ish.

I don't understand why God, as the First Cause, can have prescience but not predetermination. Well neither did the Calvinists I guess. Can you help put this through in clearer terms?

Sure, I'll try. What exactly is it that you don't understand?

No. I believe that 'god' is a human invention. It's a projection of human nature (god is in our image and judges humans to be superior to other forms of life - that is our egotistical nature coming out, IMO) in response to the 'unknown'.

No. I believe that 'god' is a human invention. It's a projection of human nature (god is in our image and judges humans to be superior to other forms of life - that is our egotistical nature coming out, IMO) in response to the 'unknown'.

This appears to be a sticking point. Seems that all Christians believe this, and the non-religious cannot see how it works. I wonder if Bottle or Saint Curie can address this in clearer terms.
most christians never think about it one way or the other. some come to different conclusions

didnt you ever read "a wrinkle in time"? the explanation of the tesseract should put you on your way.

He doesn't?

Exodus 4:21

And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.

Great observation and good post. I wouldn't have expected to have a discussion on Calvinism essentially in this thread, but that seems to be where this thing is headed. Maybe it should be pointed out that Christians do disagree over this issue of free will.

But, after that, Exodus 4:21 from a free will perspective. J. Carl Laney (1997)says concerning this verse, "In his final instructions concerning the Exodus, God told Moses that in spite fo the wonders that Pharoah would see, He would "harden his heart" so that Pharoah would not let the people go. It is important to note at the beginning that there are three different expressions used in Exodus regarding the hardenting of Pharoah's heart. First, God would harden Pharoah's heart (v.21). Second, Pharoah woudl harden his own heart (8:15). Third, Pharoah's heart was hardened (7:13). Putting these ideas together, I suggest that the hardening of Pharoah's heart was a divine judgment on the one who was already hardening his own heart against the Lord. Romans 9:17-18 reveals that this was all part of God's sovereign plan for the accomplishment of His will. Although God was judicially involved in the hardening of Pharoah's heart, Pharoah was not a mere pawn in some divine game. He stood responsible for his own hardening and rejection of God (p. 31)." From: Answers To Tough Questions From Every Book of the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregal Publications.

I liked how Ron Rhodes (1997) adds, "Mercy is the effect of a right attitude, and hardening is the effect of stubbornness or a wrong attitude toward God. It is like the clay and the wax in the sun. The same sunshine hardens one and softens the other. The responsibility is with the materials, not with the sun. Scholars have suggested the danger of resisting God is that He will eventually give us over to our own choices (see Romans 1:24-28). (p. 161)"
From: The Complete Book of Bible Answers. Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers.

So Pharoah was not a mere pawn in some kind of divine game in these verses. He stood responsible for his own hardening and rejection of God. I think God appreciates the true agnostic who continues to seek for answers. But the atheist who has made up their mind on this should think twice (lol). Wow, that brings us around full circle to being on topic again!

Sure, I'll try. What exactly is it that you don't understand?

If I have free-will and somebody knows exactly what I choose, no matter what I choose, does he have power over my decision making process or not?

Ashmoria and Republicans_Armed thinks not. I can't bend my brain around why this is the case.

If God has no influence over my decision-making, how can he know my choices before I choose them?

No.

And even if there was a God, she wouldn't deserve our worship.Can i ask you a question?

I'm just curious do you listen to K.D. Lang alot?

:upyours: :p

Perhaps an example of how God affects our choice would be in order:

Let's say you're firing a rifle. Many variables, but we'll stick to the simplest ones.

What to account for when firing a rifle: Range to target and wind speed (ignoring air pressure, air viscosity, etc).

For now we assume that there is no wind. We like up the rifle onto the same vertical line that the target is on. If we choose to fire the rifle right now, we hit the target. Yay.

But, at this point, God says "we need some wind". And so some wind starts blowing perpendicular to the trajectory of the bullet.

Right, because of this the gunman must now move his gun horizontally in to the wind to account for the fact that the bullet is now being pushed sideways.

Yes, the gunman chose to line it up on target. Yes, the gunman was the logical machine that made the connection between wind and trajectory, and so moved his gun to account for it. The gunman made these choices because they were what would get the bullet to the target.

God, by controlling the wind, also controlled the gunmans choices. He knows that if he makes the wind a little stronger, the gunman will be forced to chose to move his gun a little more.

These same principles apply to the grander scale. God does things to the universe that ultimately affect our choices. He can chose to set the universe a certain way, in which case all of us will be good. He can set it in a way that will result in us being bad. How he sets it determines what choices each of us will make. We do make the choices, in the same way that a robotic arm in a car factory chooses the best spot to put the soldering iron. But our choice is not of free will. Our choice is a result of the universe God made. ie, God controls our choices.

If I have free-will and somebody knows exactly what I choose, no matter what I choose, does he have power over my decision making process or not?

Ashmoria and Republicans_Armed thinks not. I can't bend my brain around why this is the case.

If God has no influence over my decision-making, how can he know my choices before I choose them?

See above post.

What is your purpose for posting in this thread?

I was under the impression it was to debate... but, it seems like I first have to lay out BOTH sides of the subject...

Can i ask you a question?

I'm just curious do you listen to K.D. Lang alot?

:upyours: :p
:D

My boyfriend believes in 'a' god. Not the Christian ne or any of thse from the major religions, just a genderless guiding force behind everything, which caused the Big Bang etc. He doesn't think the current religious creation theories hold much either.

I on the other hand have no faith is any god or supernatural power. Call me negative, but I see this as something of an accident. Maybe not the first - there's no proff f the non-existence of other universes - and perhaps a bit of a lucky coincidence, but this isn't the only solar system in the universe, so we belong to one which just turned out right for life to exist. I see the current ideas of 'God' to be merely early creation theories which turned into power-play, mass control and and extension of the human ego. As for my boyfriend's theory... well, maybe. But I'm not a very spiritual person, and I cannot make myself believe in something like that. So there you go.

If I have free-will and somebody knows exactly what I choose, no matter what I choose, does he have power over my decision making process or not?

Ashmoria and Republicans_Armed thinks not. I can't bend my brain around why this is the case.

If God has no influence over my decision-making, how can he know my choices before I choose them?

I think this also gets into a heady discussion over the eternal nature of God. God's consciousness (his knowledge) is not bound by time. Although God exists and acts in the ongoing present, and though God is conscious of existing and acting in this ongoing present, in his consciousness he stands above the flow of time and sees the past and the future of his creatures just as clearly and certainly as if they were the present.

I don't claim to know how exactly this can be. I have come to learn not to deny something simply because I cannot understand it. Throughout the Bible God's claim to be the one true God is based on His exclusive ability to know the whole scope of history at once, to see it from beginning to end in one and the same moment.

I'm not sure if that answered a question or caused more.

My boyfriend believes in 'a' god. Not the Christian ne or any of thse from the major religions, just a genderless guiding force behind everything, which caused the Big Bang etc. He doesn't think the current religious creation theories hold much either.

I on the other hand have no faith is any god or supernatural power. Call me negative, but I see this as something of an accident. Maybe not the first - there's no proff f the non-existence of other universes - and perhaps a bit of a lucky coincidence, but this isn't the only solar system in the universe, so we belong to one which just turned out right for life to exist. I see the current ideas of 'God' to be merely early creation theories which turned into power-play, mass control and and extension of the human ego. As for my boyfriend's theory... well, maybe. But I'm not a very spiritual person, and I cannot make myself believe in something like that. So there you go.

I like you. You think good.
:fluffle:

It wasn't my father's time to go in 1990.

Maybe it was, and Satan intervened for his own, dark reasons?

My boyfriend believes in 'a' god. Not the Christian ne or any of thse from the major religions, just a genderless guiding force behind everything, which caused the Big Bang etc. He doesn't think the current religious creation theories hold much either.

I on the other hand have no faith is any god or supernatural power. Call me negative, but I see this as something of an accident. Maybe not the first - there's no proff f the non-existence of other universes - and perhaps a bit of a lucky coincidence, but this isn't the only solar system in the universe, so we belong to one which just turned out right for life to exist. I see the current ideas of 'God' to be merely early creation theories which turned into power-play, mass control and and extension of the human ego. As for my boyfriend's theory... well, maybe. But I'm not a very spiritual person, and I cannot make myself believe in something like that. So there you go.

If you are indeed right, it is quite an amazingly precise "accident" don't you think?

I belive science holds the key to religion. and that there is no higher being. we're here. then we die. it's the only earth we've got it's all there is and there isn't anything more.

I think they discovered a gene which is present in some people but not others. People who have this gene are, in theory, more receptive to theological ideas than those without it - that is to say, they may still choose to discount the beliefs as nonsensical, but they are still more likely to consider them as probable than those without the gene. Well, that's the theory, anyway. It's not proven yet, they're still researching it. However, I find this idea pretty interesting.

Another interesting thing I heard was the results of an experiment to test the effect of prayer on recovery rates of patients. A large group of people who were about to undergo surgery were divided into three sections: Group 1 was not going to be prayed for, Group 2 was going to be prayed for. These two groups did not know whether they were or weren't receiving prayers to aid their recovery. Group 3 was prayed for and knew they were receiving prayers.
Out of all the groups, statistics showed Group 1 had a slightly better recovery rate and fewer complications that people in Group 2, and Group 3 faired the worst.

So don't pray for people in hospital... or, if you must, don't tell them about it. The theory is that Group 3 felt under more pressure to 'get better' and so the stress affected their bodies and made them worse.

I belive science holds the key to religion. and that there is no higher being. we're here. then we die. it's the only earth we've got it's all there is and there isn't anything more.

Interesting. I believe that science has no way to answer such philosophical questions because the scientific method cannot be applied to the creation of the world whenever that was. There are scientists who believe in God and there are scientists who do not. They look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions. Those that take principles of science and try to get philosophical actually enter the realm of religion (no matter what they believe). I am answering in general ways to avoid turning the thread into another creation v. evolution debate. I'm a bit burned out on that.

If you are indeed right, it is quite an amazingly precise "accident" don't you think?

This isn't the only solar system. There are thousands of galaxies, millions of solar systems, increasing the chance of something like this happening. It's a bit like mutation in alleles of genes - many mutations are harmful but occasionally a useful one comes into being by chance. Similarly, many solar systems didn't have the specifications to contain life, but ours arose by chance.

but ours arose by chance.

It was bound to happen somewhere.

Have you ever read Ishmael and My Ishmael by Daniel Quinn? ((If not, you should)) The main character presents a rather interesting and very believable view of the Cain and Abel story and what it might represent.

It would kind of lead me to disagree with you on them being the same story, if the interpretation presented in the books is correct.

Oooh.. no, I haven't... but I suspect I might, now. :)

I suspect it is more the case that Jacob and Esau were BASED on the same characters.... rather that strictly following the exact same storyline...

Don't cry for me Argentina! I didn't say i felt this way ... it's obviously a knock back to one of Corneliu's runs.
Besides, there's a good tune about it (a few i suspect but i don't spend much time listening to "god"-bashing music )...
Blasphemous Rumours by Depeche Mode

Yay! Depeche Mode!

I belive in God but I don´t belive in religion. And if God controled our lifes, eventualy we would kill that God.

I belive in God but I don´t belive in religion. And if God controled our lifes, eventualy we would kill that God.

Wow... God's suicidal, huh?

Emo is no longer a fashion, it's a religion.

Jesus was not a person but a spirit when the world was created.

Assuming this was the argument you had been trying to make...

1) Why did you ask me to 'prove' the Word was Jesus?

2) Isn't that TOTALLY irrelevent, anyway? Since... you know, no one specified spirit or otherwise?

Don't make me go searching for your posts, just to prove this is 'wriggling'.

Man - I need Jocabia, right now... he LIVES for that 'finding people 'goldfishing' thing'.

This isn't the only solar system. There are thousands of galaxies, millions of solar systems, increasing the chance of something like this happening. It's a bit like mutation in alleles of genes - many mutations are harmful but occasionally a useful one comes into being by chance. Similarly, many solar systems didn't have the specifications to contain life, but ours arose by chance.

"ours arose by chance" is quite a bold claim. I respect your right to believe what you want, but there are many people smarter than us that argue this statement both ways.

The Anthropic Principle seems to be creating a lot of controversy these days among intellectuals. The Anthropic Priniciple implies that when we look around us it would at least seem at first that the universe was somehow designed to support and nourish human life. This principle which is very prevalent in the world of science and philosophy did not originate with Christian scholars. Some of the hard facts include:
1. Raise or lower the universe's rate of expansion by even one part in a million, and it would have ruled out the possibility of life.
2. If the average distance between stars were any greater, planets like earth would not have been formed; any smaller, the planetary orbits necessary for life would not have occurred.
3. If the ration of carbon to oxygen had been slightly different that it is, none of us would have been here to breathe the air.
4. Change the tilt of the earth's axis slightly in one direction, and we would freeze. Change it the other direction and we'd burn up.
5. Suppose the earth had been a bit closer or further from the sun, or just a little larger or smaller, or if it rotated at a spped any different from the one we're spinning at right now. given any of these changes, the resulting temperature variations would be completely fatal.

