Who throws the dice for you?

[Coffee Jesus]

If God does in fact exist and created/maintains our reality then there should also be observations which cannot be explained by natural mechanisms. Quantum randomness is such an observation.

Now keep in mind, quantum randomness isn't something that hasn't been explained by natural mechanisms. It is an observation that has been scientifically shown that it cannot be explained by natural mechanisms.

So God is a form of randomness. Well that explains why praying to him is useless.

[Heywood]

An argument from ignorance ought to at least embody some feature which can in principle make it distinguishable from other possible propositions that could be advanced under the same absence of evidence to the contrary, should the absence of evidence to the contrary under which it is advanced ever be rectified.

There is no absence of evidence to the contrary Chuck. There is only evidence. The evidence consist of observations and a theorem which is accepted to be true.

As far as not defining what God is...Newton didn't define what gravity was. The big bang singularity or a singularity at the center of a black hole isn't defined either. 1 divided by infinity isn't defined. It is perfectly okay and sometimes even useful to discuss or think about things which are not rigorously defined.

You'll have to do better.

[Anomalocaris]

There is no absence of evidence to the contrary Chuck. There is only evidence. The evidence consist of observations and a theorem which is accepted to be true.

As far as not defining what God is...Newton didn't define what gravity was. The big bang singularity or a singularity at the center of a black hole isn't defined either. 1 divided by infinity isn't defined. It is perfectly okay and sometimes even useful to discuss or think about things which are not rigorously defined.

Uh, no. Newton defined his concept of gravity well enough to specify exactly how it ought to behave for cases he has not yet observed. Furthermore he defined his concept of gravity such that its predictions can not be trivially duplicated by a comcept different from his gravity. This is incidentally the full extent required to enable his contemparies and posterity to test what he says about gravity and determine whether his concept is right or wrong, and to specify the exact degree to which it is right or wrong. For example if Kepler's laws are seen to be violated where Newton's definition of gravity predicts they would be obeyed, then Newton's gravity would thereby be shown false.

The big bang singularity is also defined to the same degree. It is sufficiently defined for it to be possible for contempary and posterity say whether his concept is right or wrong, and to specify the exact degree to which it is right or wrong. We know if something this close to this singularity in time and space does not do that, then our concept of Big Bang is wrong, or our concept of singularity is wrong.

What did you say about the god you propose that is both unique and in principle testable, and such that if it were found not be true, you would stop being a theist? If the randomness of a new quantum event does not conform to the randomness you called god, would you then admit your god does not exist? I doubt it.

Newton defined gravity well enough to enable it to add to the human knowledge base with understanding of the exact degree to which it is true, or false.

You defined god in what way as to enable humans enhance our knowledge base with determination of whether it is true or false, and the degree to which it is true?

You see, "defined" means the claims is fleshed out to the degree needed so it can in principle be upheld, or overturned.

I suspect You intentionally refuse to state your claim in clearly defined terms so there is not enough to either validate or overturn, or if it is still nonetheless overturned, you can weasel your way out ands say "well, no really, my claim wasn't here, it is over there", to be followed no doubt by "no, no, not that here, this here".

Unlike newton's gravity, or Big Bang, you claims of god not only adds nothing, it has no theoretical possibility of adding anything, to human knowledge. It can not be affirmed, it can not be falsified.

As scientists say of the most abjectly worthless garbage pretending to be a theory or hypothesis, "it is not even wrong."

You'll have to do better.

Based on your posts, you have no idea what "better" means.

[Heywood]

Uh, no. Newton defined his concept of gravity well enough to specify exactly how it ought to behave for cases he has not yet observed. Furthermore he defined his concept of gravity such that its predictions can not be trivially duplicated by a comcept different from his gravity. This is incidentally the full extent required to enable his contemparies and posterity to test what he says about gravity and determine whether his concept is right or wrong, and to specify the exact degree to which it is right or wrong. For example if Kepler's laws are seen to be violated where Newton's definition of gravity predicts they would be obeyed, then Newton's gravity would thereby be shown false.

The big bang singularity is also defined to the same degree. It is sufficiently defined for it to be possible for contempary and posterity say whether his concept is right or wrong, and to specify the exact degree to which it is right or wrong. We know if something this close to this singularity in time and space does not do that, then our concept of Big Bang is wrong, or our concept of singularity is wrong.