So as Bill Hybels states in Becoming a Contagious Christian (1994), "Someone must have gone to a lot of effort to make things just right so that you and I could be here to enjoy life. In short, modern science points to the fact that we must really matter to God (pp. 14-15)!"

Maybe it was, and Satan intervened for his own, dark reasons?

:rolleyes:

If my father had died, he would not have been able to deliver generators to the Children's Hospital in Kosovo during the air campaign there He would not have been able to do the relief run to Poland. He would not have been able to help with Andrew, Katrina, and Rita relief. He has done more good for this planet than I bet you have Grave_n_idle.

And all of this he done while wearing the uniform of a military Officer.

:rolleyes:

If my father had died, he would not have been able to deliver generators to the Children's Hospital in Kosovo during the air campaign there He would not have been able to do the relief run to Poland. He would not have been able to help with Andrew, Katrina, and Rita relief. He has done more good for this planet than I bet you have Grave_n_idle.

And all of this he done while wearing the uniform of a military Officer.

And?

Maybe one of the Children in the hospital in Kosovo is going to be the next Hitler... and your father was just a pawn in the rising of the anti-christ?

You don't KNOW your version is correct, any more than you KNOW my version is wrong.

You just believe what is comfortable.

"ours arose by chance" is quite a bold claim. I respect your right to believe what you want, but there are many people smarter than us that argue this statement both ways.

The Anthropic Principle seems to be creating a lot of controversy these days among intellectuals. The Anthropic Priniciple implies that when we look around us it would at least seem at first that the universe was somehow designed to support and nourish human life. This principle which is very prevalent in the world of science and philosophy did not originate with Christian scholars. Some of the hard facts include:
1. Raise or lower the universe's rate of expansion by even one part in a million, and it would have ruled out the possibility of life.
2. If the average distance between stars were any greater, planets like earth would not have been formed; any smaller, the planetary orbits necessary for life would not have occurred.
3. If the ration of carbon to oxygen had been slightly different that it is, none of us would have been here to breathe the air.
4. Change the tilt of the earth's axis slightly in one direction, and we would freeze. Change it the other direction and we'd burn up.
5. Suppose the earth had been a bit closer or further from the sun, or just a little larger or smaller, or if it rotated at a spped any different from the one we're spinning at right now. given any of these changes, the resulting temperature variations would be completely fatal.

So as Bill Hybels states in Becoming a Contagious Christian (1994), "Someone must have gone to a lot of effort to make things just right so that you and I could be here to enjoy life. In short, modern science points to the fact that we must really matter to God (pp. 14-15)!"


I have heard all of this, and it is indeed a well thought out and probable theory. However, there is another theory that I, as a 16-year-old, can only explain in simple terms. The theory is that this is not the first universe. There could well have been many before this one. However, these universes had bad prperties - for example, the initial force that caused the universe to expand was insufficient, and eventually the universe collapsed in on itself, back to the original focal point. This could have happened many times, with various forces, but each universe was just off in some way that made it unable to sustain itself. This may not even have been the first one to contain life - it is possible that the other universes could have contained some form of life, although it would most likely have been different from life as we recognise it due to different conditions - but this universe is one where the variable forces behind it were right for a planet such as ours to form.

Assuming this was the argument you had been trying to make...

1) Why did you ask me to 'prove' the Word was Jesus?

You decided that all on your own. I only asked the question. Jesus was God's son. As it states in John 1 And the Word WAS GOD So if we want to go along the lines of what you are trying to prove, the Word spoken about cannot be Jesus but God himself.

2) Isn't that TOTALLY irrelevent, anyway? Since... you know, no one specified spirit or otherwise?

Well you may call it irrelevent.

Don't make me go searching for your posts, just to prove this is 'wriggling'.

Man - I need Jocabia, right now... he LIVES for that 'finding people 'goldfishing' thing'.

Tell that to Socialist Whittier who got his butt handed to him on a silver plate by not just him but by a whole group of us.

And?

Maybe one of the Children in the hospital in Kosovo is going to be the next Hitler... and your father was just a pawn in the rising of the anti-christ?

You don't KNOW your version is correct, any more than you KNOW my version is wrong.

You just believe what is comfortable.

I know which version I trust and that is mine because we all know that God is merciful.

I know which version I trust and that is mine because we all know that God is merciful.

...except for those who see him/her/it as wrathful, a power to be feared.

Or, indeed those who don't believe in him/her/it at all.

And of course you trust your version. It's yours.

DO YOU PEOPLE EVEN LEAVE THIS FORUM??????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:eek:

I have heard all of this, and it is indeed a well thought out and probable theory. However, there is another theory that I, as a 16-year-old, can only explain in simple terms. The theory is that this is not the first universe. There could well have been many before this one. However, these universes had bad prperties - for example, the initial force that caused the universe to expand was insufficient, and eventually the universe collapsed in on itself, back to the original focal point. This could have happened many times, with various forces, but each universe was just off in some way that made it unable to sustain itself. This may not even have been the first one to contain life - it is possible that the other universes could have contained some form of life, although it would most likely have been different from life as we recognise it due to different conditions - but this universe is one where the variable forces behind it were right for a planet such as ours to form.
I think this idea is pretty likely. Whether or not the discrepencies in the universes are a result of conscious influence or not is another question in the whole thing, but the idea of a series of multiple universes is one that crops up in both religious and non-religious thinking.

DO YOU PEOPLE EVEN LEAVE THIS FORUM??????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:eek:
Nope. We exist solely to provide you with random philosophical garbage that can be easily discarded as making up a minor detail in your subjective reality.

Beep.

DO YOU PEOPLE EVEN LEAVE THIS FORUM??????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:eek:

I do. I have food to eat, a body and mind to rest and a school to attend, as well as exams to study for. I enjoy debates such as this, however - they are enlightening - and it keeps my mind active. I merely pick up where I left off after a few hours.

However, I feel some other people don't leave.

You decided that all on your own. I only asked the question. Jesus was God's son. As it states in John 1 And the Word WAS GOD So if we want to go along the lines of what you are trying to prove, the Word spoken about cannot be Jesus but God himself.

Well you may call it irrelevent.

Tell that to Socialist Whittier who got his butt handed to him on a silver plate by not just him but by a whole group of us.

Respect where respect is due... you DID hand SW his butt, on a shiny platter. No denial on that score.

I'm feeling peaceful today... so, I'm just dropping the whole thing.

Not even a parting shot. Good debate, and thanks.

I have heard all of this, and it is indeed a well thought out and probable theory. However, there is another theory that I, as a 16-year-old, can only explain in simple terms. The theory is that this is not the first universe. There could well have been many before this one. However, these universes had bad prperties - for example, the initial force that caused the universe to expand was insufficient, and eventually the universe collapsed in on itself, back to the original focal point. This could have happened many times, with various forces, but each universe was just off in some way that made it unable to sustain itself. This may not even have been the first one to contain life - it is possible that the other universes could have contained some form of life, although it would most likely have been different from life as we recognise it due to different conditions - but this universe is one where the variable forces behind it were right for a planet such as ours to form.

You may be right Litherai. But my faith is in the more simple theory that allows for an eternal living being to explain the design elements that are hard to explain. It takes alot less faith, I believe, to believe an eternal living God that transcends time, created the first life than to believe life came from non-life. I suspect that some people have a presupposition of anti-supernaturalism that will cause them to look for alternative explanations to how we got here even if the reality is that God did indeed create the universe. In such case, the skeptic would have already ruled out the only true history of it's cause. Something to consider anyway.

[QUOTE=Ladamesansmerci]Then God is VERY insecure. Why doesn't he just smite us and make a new race to worship him then, assuming he needs worship in the first place, which he REALLY doesn't need to survive. Besides, that brings me back to my original question: why allow humans the choice to worship other things when you know you don't want them to?

Also, just a personal question. What if tomorrow, you found out that your god was actually false, and that Christianity was the biggest con in the history of humanity? Would you still believe all this?[/Q

Because God, unlike us, is fair. He created us with free will and with that there is the possibility to sin. Also, in general, being faithful to God is not truely about worship it is about living a good life and helping others and just doing wat you can in youre breif time on this earth.

Jesus was not a person but a spirit when the world was created.

Irrelevant. Being a spirit still means having existence, which still means there was no time before Jesus.

Science isn't useless. We have the desire to know how something happens. We can achieve this knowledge with science.
It is philosophy that becomes useless, because there is no real reason why.

No choices. Is it really that hard to swallow? Surely God is a much larger leap of the imagination

Science is completely based around the assumption that the universe is deterministic. If the universe is not deterministic - if true randomness exists - then the methods of science cannot tell us anything.

I'm not sure if anyone has pointed this out yet, but this survey is known in Stats as a "Broadcast Voluntary Sample." That is, people do not HAVE to respond, and the people who DO respond do so of their own will and desire, having seen the advertisement for the survey.

These types of surveys are always HEAVILY weighted toward the Negative. I.E. in this survey, the No's have it. That's because people who feel Negatively on the subject are much more likely to go out of their way to respond to the poll than people that feel positively about the question.

So, to reiterate some earlier sentiments, this survey should not be taken too seriously.

Science is more than often called the study of Gods work. Just like to point that out.

I don't think you can flip time around like this, but as what I have done yesterday has become completely determined I have also lost any ability to freely choose what "will" happen yesterday. Likewise if I could know exactly will happen tomorrow I would not be able to choose anything else.

If what happens tomorrow always fits my exact prediction I would therefore have acquired the God-like power to change the future. But everyone else surrounding me will have to yield, otherwise my prediction would be wrong. My knowledge will necessitate my power, how else?

What you fail to see is that, if you were outside of time - if you were not bound by time, words like "yesterday" and "today" and "future" and "prediction" no longer have any meaning. If you are outside of time, everything that is bound by time is simultaneous to you. Yesterday, today, the future - all occur basically simultaneously.

It's sort of (although not really, since we are never outside of time) like a plot of a waveform. I can look at t=0 on the plot, then I can look at t=8 on the plot. Then I can look at t=3.5 on the plot. I'm not causing the plot to be the way it is - its own internal equation does that. But since I am outside of it, I can look at any time point I want to, or I can look at the entire plot simultaneously.

I belive science holds the key to religion. and that there is no higher being. we're here. then we die. it's the only earth we've got it's all there is and there isn't anything more.

How exactly do you expect science to demonstrate these beliefs of yours?

I think they discovered a gene which is present in some people but not others.

I think that I would have heard about this if it were true. Got a source?

Another interesting thing I heard was the results of an experiment to test the effect of prayer on recovery rates of patients.

Quite a few studies like this have been done, with widely varying results. Some have shown a correlation between prayer and better results. Some have shown no correlations at all. At least one has shown the opposite correlation. Some were skewed by shoddy research techniques. When it comes right down to it, there's no scientific answer on this question.

You may be right Litherai. But my faith is in the more simple theory that allows for an eternal living being to explain the design elements that are hard to explain. It takes alot less faith, I believe, to believe an eternal living God that transcends time, created the first life than to believe life came from non-life. I suspect that some people have a presupposition of anti-supernaturalism that will cause them to look for alternative explanations to how we got here even if the reality is that God did indeed create the universe. In such case, the skeptic would have already ruled out the only true history of it's cause. Something to consider anyway.

I've been thinking about this for years. Y'know, I used to be agnostic, bordering on religious. It's all veered off now, I'm a straight-forward atheist. I guess I don't like the idea that the universe can be explained away with such a mundane idea as a deity. It just seems too convenient, too neat, too unthinking. Like a person thousands of years ago thought, I wonder why...? and decided that a powerful version of himself had done everything. Now, with all the advances we've made, the huge brain capacity that we have compared with the very first humanoid creatures, it seems to be either laziness or an unwillingness to question things that allows this kind of thinking to continue. We edge every closer to an answer, and when we find a definitive answer, be it natural or supernatural, then I'll be more content than if we just suppose that what we've always thought, is, without ever trying to thoroughly test it out. And you cannot deny that this questioning of a 'god' and 'fate' or a 'divine plan' has brought us forward. Women's right have been dramatically improved. Healthcare has advanced now that the idea that 'this is God's plan, his punishment, and we shall not change it' has been ignored by those in medicine (anaesthetic for pregnant women has increased their survival rate). So far, questioning divinity has done us a lot of good. Don't cite all the stuff about nuclear war and pollution at me, hwever - while science has made these things possible, it has not endorsed them exclusively - support for less savoury advancements has come from people of
f all beliefs.

You decided that all on your own. I only asked the question. Jesus was God's son. As it states in John 1 And the Word WAS GOD So if we want to go along the lines of what you are trying to prove, the Word spoken about cannot be Jesus but God himself.

It goes on to say that the Word became flesh - Christ. In other words, Jesus is the Word. The Word was made flesh. The Word is God. Therefore, Jesus is God.

I guess I don't like the idea that the universe can be explained away with such a mundane idea as a deity.
While I entirely agree, I don't think that in itself is reason enough to drop its use completely. When used as a personal reflection on reality, Gods have their value. For instance, the notion of creation, while completely unsupported by current understanding of how things work, allows some of those who would otherwise not pay attention to it to look at the world as artistically beautiful and be thankful and pay respect to the process by which it came to be. The notion of Man being this creator's incarnation gives people a sense of self-worth, and the idea that the universe itself gives us some purpose provides others with a drive to work with existence for the better rather than sit back and let it happen.

There is value in retaining these personifications even when they do not in themselves provide a complete sense of understanding or fulfilment; especially since such a thing probably does not exist.

I've been thinking about this for years. Y'know, I used to be agnostic, bordering on religious. It's all veered off now, I'm a straight-forward atheist. I guess I don't like the idea that the universe can be explained away with such a mundane idea as a deity. It just seems too convenient, too neat, too unthinking. Like a person thousands of years ago thought, I wonder why...? and decided that a powerful version of himself had done everything. Now, with all the advances we've made, the huge brain capacity that we have compared with the very first humanoid creatures, it seems to be either laziness or an unwillingness to question things that allows this kind of thinking to continue. We edge every closer to an answer, and when we find a definitive answer, be it natural or supernatural, then I'll be more content than if we just suppose that what we've always thought, is, without ever trying to thoroughly test it out. And you cannot deny that this questioning of a 'god' and 'fate' or a 'divine plan' has brought us forward. Women's right have been dramatically improved. Healthcare has advanced now that the idea that 'this is God's plan, his punishment, and we shall not change it' has been ignored by those in medicine (anaesthetic for pregnant women has increased their survival rate). So far, questioning divinity has done us a lot of good. Don't cite all the stuff about nuclear war and pollution at me, hwever - while science has made these things possible, it has not endorsed them exclusively - support for less savoury advancements has come from people of
f all beliefs.

I've thought about all of this for many years myself. Of course, it's no secret that people are going to come to different conclusions. We have.

I have always thought that the person who closed the door on an option that could possibly be the correct view has not truly been on a quest for knowledge. I'm not saying you've done that, but your claim to being an atheist as opposed to an agnostic suggests you might have done that. I agree that we should always question things. I believe in God and I believe that God desires us to always question things as long as we continue to keep the possibilty of God in our options. That way if God truly is, and we continue to openly question, we will find our answer in Him.

My doubts actually led me to a faith in God. Don't mistake that I haven't questioned the other possibilities. To me, scientifically, the other options seemed to contradict themselves. And a view that excludes God as a possibility has limited it's answers to only natural processes. Good luck.

And I can certainly question your other claims as well. Study history and you will discover early scientific thought was dominated by Christians. If you read the Bible, women were given equality, and Jesus taught women and gave them ministries in a time that women had no status at all in the ancient world. Tell me how many hospitals were founded by churches? None of the things you cite that are positive came from a belief that God does not exist. Facts are peculiar things and the evidence actually favors the opposite of what you stated.

No, it actually isn't. Time isn't "already drawn". It just all happens simultaneously to one who is outside of it. It's a matter of what being "outside time" would be like, which isn't something we, who are bound by time, can understand. You can't even use the term "already" when you are talking about being outside of time.

"already" meaning the entity who experiences it simultaneously has its observation render the results as observed.

Since we experience it linear sequentially, it was already observed and thus set by somebody else.

If we can say "well, my explanation for god can't be understood, but its valid",
why can't we say "my explanation for no god can't be explained, but is valid?"

I have always thought that the person who closed the door on an option that could possibly be the correct view has not truly been on a quest for knowledge. I'm not saying you've done that, but your claim to being an atheist as opposed to an agnostic suggests you might have done that.

Atheism doesn't necessitate 'closing doors', unless you are an Explicit Atheist.

We Implicit Atheists do not rule out the possibility that there could be a 'god'... we just don't 'accept' it.

By this logic, you have to come to one of two conclusions:

(a) The universe is not deterministic, and thus science is useless.
(b) There are no choices. Ever. With our without God.

Nope. You just have to have a condition where a choice is unobserved until it is made.

You can even still have a God, he just can't observe your choices until you make them.

Also, science is hardly useless outside a deterministic universe. By examining principals that govern the context in which choices can be made, you can understand a great deal. You really think science would be useless if the universe is not determnistic?

I think what was meant is that there is only one future. Certain conditions have been satisfied such that any future choices have already been made. The concept of choice exists because we appear to make the choice at the very instant we are posed with the question, but in actual fact the choice is already made. The point being that what you consider to be choice is non-existant.

Correct me if I'm wrong St Curie

In my view, choice is only non-existant if our choices are pre-observed by some God. Absent that, choice can exist, in my view.

"already" meaning the entity who experiences it simultaneously has its observation render the results as observed.

Observation doesn't cause results.

Since we experience it linear sequentially, it was already observed and thus set by somebody else.

But, again, "already" has no meaning outside of time. Thus, it has meaning only to us. And since *we* don't "already" know...

And, once again, observation doesn't set anything. When I observe what my cells do in the lab, I am not setting what they do in the lab - their own processes determine that.

If we can say "well, my explanation for god can't be understood, but its valid",
why can't we say "my explanation for no god can't be explained, but is valid?"

Who said you can't? From a purely objective standpoint, the statement that a deity exists is no more or less defendable than the statement that a deity does not exist. From our perspective, they are both axiomatic statements that can be neither proven nor disproven.

In my view, choice is only non-existant if our choices are pre-observed by some God. Absent that, choice can exist, in my view.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, does it make a sound?

*gives xisla the look*

im not trying to convince you of it, im trying to explain it to you. that requires you to put a little effort into it

does the fact that you know what you did yesterday negate that you had free will YESTERDAY?

no of course it doesnt. you had all sorts of choices yesterday and you made them.

the same goes for the future. that someone (god) knows what you WILL do doesnt mean you dont choose it.

Lets all put a little effort into, please. Your choices yesterday became locked once they were observed by you, so you can't go back and change them, so your Will no longer effects them. You had free will before them. After, you can no longer change them, no matter how much you want, your will no longer matters once a choice is observed.

With a god that sees the future, the same property applies to your future decisions, thus the paradox.

Nope. You just have to have a condition where a choice is unobserved until it is made.

Wrong. Observation doesn't change anything. If the universe runs on set principles, and the future is determined by the initial conditions, then the future is already set, whether it is observed or not.

Also, science is hardly useless outside a deterministic universe.

The entire process of science is based in the assumption that the universe is deterministic - that there is no true randomness and there are set rules to the way things work. If that is not true, there is no logical way to deduce anything from scientific tests.

By examining principals that govern the context in which choices can be made, you can understand a great deal. You really think science would be useless if the universe is not determnistic?

Only in a deterministic universe can such principles even exist. If true randomness exists, there are no principles on which the universe runs.

Science is a process, and at the root of that process is the assumption that the universe is deterministic. So, yes, science would be useless if said assumption were incorrect.

It's like a mathematical proof. If I start out a proof by assuming that x=y, then my proof is completely useless for any case in which x is not equal to y.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, does it make a sound?

If a tree falls in a forest, and my wife is not around... was it still my fault?

You can even still have a God, he just can't observe your choices until you make them.
Wewt. Out the window goes omnipotency. Nice to have that one cleared up. ^^

If a tree falls in a forest, and my wife is not around... was it still my fault?

Um......hmmmmm.......what does she say?

"ours arose by chance" is quite a bold claim. I respect your right to believe what you want, but there are many people smarter than us that argue this statement both ways.

The Anthropic Principle seems to be creating a lot of controversy these days among intellectuals. The Anthropic Priniciple implies that when we look around us it would at least seem at first that the universe was somehow designed to support and nourish human life. This principle which is very prevalent in the world of science and philosophy did not originate with Christian scholars. Some of the hard facts include:
1. Raise or lower the universe's rate of expansion by even one part in a million, and it would have ruled out the possibility of life.
2. If the average distance between stars were any greater, planets like earth would not have been formed; any smaller, the planetary orbits necessary for life would not have occurred.
3. If the ration of carbon to oxygen had been slightly different that it is, none of us would have been here to breathe the air.
4. Change the tilt of the earth's axis slightly in one direction, and we would freeze. Change it the other direction and we'd burn up.
5. Suppose the earth had been a bit closer or further from the sun, or just a little larger or smaller, or if it rotated at a spped any different from the one we're spinning at right now. given any of these changes, the resulting temperature variations would be completely fatal.

So as Bill Hybels states in Becoming a Contagious Christian (1994), "Someone must have gone to a lot of effort to make things just right so that you and I could be here to enjoy life. In short, modern science points to the fact that we must really matter to God (pp. 14-15)!"

This is like saying "Isn't it amazing that ALL the lakes and rivers in Colorado run EXACTLY through the areas where the fish live? The fish should be thankful to Poseidon for sending the water to the same crevices where the fish were living, since without the water the fish would be dead!"

Maybe...maybe the water came first, and the fish then lived there because thats where they can live.

Maybe the conditions of earth came first, and so that's where we developed because we COULDN'T develop anywhere without those conditions...

Science is completely based around the assumption that the universe is deterministic. If the universe is not deterministic - if true randomness exists - then the methods of science cannot tell us anything.

What is your view of stochastic fields, collapsing probability waves, and that kind of thing? I'm no expert, I'm just interested in your interpretation.

Um......hmmmmm.......what does she say?

I don't know... the simple fact I asked the question is evidence that she's not around.

Otherwise, the last post would have read something like:

"If a tree falls in the forest, and my wi.... *smack*..."

What you fail to see is that, if you were outside of time - if you were not bound by time, words like "yesterday" and "today" and "future" and "prediction" no longer have any meaning. If you are outside of time, everything that is bound by time is simultaneous to you. Yesterday, today, the future - all occur basically simultaneously.

It's sort of (although not really, since we are never outside of time) like a plot of a waveform. I can look at t=0 on the plot, then I can look at t=8 on the plot. Then I can look at t=3.5 on the plot. I'm not causing the plot to be the way it is - its own internal equation does that. But since I am outside of it, I can look at any time point I want to, or I can look at the entire plot simultaneously.

Look closer at the plot idea. Can a point moving along a plot that it defines choose to move off the plot?

Observation doesn't cause results.
.

Observation can lock them, so that no other result for that event is now possible.

What is your view of stochastic fields, collapsing probability waves, and that kind of thing? I'm no expert, I'm just interested in your interpretation.

The same interpretation I have of anything within the universe. If we knew the underlying rules, and *every* variable that could possibly affect the outcome, we could predict the outcome.

Of course, we don't and probably never can (not being omniscient ourselves), so some things will always appear random to us. The randomness, however, is an illusion caused by not having enough information.

In the end, unless there is some part of our consciousness that exists outside this universe, "choice" is the same thing. From our perspective, we have a choice, because we don't know all of the variables. We don't know the underlying rules of how various chemicals, differences in maturity, differences in life experiences, etc. will affect someone's choices, so they appear to have an element of randomness. However, if we actually knew how everything worked, and knew every input variable, we could predict every choice any person would ever make.

Look closer at the plot idea. Can a point moving along a plot that it defines choose to move off the plot?

Can yesterday choose to be today? Can it choose to move outside this plane of existence and somehow jump into another universe? That's basically what you have just asked me.

Observation can lock them, so that no other result for that event is now possible.

No other result was possible in the first place, given the initial conditions and underlying rules. Observation just tells us what the result is, but doesn't in any way cause it.

You're missing the catch.

As soon as he sees me dying earlier, I can't choose to die later by NOT killing myself.

You see, God doesn't have to cause anything to remove choice. All he has to do is be a being that a)sees the future and b) is infallible. If he does both of those things, our fates are a function of his sight, not our choices.

For example, what if I haven't made up my mind yet? There's no choice of mine for him to see, yet he can still see the future. Thus, the decision is made, but I didn't make it.

If god was "predicting the future in the way you suggest, then he would be able to see the chain of thoughts and actions leading up to the event.

So to extend the hypothesis of suicide, perhaps the suicide would be caused by a family member hit by a drunk driver. Then you could see the chain of events that lead to the driver going out to drink and so on.

Whether the outcome is certain, or merely extremely probable, god wouldnt just randomly pick an event with no causal chain. He would know all the events, actions and thoughts leading up to and causing the event itself.

Wrong. Observation doesn't change anything. If the universe runs on set principles, and the future is determined by the initial conditions, then the future is already set, whether it is observed or not.



The entire process of science is based in the assumption that the universe is deterministic - that there is no true randomness and there are set rules to the way things work. If that is not true, there is no logical way to deduce anything from scientific tests.



Only in a deterministic universe can such principles even exist. If true randomness exists, there are no principles on which the universe runs.

Science is a process, and at the root of that process is the assumption that the universe is deterministic. So, yes, science would be useless if said assumption were incorrect.

It's like a mathematical proof. If I start out a proof by assuming that x=y, then my proof is completely useless for any case in which x is not equal to y.

I know a number of practicing scientists who would disagree. They have some experience with Discrete Math, physics, and related fields, and I'm afraid that many of them disagree with your definitions.

There is a view in science that observation has a great deal to do with events.