What did you say about the god you propose that is both unique and in principle testable, and such that if it were found not be true, you would stop being a theist? If the randomness of a new quantum event does not conform to the randomness you called god, would you then admit your god does not exist? I doubt it.

Newton defined gravity well enough to enable it to add to the human knowledge base with understanding of the exact degree to which it is true, or false.

You defined god in what way as to enable humans enhance our knowledge base with determination of whether it is true or false, and the degree to which it is true?

You see, "defined" means the claims is fleshed out to the degree needed so it can in principle be upheld, or overturned.

I suspect You intentionally refuse to state your claim in clearly defined terms so there is not enough to either validate or overturn, or if it is still nonetheless overturned, you can weasel your way out ands say "well, no really, my claim wasn't here, it is over there", to be followed no doubt by "no, no, not that here, this here".

Unlike newton's gravity, or Big Bang, you claims of god not only adds nothing, it has no theoretical possibility of adding anything, to human knowledge. It can not be affirmed, it can not be falsified.

As scientists say of the most abjectly worthless garbage pretending to be a theory or hypothesis, "it is not even wrong."

Negative Chuck, Newton did not define gravity. To define is to state the nature, scope or meaning of something. Newton described how two masses attract each other.....that's it. Newton had no idea of the nature of gravity......Newton's gravity could have been the curvature or space time or midi-chlorians. Both hypotheses and many others could utilize his mathematics.

In physics, singularities are place holders for our ignorance when our physics break down. They are not defined. You just plain wrong about that.

I am a theist who acknowledges that God might not exist. If you ask me if God exists...my answer is "probably". When I was a younger man if you asked me that question, I would have said, "probably not".

I'm not as incredulous as you.

[Anomalocaris]

I despair of the existence of an amount of dumbing adequate for accessing your level of perceptiveness and suitable for deflecting you from your wish thinking.

The nature of Newtonian gravity is that its strength is proportional to the masses involved, and inversely proportional to the square and distance between the masses. It it not particular to the size, composition, temperature, etc of the masses.

This newton defined with mathematical precision. The mass allowed newton to predict how a thing of such a nature will behave in circumstances not yet observed.

There might be other aspects of gravity's nature that Newton had no basis for specifying. But what a stupefyingly ignorant thing to say that Newton did not define gravity.

If he didn't define gravity and key aspects of gravity's nature, we would have no basis to say he was right, for we would have nothing to test. In fact he would be worse. He would be as bad as you. He would not even be wrong.


What did you do to enable posterity to say whether you are right or wrong?

[Heywood]

I despair of the existence of an amount of dumbing adequate for accessing your level of perceptiveness and suitable for deflecting you from your wish thinking.

Ad hominem.

[Anomalocaris]

I despair of the existence of an amount of dumbing adequate for accessing your level of perceptiveness and suitable for deflecting you from your wish thinking.

Ad hominem.

Apologies. The assumption that what needs to be attacked qualifies as hominem is not based on any evidence.

[RobbyPants]

God is an explanation....and by God I mean some super natural mechanism that generates the appearance of randomness in our reality.

So, it's equally likely unicorns could be an explanation, then, correct?

If we can't disprove unicorns, can't prove God, and assume unicorns can account for the appearance of randomness, then it's just as viable. I don't know why God would be able to generate that appearance other than cuz you say so.

[Heywood]

So, it's equally likely unicorns could be an explanation, then, correct?

If we can't disprove unicorns, can't prove God, and assume unicorns can account for the appearance of randomness, then it's just as viable. I don't know why God would be able to generate that appearance other than cuz you say so.

I'm not arguing a proof for a specific god. I am arguing that certain artifacts of reality suggest the existence of a supernatural element. I tend to think of that supernatural element as God.

If you want to imagine that supernatural element as unicorns, I can't say that you are wrong. I could only say that your unicorns must be supernatural ones and not of the type documented in natural history accounts of antiquity.

[Esquilax]

Can anybody say "argument from ignorance"?

Not an argument from ignorance.

Do you actually think saying "nuh uh!" is a rebuttal?