Also, please understand that some events and systems can be modeled and predicted within a range, but few scientists would claim to be able to model a system to a complete certainty.

Governing principals create systems in which subsystems act, but they don't necessitate a deterministic supersystem. There are fields of science that explore the idea that some information related to outcomes doesn't exist prior to certain points.

As far as the analogy of mathematical proofs, a professor in that field of mathematics I know is fond of pointing out that each proof is synthetic to its own axioms, so if we don't agree on the axioms, its not a proof.

No other result was possible in the first place, given the initial conditions and underlying rules. Observation just tells us what the result is, but doesn't in any way cause it.

My view of choice requires multiple possibilities.

The same interpretation I have of anything within the universe. If we knew the underlying rules, and *every* variable that could possibly affect the outcome, we could predict the outcome.

Of course, we don't and probably never can (not being omniscient ourselves), so some things will always appear random to us. The randomness, however, is an illusion caused by not having enough information.

In the end, unless there is some part of our consciousness that exists outside this universe, "choice" is the same thing. From our perspective, we have a choice, because we don't know all of the variables. We don't know the underlying rules of how various chemicals, differences in maturity, differences in life experiences, etc. will affect someone's choices, so they appear to have an element of randomness. However, if we actually knew how everything worked, and knew every input variable, we could predict every choice any person would ever make.

Can yesterday choose to be today? Can it choose to move outside this plane of existence and somehow jump into another universe? That's basically what you have just asked me.

Again, some scientific views include the premise that not all variables have static conditions from which the predictions can be made. What we are finding is that part of "the rules" may be that some of the "players" don't exist until observed.

As to your last bit, I wasn't asking if the point can leave the graph, I was pointing out that once somebody else sees the whole plot, the point no longer has the capacity to move in any different way.

If god was "predicting the future in the way you suggest, then he would be able to see the chain of thoughts and actions leading up to the event.

So to extend the hypothesis of suicide, perhaps the suicide would be caused by a family member hit by a drunk driver. Then you could see the chain of events that lead to the driver going out to drink and so on.

Whether the outcome is certain, or merely extremely probable, god wouldnt just randomly pick an event with no causal chain. He would know all the events, actions and thoughts leading up to and causing the event itself.

Thus making all those factors observed and now set. I cannot deviate from them.

I don't believe God is predicting the future, I don't believe in a God (although there may be something or other along those lines).

If he's real and can see the future, he has foreseen it, it is no longer "probable" or "improbable", it must be certain, otherwise there is a chance of God being wrong.

I know a number of practicing scientists who would disagree.

Then they disagree with science. Inductive logic cannot be backed up without determinism. Unless the universe is deterministic, we have no logical way to suggest that doing something and getting the same results 1000 times suggests that there is an underlying rule. Without determinism, there are no underlying rules - every result you get is random.

There is a view in science that observation has a great deal to do with events.

The view is not that observation causes events to happen a certain way, but that observation messes with the conditions. We have no way to observe anything without creating input to the system. In other words, our observation is another input condition that has to be accounted for in the prediction.

Also, please understand that some events and systems can be modeled and predicted within a range, but few scientists would claim to be able to model a system to a complete certainty.

Of course not! That is exactly my point! We don't have all the information, so we cannot model anything with complete certainty. However, our methods are based in the assumption that, if we really did know all of the information, we *could* reach complete certainty.

Governing principals create systems in which subsystems act, but they don't necessitate a deterministic supersystem.

Actually, they do. Otherwise, the governing principles could not exist at all. If true randomness exists, we cannot define a system as having governing principles, because the outcome would always be based on completely random inputs that we have no control over.

There are fields of science that explore the idea that some information related to outcomes doesn't exist prior to certain points.

This doesn't conflict with anything that I have said. "Information", like any condition in our universe, is bound by time. Obviously it doesn't exist prior to certain points. Of course, if we weren't bound by time.....

As far as the analogy of mathematical proofs, a professor in that field of mathematics I know is fond of pointing out that each proof is synthetic to its own axioms, so if we don't agree on the axioms, its not a proof.

Exactly!! Now you're getting it! And since one of the few axioms of the scientific process is determinism - the idea that the universe runs on hard and fast underlying principles, science does not work without determinism.

I have to head out, catch you all later! Keep 'er going!

EDIT: Oops, just spotted your reply above, I'll have a look when I get back.

My view of choice requires multiple possibilities.

Then "choice", to you, does not exist.

Again, some scientific views include the premise that not all variables have static conditions from which the predictions can be made. What we are finding is that part of "the rules" may be that some of the "players" don't exist until observed.

In which case, observation is an initial condition - a system input. But all of science is based in the idea that, if we knew exactly how the system worked, we could predict all parts of it. We include randomness because we don't know all of the variables, not because true randomness exists.

As to your last bit, I wasn't asking if the point can leave the graph, I was pointing out that once somebody else sees the whole plot, the point no longer has the capacity to move in any different way.

The problem is that it never had the capacity to move in any different way. It was completely determined by the function it is plotting (the underlying rules) and the initial conditions at its beginning.

In the analogy, the only way for the point to go in another direction would be to leave the stream of time altogether. Do you think you have that option?

Exactly!! Now you're getting it! And since one of the few axioms of the scientific process is determinism - the idea that the universe runs on hard and fast underlying principles, science does not work without determinism.

You know, the condescension is unnecessary.

Well, then what several professors I know do is non-science, but I'm very much for it, then.

And the scientists who I"ve worked with say "We can see and study certain principals, but don't forget that they may be processes that receive something that derives from something unpredictable by its nature, so the final outcome may be beyond any precise modeling, even with all knowable factors".

Then "choice", to you, does not exist.

In the analogy, the only way for the point to go in another direction would be to leave the stream of time altogether. Do you think you have that option?

No, I don't have that option, i just don't think there's any God observing the plot.

Choice exists to me because I don't believe the world is deterministic.

EDIT: Okay, now I really have to go. Have fun guys.

Here's another way to think about all this:

God does not require our proof to exist. For example, can you give absolute proof that the monitor in front of you actually exists? No. That does not, however, mean that the monitor does not exist.

Thus making all those factors observed and now set. I cannot deviate from them.

I don't believe God is predicting the future, I don't believe in a God (although there may be something or other along those lines).

If he's real and can see the future, he has foreseen it, it is no longer "probable" or "improbable", it must be certain, otherwise there is a chance of God being wrong.

Bear in mind we are talking about quantum physics. In reality the odds against the events happening are trilliions to one.

However, you are sort of right - If God exists and is always right in his predictions then quantum physics is not applicable, and vice versa.

An interesting point - could quantum experiments be considered as proof of non existance of an all seeing god? The principles of quantum are pretty solidly proven, and state that you get different results if something is observed than if it isn't. If god can see everything isn't the experiment always observed?

Observation can lock them, so that no other result for that event is now possible.
Substitute "known" for "possible".

I think that I would have heard about this if it were true. Got a source?


I can't find the exact source that I read. However, type 'religious gene' into a search engine and you'll get pleanty of results. This isnt exactly what I was looking for, but the genetic idea is there: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7147

You know, the condescension is unnecessary.

I wasn't being condescending. I was just happy that you understood my point, albeit in a different context.

Well, then what several professors I know do is non-science, but I'm very much for it, then.

I suppose its entirely possible to follow the process without truly understanding its limitations. But the fact remains that the scientific method is a logical process based in the core assumption that the universe is deterministic. Without that core assumption, there would be no way to suggest that running an experiment 20 times and always getting the same results actually points to an underlying rule, because randomness would mean that the next 400,000 times you don't measure, something completely different could happen.

And the scientists who I"ve worked with say "We can see and study certain principals, but don't forget that they may be processes that receive something that derives from something unpredictable by its nature, so the final outcome may be beyond any precise modeling, even with all knowable factors".

Anything that is unpredictable by its nature cannot be studied by science. The process simply won't work for it.

No, I don't have that option, i just don't think there's any God observing the plot.

An obsever, however, doesn't make the plot.

Choice exists to me because I don't believe the world is deterministic.

Really? Then how do you know anything that you know? You cannot predict anything without determinism. There would be no way to know that bringing oxygen and hydrogen together in a certain configuration would make water, because there would be no underlying rule. It could make oil instead.

Bear in mind we are talking about quantum physics. In reality the odds against the events happening are trilliions to one.

You cannot have "odds" without determinism. If true randomness exists, then the "odds" of every single possibility are exactly the same.

However, you are sort of right - If God exists and is always right in his predictions then quantum physics is not applicable, and vice versa.

This is hardly true. Quantum physics makes no statement that something *cannot* be predicted, only that we cannot predict it, because we do not know all the variables.

An interesting point - could quantum experiments be considered as proof of non existance of an all seeing god? The principles of quantum are pretty solidly proven, and state that you get different results if something is observed than if it isn't. If god can see everything isn't the experiment always observed?

No, because the principles that state different results with observation refer to *our* observation. If God exists and observes things, there is no reason to believe that God's observation would be the same as ours, or would have the same effects.


Let's take a classic example of "randomness", shall we? We say that flipping a coin is essentially random - that you have the same chance of heads-up as tails-up, correct? We have verified this with measurement and so forth.

However, what if we actually knew all the input variables? If we knew the exact weight distribution of the coin, the exact contour of the hand flipping it, the exact force with which it was flipped, the exact conditions of the air (wind, temperature, friction, etc.) at that moment, the exact distances it had to travel..........and so on, do you think we could predict ahead of time whether it would be heads or tails?

I can't find the exact source that I read. However, type 'religious gene' into a search engine and you'll get pleanty of results. This isnt exactly what I was looking for, but the genetic idea is there: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7147

There's a problem with this one at least:

The twins, all male and in their early 30s, were asked how often they currently went to religious services, prayed, and discussed religious teachings.

These things are not really solid measures of religiosity. This is much the same problem that sociological studies on religiosity run into - how do we measure how "religious" someone is? But what if their religion isn't to "pray", but to "meditate"? What if they don't go to religious services, but commune with nature? What if they don't discuss religious teachings, but do discuss spirituality and religion? And so on...

When you get down to it, these types of questions don't measure much of anything, except perhaps the opinion of the author on what makes one "religious".

Substitute "known" for "possible".

Subsitute plus for minus, you can counter lots of statements.

I wasn't being condescending. I was just happy that you understood my point, albeit in a different context.



I suppose its entirely possible to follow the process without truly understanding its limitations. But the fact remains that the scientific method is a logical process based in the core assumption that the universe is deterministic. Without that core assumption, there would be no way to suggest that running an experiment 20 times and always getting the same results actually points to an underlying rule, because randomness would mean that the next 400,000 times you don't measure, something completely different could happen.



Anything that is unpredictable by its nature cannot be studied by science. The process simply won't work for it.



An obsever, however, doesn't make the plot.



Really? Then how do you know anything that you know? You cannot predict anything without determinism. There would be no way to know that bringing oxygen and hydrogen together in a certain configuration would make water, because there would be no underlying rule. It could make oil instead.



You cannot have "odds" without determinism. If true randomness exists, then the "odds" of every single possibility are exactly the same.



This is hardly true. Quantum physics makes no statement that something *cannot* be predicted, only that we cannot predict it, because we do not know all the variables.



No, because the principles that state different results with observation refer to *our* observation. If God exists and observes things, there is no reason to believe that God's observation would be the same as ours, or would have the same effects.


Let's take a classic example of "randomness", shall we? We say that flipping a coin is essentially random - that you have the same chance of heads-up as tails-up, correct? We have verified this with measurement and so forth.

However, what if we actually knew all the input variables? If we knew the exact weight distribution of the coin, the exact contour of the hand flipping it, the exact force with which it was flipped, the exact conditions of the air (wind, temperature, friction, etc.) at that moment, the exact distances it had to travel..........and so on, do you think we could predict ahead of time whether it would be heads or tails?

I was making my own point, not yours, and we still disagree on the implications. The comment was condescending, IMHO.

Also, please don't confuse determinism with unilateral determinism. Some things can be modeled, within a range. SOme things with discrete outcomes that are the result of factor inputs can be modeled.

Some things may not be so depedent.

As to science being useless without determinism, suppose a driver's action is unpredictiable (for whatever reason, even by God), but science can predict the function of his airbag. You now have a lack of unilateral determinism, but science is still useful for those systems that are at least somewhate determisnistic, that can coexist with non-deterministic systems.

Dem, I think our axioms are too different here. I can't see choice without multiple possibilities. I have to get to work now. Have fun, everybody.

You cannot have "odds" without determinism. If true randomness exists, then the "odds" of every single possibility are exactly the same.

The odds arent the same for every possibility. to take your coin tossing example, a head and a tail is more likely than 2 heads.



This is hardly true. Quantum physics makes no statement that something *cannot* be predicted, only that we cannot predict it, because we do not know all the variables.

Heisenburg Uncerrtainty states that you cannot know all the variables.

No, because the principles that state different results with observation refer to *our* observation. If God exists and observes things, there is no reason to believe that God's observation would be the same as ours, or would have the same effects.

Fair point - God may be able to defy the laws of physics as we know them. The problem is we can't prove either way.

Let's take a classic example of "randomness", shall we? We say that flipping a coin is essentially random - that you have the same chance of heads-up as tails-up, correct? We have verified this with measurement and so forth.

However, what if we actually knew all the input variables? If we knew the exact weight distribution of the coin, the exact contour of the hand flipping it, the exact force with which it was flipped, the exact conditions of the air (wind, temperature, friction, etc.) at that moment, the exact distances it had to travel..........and so on, do you think we could predict ahead of time whether it would be heads or tails?

Unfortunatly, a coin toss is a fairly linear, physical experiment. A better demonstration of quantum principles is in the electron experiment.

This is how it works: Fire a single electron at an object with two slits in it, and a electron detector at the other side. The electron will go through one slit or the other and you can detect which with the detector.

Now repeat the experiment, but this time seal the electron gun and the slits so they cannot be observed. this time you will detect two weaker readings - the single electron has passed through both slits!

This is because the electron has an equal chance of passing through either slit, so untill it is observed, it passes half through each, despite the fact that an electron cannot be split!

It's the sort of thing that gives mathematicians and physists nightmares.

Also, please don't confuse determinism with unilateral determinism. Some things can be modeled, within a range. SOme things with discrete outcomes that are the result of factor inputs can be modeled.

If the universe is not deterministic, then there are no underlying rules to model. And since the process of science is an attempt to get at those underlying rules....

You are confusing our ability to model things with the ability to model them. We can only model things within a range, because we don't know all the possible variables.

As to science being useless without determinism, suppose a driver's action is unpredictiable (for whatever reason, even by God), but science can predict the function of his airbag. You now have a lack of unilateral determinism, but science is still useful for those systems that are at least somewhate determisnistic, that can coexist with non-deterministic systems.

You have to study the actual process of science to understand what I am saying. Logically, unless the entire system is deterministic, science cannot determine what an airbag will do. Unless it will react the exact same way with the exact same inputs *every* time, then there is no way to predict anything. The airbag could do *anything*.

And you cannot have "pockets" of indeterminism, unless you believe that any process within the universe exists in a vacuum isolated from every other process. If even one source of true randomness exists, it will affect the universe as a whole.

Dem, I think our axioms are too different here. I can't see choice without multiple possibilities. I have to get to work now. Have fun, everybody.

Of course you can't - because you have defined it that way.

If you look at choice only from *our* perspective, there are multiple possibilities, because we do not know all the variables. Most likely, we *cannot* know all the variables. Thus, we will always appear to have choice, just as the flipping of a coin will always appear random. But if we knew every single possible variable that could affect it, the result of every coin flip would be predictable. Likewise, if we knew every single possible variable that could affect the choice a person would make, every choice would be predictable.

That is, unless (a) there is true randomness in the universe (thus invalidating the core assumption upon which the scientific method is based - that no true randomness exists) or (b) some part of those capable of choice exists outside the universe.

The odds arent the same for every possibility. to take your coin tossing example, a head and a tail is more likely than 2 heads.

Of course the odds aren't the same for every possibility. This is because the universe *is* deterministic. There *are* underlying rules.

Of course a head and a tail or 2 heads are actually equally likely, as every individual toss has 50% chance of being either.

Heisenburg Uncerrtainty states that you cannot know all the variables.

Actually, it states that you cannot measure all the variables, that by measuring one, you change the others. Thus, we get back to the "observation changes the measurement" problem.

Unfortunatly, a coin toss is a fairly linear, physical experiment. A better demonstration of quantum principles is in the electron experiment.

This is how it works: Fire a single electron at an object with two slits in it, and a electron detector at the other side. The electron will go through one slit or the other and you can detect which with the detector.

Now repeat the experiment, but this time seal the electron gun and the slits so they cannot be observed. this time you will detect two weaker readings - the single electron has passed through both slits!

This is because the electron has an equal chance of passing through either slit, so untill it is observed, it passes half through each, despite the fact that an electron cannot be split!

It's the sort of thing that gives mathematicians and physists nightmares.

But if we actually fully understood the rules underlying the process, this wouldn't be a problem.

Of course the odds aren't the same for every possibility. This is because the universe *is* deterministic. There *are* underlying rules.


Exactly - but these rules aren't absolute. Throw a ball against a wall a billion times and it'll almost certainly bounce back every time, but there is still an almost infintesimaly small chance that the ball will pass straight through the wall.



Of course a head and a tail or 2 heads are actually equally likely, as every individual toss has 50% chance of being either.


Ermm, no, a head and a tail is twice as likely. There are 4 possible combinations, each with a 25% chance - both heads, both tails, coin 1 heads and coin 2 tails, and coin 1 tails heads and coin 2 heads.


But if we actually fully understood the rules underlying the process, this wouldn't be a problem.

The problem is this isnt changing something by measuring it, which neccessarily means involvement with the object, and observation, which doesn't.

The point is until you have actually observed something happen, you can't guarentee it will happen.

(Again, this is just humanity - god may be able to defy physics)

Subsitute plus for minus, you can counter lots of statements.
The outcome of observation is what is known, not what is possible.

I'm not really the type who believes in one all powerful, or even somewhat close to being all powerful, god. Having a group of gods where each god symbolizes something would be more favorable to me. I don't really believe in any specific deities though. Instead I have a loose set of spiritual ideas that I gathered form personal experiences and from other sources.

The outcome of observation is what is known, not what is possible.

But as I've already established with Dem, for me, if there is only one possible outcome (and there is only one possible outcome if a God foresaw it), then there is no choice (as I view it).

If your view of choice includes only one possibility, then this presents no problem for you.

Of course the odds aren't the same for every possibility. This is because the universe *is* deterministic. There *are* underlying rules.

Of course a head and a tail or 2 heads are actually equally likely, as every individual toss has 50% chance of being either.



Actually, it states that you cannot measure all the variables, that by measuring one, you change the others. Thus, we get back to the "observation changes the measurement" problem.



But if we actually fully understood the rules underlying the process, this wouldn't be a problem.

What if one of the rules was, not all the rules can be known simultaneously?

Also, I think we're using "determinism" in different ways.

Discussions like these seem to often suffer from a certain imprecision of language (not of any one user, but of language itself).

Do I have faith in God? Absolutely!

God created the heavens and the earth, and we repaid him by sinning. Then Jesus died for our sins, and what do we do? We forget our God and everything he did for us! I know all you people who voted no will end up in hell.

Do I have faith in God? Absolutely!

God created the heavens and the earth, and we repaid him by sinning. Then Jesus died for our sins, and what do we do? We forget our God and everything he did for us! I know all you people who voted no will end up in hell.

Is your "god" not supposed to be all-loving and forgiving? And in any case, if it was God's will to create the heavens and the earth, then he should not have fucked up so badly by creating humans in his own image. We are a reflection of everything He is, corrupt and and egotistical bastard.

But then, I don't believe in God. Bastard organized religion.

Do I have faith in God? Absolutely!

God created the heavens and the earth, and we repaid him by sinning. Then Jesus died for our sins, and what do we do? We forget our God and everything he did for us! I know all you people who voted no will end up in hell.


God created this miserable chunk of rock. What does he want, a medal? And I didn't forget God, he abandoned me. I believe in God only because this much misery couldn't be random.

Is your "god" not supposed to be all-loving and forgiving? And in any case, if it was God's will to create the heavens and the earth, then he should not have fucked up so badly by creating humans in his own image. We are a reflection of everything He is, corrupt and and egotistical bastard.

But then, I don't believe in God. Bastard organized religion.

No, it's the devil at work here, and you are giving in to the devil! He's the one manipulating you and telling you to be corrupt and egotistical. God is all merciful, and he will forgive you if you repent and go on the right path.

God created this miserable chunk of rock. What does he want, a medal? And I didn't forget God, he abandoned me. I believe in God only because this much misery couldn't be random.

God would never abandon you. You abandoned him first, and even now, he still has faith in you, and is waiting for you to realize that. You just have to repent your sins and listen to him.

No, it's the devil at work here, and you are giving in to the devil! He's the one manipulating you and telling you to be corrupt and egotistical. God is all merciful, and he will forgive you if you repent and go on the right path.

If God created all, then He must have created the Devil. God then, must have control over the Devil, as we know that free will is not that true a statement within the bounds of religious law. Ergo, if God has this control over one, and the Devil is that one manipulating, then God must be manipulating you. Just indirectly. He's sneaky. Like a fish.

God would never abandon you. You abandoned him first, and even now, he still has faith in you, and is waiting for you to realize that. You just have to repent your sins and listen to him.


The hell I did. I was a child for cryin' out loud! I used to pray to God to stop the pain, to stop people from hurting me. All I got was more pain. If he's still there watching, then he's a sadistic SOB.

There is a God the reason nice people die is because evil things happen to even the most religious Satan is the culprit not God do not lose faith because of a loss because ive been down that road. I challenge anyone to debate me in this issue. Just Bring it on!

Can anyone offer a substantial alternate explanation for universal creation?

There is a God the reason nice people die is because evil things happen to even the most religious Satan is the culprit not God do not lose faith because of a loss because ive been down that road. I challenge anyone to debate me in this issue. Just Bring it on!

Why can't God control Satan? Or just get rid of him, if he's so dangerous.

Can anyone offer a substantial alternate explanation for universal creation?

Depends. Is this a "if you can't tell me how the universe started right now that proves you're all wrong and God exists" ultimatim type of thing?

If God created all, then He must have created the Devil. God then, must have control over the Devil, as we know that free will is not that true a statement within the bounds of religious law. Ergo, if God has this control over one, and the Devil is that one manipulating, then God must be manipulating you. Just indirectly. He's sneaky. Like a fish.

Actually the devil is entirely seperate from god. He seperated himself at the beggining of time, him and a plethera of angels who saught to usurp god. this of course, failed miserabely, and the devil has taken refuge in our dimension ever since, until he is sent to hell after the final battle. no, the devil knows us as well as god, which is why he manipulates us so easily. he plays on our worst fears and our greatest desires.

Depends. Is this a "if you can't tell me how the universe started right now that proves you're all wrong and God exists" ultimatim type of thing?

in a sense yes, and in a sense no. what im saying is that if there is no alternate explanation, then for the time being god is the most probable solution.

Actually the devil is entirely seperate from god. He seperated himself at the beggining of time, him and a plethera of angels who saught to usurp god. this of course, failed miserabely, and the devil has taken refuge in our dimension ever since, until he is sent to hell after the final battle. no, the devil knows us as well as god, which is why he manipulates us so easily. he plays on our worst fears and our greatest desires.

So...Satan is on relatively equal footing with God in terms of power?

Actually the devil is entirely seperate from god. He seperated himself at the beggining of time, him and a plethera of angels who saught to usurp god. this of course, failed miserabely, and the devil has taken refuge in our dimension ever since, until he is sent to hell after the final battle. no, the devil knows us as well as god, which is why he manipulates us so easily. he plays on our worst fears and our greatest desires.


So, he sensed that my worst fear was to live in a Christian Iran, and that's why it may happen?

So...Satan is on relatively equal footing with God in terms of power?

no sir. the Creator is more powerful. but the devil, in terms of knowing us, is as knowledgeable as God. If satan were on equal power terms w/ God then he wouldnt be wasting his time fooling with us. He'd be off in some seperate dimension creating his own paradise.

So, he sensed that my worst fear was to live in a Christian Iran, and that's why it may happen?

no, but he might use that fear in an unforseen way to influence future decisions.

Lets all put a little effort into, please. Your choices yesterday became locked once they were observed by you, so you can't go back and change them, so your Will no longer effects them. You had free will before them. After, you can no longer change them, no matter how much you want, your will no longer matters once a choice is observed.

With a god that sees the future, the same property applies to your future decisions, thus the paradox.

that i know what i did yesterday doesnt negate the free will i had yesterday

god doesnt exist in the bonds of time. he is beyond that. he sees what my choices WILL be. that he knows, doesnt mean i didnt choose. it just means that from his vantage point, he already knows. god sees my whole life as a unit. as the 4dimensional being i am. not as a second by second 3 dimensional being. for him, what i did last year is as real and immediate as what i will do next year.

as *I* or my consciousness passes a certain point in time (as it does constantly) my choices are made. "behind" me is set in stone, in "front" of me is still a matter of will. i am stuck inside time. i can only experience moment by moment.

sure its a paradox because there is no way WE can do anything like that. god isnt limited by the understanding of the human mind. thats why all our stories about god are weird and conflicting and utterly different from religion to religion. we can only catch small glimpses of what god is. our mind is too small to hold the reality of god.

Actually the devil is entirely seperate from god. He seperated himself at the beggining of time, him and a plethera of angels who saught to usurp god. this of course, failed miserabely, and the devil has taken refuge in our dimension ever since, until he is sent to hell after the final battle. no, the devil knows us as well as god, which is why he manipulates us so easily. he plays on our worst fears and our greatest desires.

satan is still subject to gods authority...

in a sense yes, and in a sense no. what im saying is that if there is no alternate explanation, then for the time being god is the most probably solution.

Well, there are certainly alternate hypotheses, or speculation, but considering or current difficulty with measuring what was at the beginning of time, and understanding singularity, we only have things that make sense, not evidence for it. God on the other hand...well, which one? It would, by your logic, make anything else that could create the universe more probable. FSM, Allah, my favorite rubber band if you give it enough super natural properties. Even then, there's the matter of how. How did God do it? How does he exist? Lot's of how's you need to answer to make God a reasonable explanation. Let's start with giving a reason we should assume God exists.

no sir. the Creator is more powerful. but the devil, in terms of knowing us, is as knowledgeable as God. If satan were on equal power terms w/ God then he wouldnt be wasting his time fooling with us. He'd be off in some seperate dimension creating his own paradise.

So...Satan is weaker than God...he does naught but trouble...and if he weren't around, the world would be a much better place, with many more people worshiping God, of our own free will just like God supposedly wants...Why exactly is Satan still around again?

satan is still subject to gods authority...

That he is, yet god must have reason to let him do as he wills here. what that reason is i cannot even pretend to know, yet it is most likely a direct result of origional sin in the garden of eden.

no, but he might use that fear in an unforseen way to influence future decisions.


Like me defecting to Canada if it happens?

Like me defecting to Canada if it happens?

exactly. i mean come on, only satan could tempt someone to go there...

There is a God the reason nice people die is because evil things happen to even the most religious Satan is the culprit not God do not lose faith because of a loss because ive been down that road. I challenge anyone to debate me in this issue. Just Bring it on!
HMMMMMM

god created satan

god knows satan is evil

god lets satan loose on humanity

god could stop satan at any time

and its not gods fault?

That he is, yet god must have reason to let him do as he wills here. what that reason is i cannot even pretend to know, yet it is most likely a direct result of origional sin in the garden of eden.

Well, unless you're of the Willimena persuasion that God is outside all forms of basic logic and rules in general, there's lots of possibilities.

1) Neither exists (well...duh)
2) Satan doesn't exist (and our free will is responsible for everything bad, but it's too important to God :rolleyes: )
3) God can't remove or control Satan
4) God wants Satan to handle the dirty work (the sadistic bastard is trying to keep his hands clean)
5) Satan and God are one in the same (pretty straight-forward)
6) Anything else you wanna come up with, I'm tired of this, and it's not like logic is a necessity for you people.

So...Satan is weaker than God...he does naught but trouble...and if he weren't around, the world would be a much better place, with many more people worshiping God, of our own free will just like God supposedly wants...Why exactly is Satan still around again?

that question i cannot answer my friend, i believe only god can truly answer that question. but if i may, i would speculate. At the moment of origianal sin, man (actually, women first) gained knowledge of good and evil. this allowed every one of us to be tempted by the devil, by the false mask of beuty evil shows us. By this the devil (and the minions thereof) have systematically begun infiltrating the souls of now succeptable humans. my guess is that because satan has infiltrated these temples of god (the soul), god wants to give some more timeto us to repent. the more sins committed, the more blocked the path of jesus is unto his return.

the more sins committed, the more blocked the path of jesus is unto his return.

If this is the case I fully expect jesus to never be comming back.

DO YOU PEOPLE EVEN LEAVE THIS FORUM??????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:eek:

No. Why should we?

Respect where respect is due... you DID hand SW his butt, on a shiny platter. No denial on that score.

I'm feeling peaceful today... so, I'm just dropping the whole thing.

Not even a parting shot. Good debate, and thanks.

It was a good debate. Have a nice evening and I'll see you again some other time :)

It goes on to say that the Word became flesh - Christ. In other words, Jesus is the Word. The Word was made flesh. The Word is God. Therefore, Jesus is God.

How can Jesus be God when he is God's Son?

Oh brother.
Oh, sistah! :rolleyes:

What's the hypothetical argument? God exists.
PROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE it.
Ooh, is that familiar?

Again, you make the assertion, showing your inability to discriminate between how you feel about something and whether it is or isn't actually a fact. I imagine you'll endorse another maneuver here. :(


And, of course, it's curious that you needed your professor's advisement on what was supposed to be your own opinion.
Remember? The one you promised to me? That one? Another word you can't keep?

How can Jesus be God when he is God's Son?

Why not? He's God. It's entirely possible for him to be one entity existing as three separate entities. If he can create the universe then surely he can do that.

Something not quite right with this reasoning, can't quite put my finger on it. :rolleyes:
:D
*repeat*

Why not? He's God. It's entirely possible for him to be one entity existing as three separate entities. If he can create the universe then surely he can do that.

"The father, the son, and the holy spirit." The holy trinity never made the least bit of sense to me.

Maybe, God cloned Jesus from himself, and then raised jesus. Thus, they are the same, yet Jesus is still the "son".

Yay! Depeche Mode!
:D
Well, i gotta dig through my other stuff but the chorus on that one just kinda jumped out at me.

"The father, the son, and the holy spirit." The holy trinity never made the least bit of sense to me.

Maybe, God cloned Jesus from himself, and then raised jesus. Thus, they are the same, yet Jesus is still the "son".
More like the scenario described on Futurama:Roswell That Ends Well. :D

I have heard all of this, and it is indeed a well thought out and probable theory. However, there is another theory that I, as a 16-year-old, can only explain in simple terms. The theory is that this is not the first universe. There could well have been many before this one. However, these universes had bad prperties - for example, the initial force that caused the universe to expand was insufficient, and eventually the universe collapsed in on itself, back to the original focal point. This could have happened many times, with various forces, but each universe was just off in some way that made it unable to sustain itself. This may not even have been the first one to contain life - it is possible that the other universes could have contained some form of life, although it would most likely have been different from life as we recognise it due to different conditions - but this universe is one where the variable forces behind it were right for a planet such as ours to form.
You post very well for a 16 year old, if i may show my bias. *bows*
Welcome to NS, if no one has yet extended such salutations.

DO YOU PEOPLE EVEN LEAVE THIS FORUM??????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:eek:
*cue Hotel California*

Respect where respect is due... you DID hand SW his butt, on a shiny platter. No denial on that score.
Oh i GOTTA see this. Had to ... HAD TO be the exception that proves the rule.
Oh i gotta have faith-a-faith-a-faitha.

Link? Please????

Exactly - but these rules aren't absolute.

They have to be, for the scientific method to work - that's the point. The scientific method is predicated upon the assumption that there are underlying rules that *always* work. That there is a set order to the workings of the universe.

If there is no such order, then there is absolutely no way to say that there is any certainty at all that throwing a ball against the wall will make it come back. Without those underlying rules, the odds of going through the wall are exactly equal to bouncing back.

Ermm, no, a head and a tail is twice as likely. There are 4 possible combinations, each with a 25% chance - both heads, both tails, coin 1 heads and coin 2 tails, and coin 1 tails heads and coin 2 heads.

Ok, yeah, you're right. I've been trying to solve PDE's all night - probability is kind of pushed to the back of my head =)

The problem is this isnt changing something by measuring it, which neccessarily means involvement with the object, and observation, which doesn't.

The point is until you have actually observed something happen, you can't guarentee it will happen.

You *can*, if you know the underlying rules and all the initial conditions. The only reason that we cannot is the fact that we don't know these things. Most likely, we never will, as there will always be *something* that can affect which we cannot account for.

If your view of choice includes only one possibility, then this presents no problem for you.

What you fail to see is that no one is claiming that there is choice without different possibilities. The difference between what I am saying and what you are saying is that you are trying to look at choice from some vantage point other than that of a human being. From a human being's point of view, there will always be choice and there will always be randomness - because we can never know all the variables and functions.

However, from an objective "outside the universe" point of view, that would most likely not be true.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, does it make a sound?
You know they've long since put a rest to that irksome little quirk of thinking.
They invented recordable electronic surveillance. Guess what turned up?

You know they've long since put a rest to that irksome little quirk of thinking.
They invented recordable electronic surveillance. Guess what turned up?


No. This is similar to the copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. The point is that you observe it by measuring it. If you don't measure it, no recording, no one around, completely sealed off from the rest of the universe, does sound still exist? I think the question is pointless because we're trying to analyse an entity we don't know the meaning of. Nobody has yet defined existence so we can't answer the tree question.

Science is completely based around the assumption that the universe is deterministic. If the universe is not deterministic - if true randomness exists - then the methods of science cannot tell us anything.

Ah...no. Science isn't based on that assumption. Science has in fact shown true randomness. Beryllium atom decay. Path of a photon in the double slit experiment. But science isn't just about studying a closed system so that we can predict what will happen to it. Science is also about discovering what causes a particular event to happen. Randomness only matters when we want to predict what will happen to a system next. Even then we can still calculate and assign probabilities to events. We dropped the idea of a deterministic universe in the early 1920s. And science has still been useful since then.

What if one of the rules was, not all the rules can be known simultaneously?

Then those bound by the rules (ie. those of us who exist within the universe) would never be able to know all the rules, and thus would never be able to determine the outcome.

Of course, this would not change the fact that knowing all the rules would lead to an ability to predict....
Thus, an outside observer, not bound by the rules of the universe, could know they all and could use them to predict...

Also, I think we're using "determinism" in different ways.

Something which is deterministic can be determined, or predicted, if the underlying rules and input conditions are all known.

How can Jesus be God when he is God's Son?

Good question, albeit one that we as human beings are limited in explaining. But Scripture states very clearly that Jesus is both. Thus, Jesus must be both, or Scripture must be wrong.

According to just about every incarnation of the Christian church - The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost are each fully God, and are each part of God. The Son is both fully God and fully human. None of these are really things that can be understood, if they are correct, because they involve the very nature of God, something we do not know.


Ah...no. Science isn't based on that assumption.

Actually, it is. Inductive logic can *only* be used under that assumption, and the scientific method itself is based in inductive logic.

Science has in fact shown true randomness. Beryllium atom decay. Path of a photon in the double slit experiment.

Neither of those things demonstrate true randomness. Beryllium atom decay and the path of a photon, as far as we know, are still bound by rules. We call these things random, not because they truly are, but because we cannot predict them.

To be truly random, they would be bound by no rules at all.

But science isn't just about studying a closed system so that we can predict what will happen to it. Science is also about discovering what causes a particular event to happen. Randomness only matters when we want to predict what will happen to a system next. Even then we can still calculate and assign probabilities to events. We dropped the idea of a deterministic universe in the early 1920s. And science has still been useful since then.

(a) The universe is a closed system, by defintion. Science, by definition, can only be used to describe the universe.

(b) If true randomness exists, an event needs no cause, and thus science cannot discover what causes it. Only if there are hard and fast underlying rules - which means determinism - can a cause for an event be discovered.

(c) Once again, you aren't talking about *true* randomness. If you can assign probabilities, then it is not truly random. In true randomness, every possibility would have an equal probability. The "randomness" you are describing is the illusion of randomness brought about by incomplete knowledge.

Do I have faith in God? Absolutely!

God created the heavens and the earth, and we repaid him by sinning. Then Jesus died for our sins, and what do we do? We forget our God and everything he did for us! I know all you people who voted no will end up in hell.
Three on one thread?
...i guess we have a trinity ...;)

No. This is similar to the copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. The point is that you observe it by measuring it. If you don't measure it, no recording, no one around, completely sealed off from the rest of the universe, does sound still exist? I think the question is pointless because we're trying to analyse an entity we don't know the meaning of. Nobody has yet defined existence so we can't answer the tree question.
I've been aware of copenhagen interpretation for some time. This isn't a field i particularly need a "forum education" in.
However, Dem's post taken singularly, i'm not wrong, so your answer "no" doesn't have a quantitative value to my post. Quite clearly we live as a directive of control, as well most of the scope of knowledge comes along those lines as well. There's no great phantom to conquer regarding whether or not i can rely on video and audio surveillance. If i wanted to retrofit my mentality to the nebulous quality of the uneducated adolescent, i can start going Sartre about everything and yet, still, things will continue just as if i weren't standing still, making my own obstacles for myself.
Thanks for the up though.

No, it's the devil at work here, and you are giving in to the devil! He's the one manipulating you and telling you to be corrupt and egotistical. God is all merciful, and he will forgive you if you repent and go on the right path.
Hey, maybe you can post the etymology of the word "devil". It would really help this discussion along, IMNSHO.

Actually, it is. Inductive logic can *only* be used under that assumption, and the scientific method itself is based in inductive logic.
No it isn't. We do not assume that everything can be predicted. We assume that our observations are correct. "everything can be predicted if initial conditions and all other factors are know" is a consequence of inductive logic. Not a premise. We have shown that this particular statement about prediction is not true.


Neither of those things demonstrate true randomness. Beryllium atom decay and the path of a photon, as far as we know, are still bound by rules. We call these things random, not because they truly are, but because we cannot predict them.
Not so. It has been proven that a beryllium atom has an equal chance of decaying at any point in time. It is truely random. This is a consequence of the weak nuclear force.
A photon has a 50/50 chance of going either way in the double slit experiment. It is truely random.


To be truly random, they would be bound by no rules at all.

How did you come to that conclusion?


(a) The universe is a closed system, by defintion. Science, by definition, can only be used to describe the universe.
The universe may not be a closed system. I remind you of General relativity and quantum mechanics and draw your attention specifically to the existence of black holes. All imply other universes. Quantum mechanis even implies a higher dimension manifold on which the universe, and many others, sit on.


(b) If true randomness exists, an event needs no cause, and thus science cannot discover what causes it. Only if there are hard and fast underlying rules - which means determinism - can a cause for an event be discovered.
No. You can know what the cause is, just not when the cause will happen.

(c) Once again, you aren't talking about *true* randomness. If you can assign probabilities, then it is not truly random. In true randomness, every possibility would have an equal probability. The "randomness" you are describing is the illusion of randomness brought about by incomplete knowledge.

Yes that is true. All the probabilities are the same. But the probability depends on how many possible outcomes there are.
We have complete knowledge of the weak nuclear force. We have unified it with electromagnetism. Yet the complete knowledge tells us that, while we may know why it happens, we can't know when it will happen(decay, that is). The uncertainty principle makes the universe non-deterministic.

I've been aware of copenhagen interpretation for some time. This isn't a field i particularly need a "forum education" in.
However, Dem's post taken singularly, i'm not wrong, so your answer "no" doesn't have a quantitative value to my post. Quite clearly we live as a directive of control, as well most of the scope of knowledge comes along those lines as well. There's no great phantom to conquer regarding whether or not i can rely on video and audio surveillance. If i wanted to retrofit my mentality to the nebulous quality of the uneducated adolescent, i can start going Sartre about everything and yet, still, things will continue just as if i weren't standing still, making my own obstacles for myself.
Thanks for the up though.

:confused: Right. That made little sense, so forgive me if I don't have a constructive reply.

No it isn't. We do not assume that everything can be predicted. We assume that our observations are correct. "everything can be predicted if initial conditions and all other factors are know" is a consequence of inductive logic. Not a premise. We have shown that this particular statement about prediction is not true.

Inductive logic involves a statement that, because something has happened the same way a large number of times, we can reasonably assume that it will continue to happen that way - that it happens that way based on the rules of the universe.

If there are rules on which the universe is run, then, in the end, there can be no true randomness.

Not so. It has been proven that a beryllium atom has an equal chance of decaying at any point in time. It is truely random. This is a consequence of the weak nuclear force.
A photon has a 50/50 chance of going either way in the double slit experiment. It is truely random.

Chance does not equal true randomness. If we knew the exact condition of the nucleus at a specific time point, we could predict whether or not decay would happen. If we knew the exact conditions just before the photon went throught he slit, we could predict what slit it would go through.

Your statement is like saying, "Since there is a 50/50 chance that a flipped coin will land heads up or tails up, it is truly random." However, this statement is false. If we knew the exact weight distribution of the coin, the force with which it was flipped, the environmental conditions, etc. we could accurately predict whether it would land heads up or tails up.

How did you come to that conclusion?

From the definitions. The only way for true randomness to exist is if there are no underlying rules to control it. If there are underlying rules, then it isn't random - it is by the rules.

The universe may not be a closed system. I remind you of General relativity and quantum mechanics and draw your attention specifically to the existence of black holes. All imply other universes. Quantum mechanis even implies a higher dimension manifold on which the universe, and many others, sit on.

In this context, "other universes" means, "Other parts of this universe." The universe is all that exists in the material realm - all that we can ever possibly measure. Anything that we can theoretically measure is, by definition, a part of our universe. Thus, the universe is a closed system, as we would be able to measure anything leaving or entering, thus making the place that it was leaving or entering to part of the universe.

No. You can know what the cause is, just not when the cause will happen.

If you know the cause of the cause, you can know when the cause will happen.

Yes that is true. All the probabilities are the same. But the probability depends on how many possible outcomes there are.

Hardly. A probablity distribution assigns higher probabilities to some things than to others. Thus, all probabilities are not actually the same.

We have complete knowledge of the weak nuclear force.

LOL! We don't have "complete knowledge" of anything. Well, ok, we might, but we wouldn't know it if we did. The very basis of science is that we never stop questioning, and that anything we theorize today could turn out to be wrong tomorrow.

We have unified it with electromagnetism. Yet the complete knowledge tells us that, while we may know why it happens, we can't know when it will happen. The uncertainty principle makes the universe non-deterministic.

We could know if we knew the rules that were underlying the "when".

The uncertainty principle doesn't make the universe non-deterministic, it means that we are limited in what we can and cannot measure about the universe. Our limitations do not equate to properties of the universe.

“Your god is dead and only the ignorant weep. And if you claim there is a hell, then we shall meet there!” ~Friedrich Nietzsche

“A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day.” ~Bill Watterson ;)

:confused: Right. That made little sense, so forgive me if I don't have a constructive reply.
I think he just resorted to a Purakurahoramiaism meaning you won.

Inductive logic involves a statement that, because something has happened the same way a large number of times, we can reasonably assume that it will continue to happen that way - that it happens that way based on the rules of the universe.

If there are rules on which the universe is run, then, in the end, there can be no true randomness.



Chance does not equal true randomness. If we knew the exact condition of the nucleus at a specific time point, we could predict whether or not decay would happen. If we knew the exact conditions just before the photon went throught he slit, we could predict what slit it would go through.

Your statement is like saying, "Since there is a 50/50 chance that a flipped coin will land heads up or tails up, it is truly random." However, this statement is false. If we knew the exact weight distribution of the coin, the force with which it was flipped, the environmental conditions, etc. we could accurately predict whether it would land heads up or tails up.



From the definitions. The only way for true randomness to exist is if there are no underlying rules to control it. If there are underlying rules, then it isn't random - it is by the rules.



In this context, "other universes" means, "Other parts of this universe." The universe is all that exists in the material realm - all that we can ever possibly measure. Anything that we can theoretically measure is, by definition, a part of our universe. Thus, the universe is a closed system, as we would be able to measure anything leaving or entering, thus making the place that it was leaving or entering to part of the universe.



If you know the cause of the cause, you can know when the cause will happen.



Hardly. A probablity distribution assigns higher probabilities to some things than to others. Thus, all probabilities are not actually the same.



LOL! We don't have "complete knowledge" of anything. Well, ok, we might, but we wouldn't know it if we did. The very basis of science is that we never stop questioning, and that anything we theorize today could turn out to be wrong tomorrow.



We could know if we knew the rules that were underlying the "when".

The uncertainty principle doesn't make the universe non-deterministic, it means that we are limited in what we can and cannot measure about the universe. Our limitations do not equate to properties of the universe.

You seem to be still under the impression that certain rules govern everything. Yet we have made it clear that no rules govern random decay. No rules. That is why it is random. We have proven that there are no rules governing it. We cannot predict when it will happen. The radiation cannot predict when it will happen. It is impossible from anyones point of view to predict, and that has been proven. Determinism involves the capacity to predict everything. But since we can't, as it is random, it is not deterministic. Ok. If you still don't understand why nothing can predict it, I suggest you learn some high level mathematics and quantum mechanics, and see for yourself.

I think he just resorted to a Purakurahoramiaism meaning you won.

I didn't understand his post. It made no sense whatsoever.


Did you hear about Mobra?

Nearly half of you “have faith in God.”?

I’d have expected much lower from this bunch. How disappointing.

I think he just resorted to a Purakurahoramiaism meaning you won.
"Won" what, praytell? A giant invisible bunny? That's the parting gift of contention on this thread, it would appear. Think of it as a reflexive convex/concave post. That way, if you or any other poster is confused by my response, you can trail it back to the beginning and look to the result in the same light.

:rolleyes:

I didn't understand his post. It made no sense whatsoever.
!

"That's because sense isn't something that can be made, it's something that must be sensed."


Yeesh, this post from the same person posting about The Copenhagen Interpretation? *tsk* :(

The hell I did. I was a child for cryin' out loud! I used to pray to God to stop the pain, to stop people from hurting me. All I got was more pain. If he's still there watching, then he's a sadistic SOB.


Crap! Sorry.

I suggest being real with God with your feelings. I think you're blaming God unfairly, but I don't blame you for the feelings you have.

(Again, this is just humanity - god may be able to defy physics)
That appears to be the crucial *natch* angle they're pokin'.
*sigh*

!

"That's because sense isn't something that can be made, it's something that must be sensed."


Yeesh, this post from the same person posting about The Copenhagen Interpretation? *tsk* :(

:D

Sorry. Typical case of too much computer, too little sleep. I'm a bit dazed and confused.

:D

Sorry. Typical case of too much computer, too little sleep. I'm a bit dazed and confused.No worries.
It's usually safer to keep the big guns to oneself unless there's a good reason to invoke 'em here .... you folks have an interesting run with probability and i don't need to sidetrack it. I do that too much on other threads as is.
What's so confusing about my first post? I'll indulge if you like.

Why can't God control Satan? Or just get rid of him, if he's so dangerous.

Well, I believe God is a holy God. And if he were to just get rid of all evil in the world he would need to get rid of me and just about everyone else also because we all are guilty of breaking the Creator's laws.

It is the grace of God that he doesn't wipe us all out but is patient. I believe He is coming back though and I am doing my best to be ready for that day.

There is a God the reason nice people die is because evil things happen to even the most religious Satan is the culprit not God do not lose faith because of a loss because ive been down that road. I challenge anyone to debate me in this issue. Just Bring it on!
Now it's four. This thread has a lot of twists and turns!

in a sense yes, and in a sense no. what im saying is that if there is no alternate explanation, then for the time being god is the most probable solution.
Which one do you mean? And no, the only "most probable" solution you have is some issue with first cause. You don't have "god" by much of any measure. The rest has been a bunch of misogynist power-trippers fillin' in the blanks in the heads and hearts of the gullible and "most-willing-to-part-with" ....

No worries.
It's usually safer to keep the big guns to oneself unless there's a good reason to invoke 'em here .... you folks have an interesting run with probability and i don't need to sidetrack it. I do that too much on other threads as is.
What's so confusing about my first post? I'll indulge if you like.

Well in the first post you made the point that the "tree falls in the woods" was put to rest because of an electronic listening device in the woods when a tree fell but noone was around. I think.

And I wasn't sure if you were joking or not, so I made the point that the purpose of the question was to question existence independent of observation.

Then you said I was wrong and it got a little confusing from there. :(

no, but he might use that fear in an unforseen way to influence future decisions.
...ah, it's already been established in this thread how "unforseen" doesn't work. Guess who has culpability?

*snip* Guess who has culpability?

The one who breaks the laws of the Creator? I know I took that out of context.

But if the direction you were implying was that God is to be held responsible because He knows in advance and then "makes us do things" to hold to that vision of what He already knows, I do not see that argument as well established and thought I refuted it quite well several pages back.

Well in the first post you made the point that the "tree falls in the woods" was put to rest because of an electronic listening device in the woods when a tree fell but noone was around. I think. A purely low-brow response on my part, a given. You hear one koan and the like enough times, the answers come out pretty easily. ;)

And I wasn't sure if you were joking or not, so I made the point that the purpose of the question was to question existence independent of observation. I know your intent was noble, and believe me, i understand it. I was pointing out that i only quoted the specific text from Dem to suit my response. I think i even qualified it there.

Then you said I was wrong and it got a little confusing from there. :(I said no per the first word of your response. To clarify all this here, i'll just say you were being considerate in explaining your point, but that wasn't at all what all i was involving myself in (at that time), and i was trying to point that out.

As for the posts following, well, they're not of the same calibre.

A purely low-brow response on my part, a given. You hear one koan and the like enough times, the answers come out pretty easily. ;)

I know your intent was noble, and believe me, i understand it. I was pointing out that i only quoted the specific text from Dem to suit my response. I think i even qualified it there.

I said no per the first word of your response. To clarify all this here, i'll just say you were being considerate in explaining your point, but that wasn't at all what all i was involving myself in (at that time), and i was trying to point that out.

As for the posts following, well, they're not of the same calibre.
Ok then. Thanks for clearing that up.
:fluffle:

The one who breaks the laws of the Creator? I know I took that out of context.I just got done explaining something that may or may not have been out of context. :)
And no, the establisher of parameters. The one who enforces them. The one for whom it was the first choice. Always.

But if the direction you were implying was that God is to be held responsible because He knows in advance and then "makes us do things" to hold to that vision of what He already knows, I do not see that argument as well established and thought I refuted it quite well several pages back.
You refuted it to the degree you see fit ... but you understand, of course, that doesn't put it to rest, given the nature of the topic. Neither in my POV.

Why exactly is Satan still around again?
Because God thinks quite a bit of continuing Satan's existence while he still apparently has no problem with drowning out *note:dead*
his miserable excuse for human progeny with a flood and some pestilence and perhaps a plague or two. Satan seems to be just fine with that "free choice" thing and all.
Another answer is that it's great to have an excuse for our own problems and mistakes and natures, and with the Judas thing getting shot down, they're running out of good villains. Other than humans, of course.

I think that this is much more interesting as a question of faith and dreams.

What do you dream when you dream of heaven? What would go on in your perfect hell? And what does your faith do when confronted by other faiths, expand and embrace, or deny and retreat?

Everyone is prepared to wax philosophical about what they believe, but what do your beliefs do under the weight of others?

These are things about which I wonder.

That he is, yet god must have reason to let him do as he wills here. what that reason is i cannot even pretend to know, yet it is most likely a direct result of origional sin in the garden of eden.
Don't shoot yourself down. Successful religions only become successful due ENTIRELY to "pretending to know".
I'm serious.

Crap! Sorry.

I suggest being real with God with your feelings. I think you're blaming God unfairly, but I don't blame you for the feelings you have.


I fail to see how I could be more real. And I blame God because that bastard put me in this life, neglected to give me the necessary skills to cope with what was happening, and gave me no way out. If I'm unfair then let's just say I gave God what I got from him.

Well, unless you're of the Willimena persuasion that God is outside all forms of basic logic and rules in general, there's lots of possibilities.

1) Neither exists (well...duh)
2) Satan doesn't exist (and our free will is responsible for everything bad, but it's too important to God :rolleyes: )
3) God can't remove or control Satan
4) God wants Satan to handle the dirty work (the sadistic bastard is trying to keep his hands clean)
5) Satan and God are one in the same (pretty straight-forward)
6) Anything else you wanna come up with, I'm tired of this, and it's not like logic is a necessity for you people.
See, THIS is how you should've posted on my North Slope ... conspiracy? thread. Most excellent. *bows*

No. Why should we?
Especially when we still have people to answer and lightning to attract? ;)

Ok then. Thanks for clearing that up.
:fluffle:
No problem. It's good to see someone mention probabilities every now and again. I haven't argued that for literally THOUSANDS of threads. First year-kinda stuff.

The universe may not be a closed system. I remind you of General relativity and quantum mechanics and draw your attention specifically to the existence of black holes. All imply other universes. Quantum mechanis even implies a higher dimension manifold on which the universe, and many others, sit on.

BTW (inspired mention) - what do you think of Desperate Measures' Green Hole thread?

The fact is that even if you approach the Universe from a scientific standpoint--you can't explain the origins of the Universe. Take any of the theories--the big bang theory. Go back far enough in time, and you're at the cosmic singularity. But who created the singularity?

The Big Bang/Big Crunch theory (which fell out of favor) also didn't explain where the singularity originated from. "Bubble" universes don't explain where the first came from. String theory doesn't explain the origins--nothing does. There is no scientific explanation to the origin of the Universe. Is that direct 'proof' of a God? Of course not.. but it is encouraging.

I think it's more likely than not that someone (or something) created the Universe. Do I believe that something directly influences our lives? No. But I believe something created us all, directly or indirectly.

Nearly half of you “have faith in God.”?

I’d have expected much lower from this bunch. How disappointing.
Well, wait around a little while. I'm sure a few people will change their minds ;)
....like always....

I just got done explaining something that may or may not have been out of context. :)
And no, the establisher of parameters. The one who enforces them. The one for whom it was the first choice. Always.


You refuted it to the degree you see fit ... but you understand, of course, that doesn't put it to rest, given the nature of the topic. Neither in my POV.

Just pointing out that your statement of your conclusion being "well established" is not all that well established. At least I don't believe it is. That's all.

Don't shoot yourself down. Successful religions only become successful due ENTIRELY to "pretending to know".
I'm serious.

You've expressed your belief system to pretend to know this? :)

Just pointing out that your statement of your conclusion being "well established" is not all that well established. At least I don't believe it is. That's all.
I didn't say MINE was, and i'll further say I didn't establish it at all.
I did, however, say that the "conclusion" had already been well established earlier on, or something to that effect. I wasn't taking credit for it.
I did say that your refutation was satisfactory to you, perhaps, and that it isn't reasonable to assume that others will find it as satisfactory. I'll further explain that it isn't satisfactory to me, which i did imply when i mentioned my POV.

It isn't that you don't argue well. The problem is that you have already forsaken your adaptability for trade of comfort.

You've expressed your belief system to pretend to know this? :)
Since it isn't a religion or a system, but a logical and seasoned conclusion, it fits just fine in the logical sense. Although it still falls under the OP nature of "faith", to explain further would obviously require me to 'jack the thread somewhat, which i probably don't have time for.

I fail to see how I could be more real. And I blame God because that bastard put me in this life, neglected to give me the necessary skills to cope with what was happening, and gave me no way out. If I'm unfair then let's just say I gave God what I got from him.

Please don't misunderstand me for not being empathetic. I believe that was the entire point of my post. Well, it was meant to be the main point anyway. I wasn't saying you weren't being real. Just encouraging you to remain real with God about your feelings if anything.

I realize that some have presented an interesting view of blaming God for the bad that happens in this world. As one who is a "professional" disciple of Christ I'm just saying you can blame God if you desire, but it's misplaced aggression based on a misunderstanding of who God is and how he operates in this world. I would not assume this world is supposed to be heaven, as you well know.

I didn't say MINE was, and i'll further say I didn't establish it at all.
I did, however, say that the "conclusion" had already been well established earlier on, or something to that effect. I wasn't taking credit for it.
I did say that your refutation was satisfactory to you, perhaps, and that it isn't reasonable to assume that others will find it as satisfactory. I'll further explain that it isn't satisfactory to me, which i did imply when i mentioned my POV.

It isn't that you don't argue well. The problem is that you have already forsaken your adaptability for trade of comfort.

You're assuming too much, at least it appears. My faith is quite well reasoned. I will admit I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that last statement however.

BTW (inspired mention) - what do you think of Desperate Measures' Green Hole thread?

I thought Roger Penrose discovered that ages ago. But then I could be mistaken. I found the link below the page to the microblackholes article more interesting. The astronomer royale I think made the point that is was dangerous to use particle accelerators because you could theoretically compress a nucleus to a schwarzchild radius and form a black hole. Turns out we actually did make a black hole in an accelerator. Did you read the article?

Please don't misunderstand me for not being empathetic. I believe that was the entire point of my post. Well, it was meant to be the main point anyway. I wasn't saying you weren't being real. Just encouraging you to remain real with God about your feelings if anything.

I realize that some have presented an interesting view of blaming God for the bad that happens in this world. As one who is a "professional" disciple of Christ I'm just saying you can blame God if you desire, but it's misplaced aggression based on a misunderstanding of who God is and how he operates in this world. I would not assume this world is supposed to be heaven, as you well know.


Spare me the sermon. I don't blame God alone. He didn't make my parents abusive pricks, he didn't make me clinically depressed, and give me PTSD. He didn't make me unable to cope now even after the hitting stopped. He just ignored me when I asked, no begged him to stop it. And what's to misunderstand? God doesn't operate in this world at all. He just lets the chips fall where they may, and then gives us the big cosmic whammy when we fail to measure up. At best, he's got laissez-faire down to an art form, and at worst, he's doing it on purpose.

I thought Roger Penrose discovered that ages ago. But then I could be mistaken. I found the link below the page to the microblackholes article more interesting. The astronomer royale I think made the point that is was dangerous to use particle accelerators because you could theoretically compress a nucleus to a schwarzchild radius and form a black hole. Turns out we actually did make a black hole in an accelerator. Did you read the article?
Not about the micros. I will point out though that you/we are running out of time to wonder about the LHC "doing its sinful duty" in 2007. :eek:
I'll revisit that thread here while i jump in and out of this thread.

You're assuming too much, at least it appears. My faith is quite well reasoned. I will admit I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that last statement however.
How am i assuming too much by declaring that i wasn't the one to establish that issue in an earlier thread?
As per your faith, by definition it isn't "reasoned", it's "rationalised".

The last statement is further qualified by my last statement, above.

Not about the micros. I will point out though that you/we are running out of time to wonder about the LHC "doing its sinful duty" in 2007. :eek:
I'll revisit that thread here while i jump in and out of this thread.

At least the black hole we apparently created was very small. So it exploded before it had time to grow up and consume the entire solar system.:D

At least the black hole we apparently created was very small. So it exploded before it had time to grow up and consume the entire solar system.:D
You heard that too, huh? :D

Perhaps nothing. Perhaps a little more than nothing.
That reminds me .... i had a scenario pop into my head a while back, concerning the LHC experiment and a recent rash of articles involving some postulated energetic dimensions. I don't think i can exhume this but Eutrusca and Smunkeeville besides myself went on about it for a while.
To be brief, i'll just say that the conclusion was unpleasant.
If you know which issue i'm talking about, let me know. Else i'll attempt to find it again.

You heard that too, huh? :D

Perhaps nothing. Perhaps a little more than nothing.
That reminds me .... i had a scenario pop into my head a while back, concerning the LHC experiment and a recent rash of articles involving some postulated energetic dimensions. I don't think i can exhume this but Eutrusca and Smunkeeville besides myself went on about it for a while.
To be brief, i'll just say that the conclusion was unpleasant.
If you know which issue i'm talking about, let me know. Else i'll attempt to find it again.

No, I don't know the one you're talking about.

If you're interested, there's another article link below the microblackholes one. It's about a dark matter galaxy we've supposedly found and implies why we can't see dark matter. Very interesting.

No, I don't know the one you're talking about.

If you're interested, there's another article link below the microblackholes one. It's about a dark matter galaxy we've supposedly found and implies why we can't see dark matter. Very interesting.
Yeah, as it turns out, i'd heard about the experiment. That garnered some attention here too. I probably have it somewhere on my email archives.
As per the other thing ... i'll run again at the archives.

Yeah, as it turns out, i'd heard about the experiment. That garnered some attention here too. I probably have it somewhere on my email archives.
As per the other thing ... i'll run again at the archives.

If you find it could you send it through a telegram. I'm logging off now. Going drinking with my uncle.

If you find it could you send it through a telegram. I'm logging off now. Going drinking with my uncle.
Well, just this ... it dances around it.
http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/physik_astronomie/bericht-58404.html
...
The LHC will also explore the idea that “large extra dimensions” exist to bridge the energy gap between the electroweak and Planck scales, as well as other theories that suggest the supposed fundamental particles of the Standard Model are not fundamental at all, but instead are themselves composites — that is, composed of even smaller, more fundamental building blocks yet to be discovered. In addition to exploring these realms “beyond the Standard Model,” LHC experiments will also probe the mysterious missing mass and dark energy of the universe, investigate the reason for nature’s preference for matter over antimatter, and probe matter as it existed at the very beginning of time.

...
---
N'joy your imbibing!

EDIT:Well, the TG thing won't work. *blub, blub ...*

There is absolutely no way I would read 116 of whatever. So I'm going to say what I want and never look at this topic again.

Yes, I believe in God. I consider myself a Christian; however, I don't view God the way most Christians do. I see him as far more impartial, and subsequently, more tolerant of his creations. I believe that he is higher than the arbitrary rules set up by my religion and thus take comfort in believing in him as well as being gay. I believe that God set the rules of the world in what we call science. If there was a combinational religion of Christianity and Science, I'd join it.

So yes, I believe in God. I do not believe that he interferes in personal lives unless asked for, and even then in his infinite wisdom, acts in ways greater than I can understand.

It depends on how you define God. God is not a person. Donald Neale Walsh (author) has answers that are more acceptable/common sense/understandable than any mainstream or fundamentalist religions. Ditto Ken Wilber (but more intellectual). Give them a go if you're interested in thinking about the meaning of life (and death). Agnosicism is a cop-out. Atheism isn't, nor is mysticism.

Why not? He's God. It's entirely possible for him to be one entity existing as three separate entities. If he can create the universe then surely he can do that.

It is quite possible however it is not correct.

Nearly half of you “have faith in God.”?

I’d have expected much lower from this bunch. How disappointing.

Goes to show that nearly half the people on this board do know the truth and is willing to share it even though we will be persecuted for our beliefs.

Goes to show that nearly half the people on this board do know the truth and is willing to share it even though we will be persecuted for our beliefs.

"The truth"? You can not seriously believe you can call it the truth with no proof. Now, I'm not trying to offend anyone here. For things like this, I really do require proof.

Well, wait around a little while. I'm sure a few people will change their minds ;)
....like always....

That'll be a miracle of biblical proportions :D

Please don't misunderstand me for not being empathetic. I believe that was the entire point of my post. Well, it was meant to be the main point anyway. I wasn't saying you weren't being real. Just encouraging you to remain real with God about your feelings if anything.

I realize that some have presented an interesting view of blaming God for the bad that happens in this world. As one who is a "professional" disciple of Christ I'm just saying you can blame God if you desire, but it's misplaced aggression based on a misunderstanding of who God is and how he operates in this world. I would not assume this world is supposed to be heaven, as you well know.

Well said Republicans armed. Well said indeed.

"The truth"? You can not seriously believe you can call it the truth with no proof. Now, I'm not trying to offend anyone here. For things like this, I really do require proof.

You require proof to believe but blessed are those who have not seen yet believe.

You require proof to believe but blessed are those who have not seen yet believe.

It's a bit illogical to believe something with no proof, isn't it?

It's a bit illogical to believe something with no proof, isn't it?

I believe in a million dollars though I have not seen it. Is believing in a million dollars when I have not seen it illogical?